Versa-Tech Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 "Weak minded" or not, the fact that nobody knows what was happening before the BB means that it is impossible to say that one knows the answer to something impossible to prove. A Creator is infinite, and infinity is beyond our comprehension. I agree with one small exception. No one knows what was happening at all. The big bang theory has absolutely no supporting evidence. I'm not saying that it didn't happen. I'm saying that it defies basic scientific logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I agree with one small exception. No one knows what was happening at all. The big bang theory has absolutely no supporting evidence. I'm not saying that it didn't happen. I'm saying that it defies basic scientific logic. If there was no supporting evidence for the Big Bang theory, it wouldn't be much of a theory now, would it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 If there was no supporting evidence for the Big Bang theory, it wouldn't be much of a theory now, would it? Good point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Well, one thing for sure, they are equally happy when they are masturbating. To quote Woody Allen, "Knock it all you want it's still sex with someone you love". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 If you haven't eaten for three days, you would be extatic if you were given $50. If you just lost 9 million of your 10 million dollar fortune, you would feel pretty shitty. I have been at parties where they are drinking cheap wine, making music with spoons and a harmonica, laughing, dancing, and having a hell of a time. I have been to parties with bars, formal dress, paid live band, rich people, and everybody just sat and stared or made bland conversation. Unfortunately, one's lifestyle generally expands to consume all of the available resources and then some. That explains why there are so many lottery winners who end up broke when they should have had enough money to live comfortably for the rest of their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 To quote Woody Allen, "Knock it all you want it's still sex with someone you love". Only the schizophrenia complain. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Is there a Creator? No one knows. The universe appears to have started with the Big Bang, some 14 billion years ago. But how about before that? If nothing was all there was, then what caused the BB to occur? The point is, the human mind is not well equipped to ponder these things. To ascribe gender to a Creator "He", "His" of the universe is preposterous — we cannot comprehend such an entity. But there sure are mysteries. Quantum entanglement is one. "Spooky action at a distance". An interesting time to be alive. There is no "before" the Big Bang. Time is a dimension, like height, width and depth. It's beginning is the beginning of the universe, and it's end is the end of the universe. If there are other universes, they have their own times. If you are travelling at close to the speed of light, then the time dimension would be distorted. Time for the traveler, relative to the observer would slow down. This is not a fantasy. It has been experimentally proven. It is not really a difficult concept to grasp. There is an explanation using two imaginary clocks consisting of a light beam bouncing between two mirrors. Place one clock on a train flatbed. When the train moves, the beam of light has farther to travel because it moves a bit sideways, as viewed by the non moving observer. From the point of view of the guy on the train, it moves straight up and down. Since the speed of light is fixed, and the distance between the mirrors is fixed, time has to be the variable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 There is no "before" the Big Bang. That's your opinion. Nobody knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 (edited) That's your opinion. Nobody knows. Time has been shown, by experiment, to be a dimension. It has a beginning and end, and it's rate can change under extreme circumstances. "Before" the Big Bang, the four dimensions were equal. All of time existed simultaneously. Our universe would still appear this way to an outside observer, but how do you "observe" something travelling at the speed of light relative to you? We see a macro-universe, because we are in it. Edited November 18, 2008 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Time has been shown, by experiment, to be a dimension. It has a beginning and end, and it's rate can change under extreme circumstances. "Before" the Big Bang, the four dimensions were equal. All of time existed simultaneously. Our universe would still appear this way to an outside observer, but how do you "observe" something travelling at the speed of light relative to you? We see a macro-universe, because we are in it. Wow, you should go tell all of this to the scientific community. You've just solved one of the biggest questions there is. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Time has been shown, by experiment, to be a dimension. It has a beginning and end, and it's rate can change under extreme circumstances. "Before" the Big Bang, the four dimensions were equal. All of time existed simultaneously. Our universe would still appear this way to an outside observer, but how do you "observe" something travelling at the speed of light relative to you? We see a macro-universe, because we are in it. You just don't get it. NOBODY KNOWS. Not you, not Stephen Hawking, nobody. There are all manner of theories, but, one more time, nobody knows. We know about time dilation with near C-speed, but that's about it. Before the BB, nobody KNOWS that the 4 dimensions were "equal" (whatever that means). As well, "Before" the Big Bang, our universe would not still appear this way, because "Before" the Big Bang, the universe did not exist. How do you observe something travelling at C-speed? You don't, because nothing with mass can achieve C-speed — unless that something is light itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 (edited) You just don't get it. NOBODY KNOWS. Not you, not Stephen Hawking, nobody. There are all manner of theories, but, one more time, nobody knows. We know about time dilation with near C-speed, but that's about it. Before the BB, nobody KNOWS that the 4 dimensions were "equal" (whatever that means). As well, "Before" the Big Bang, our universe would not still appear this way, because "Before" the Big Bang, the universe did not exist. How do you observe something travelling at C-speed? You don't, because nothing with mass can achieve C-speed — unless that something is light itself. Light is photons. Electrons travel at light speed, also. The universe would be one of these viewed by someone inside of it, travelling with it. This is all extrapolated from the Big Bang Theory. It may not be correct, but a lot more thought went into it than Biblical theories. You can't even call them theories from a scientific point of view. What would you say to a scientist who proposed a theory, and instead of providing proof, told you to have faith in it? Edited November 19, 2008 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 What would you say to a scientist who proposed a theory, and instead of providing proof, told you to have faith in it? Call him a Global Warming expert. LOL! Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Call him a Global Warming expert. LOL! Peace and Blessings Or "Mr. Senator". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemiman Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 What would you say to a scientist who proposed a theory, and instead of providing proof, told you to have faith in it? "Hello Mr. Darwin" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 how about the theory of gravity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemiman Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 how about the theory of gravity? Interesting research being done using optical wave theory to study gravity. Can't say much more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 "Hello Mr. Darwin" And I ain't laughing because it's true... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Interesting research being done using optical wave theory to study gravity. Can't say much more than that. i guess it's only a theory till then. :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Like gravity waves. The Unicorn of theoretical physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 Like gravity waves. The Unicorn of theoretical physics. The graviton should exist. It is so elusive that it is not surprising that it has not been discovered yet. The new LHC being built in Switzerland could open some new doors in particle physics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 The new LHC being built in Switzerland could open some new doors in particle physics. If they ever get the darn thing working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 why didn't they use seatbelts on Star Trek? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 If they ever get the darn thing working. It's a boondoggle courtesy of the "We Need a Bigger Hammer" school of physics. Along with String Theory, the search for the non-existant "graviton" completes the idiocy. However, it gives the gang something to do besides asking "Would you like fries with that?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted November 22, 2008 Author Share Posted November 22, 2008 It's a boondoggle courtesy of the "We Need a Bigger Hammer" school of physics. Along with String Theory, the search for the non-existant "graviton" completes the idiocy. However, it gives the gang something to do besides asking "Would you like fries with that?" String Theory: Let's change the theory every time it's proven wrong and eventually we're bound to come up with something no one can disprove. What version of string theory are we on at this point? #17? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.