Who else believes the big bang is a joke? Great one for that!?

Question

How can so many people who tell us they are so intelligent believe such rubbish of a universe starting at a point and extend in dimensions?

So many of you think I am a fool. Simply stated, science believes in math. They tell us math at big bang is different lol. They tell us the bodies are accelerating away, gravity should cause them to decelerate not so? Compton effect can explain the red shift also. Why cant another big bang start in a horse rectum somewhere? Why was there only one?

Take it this way. Change only occurs in time. Before big bang, no change, no time. Space-time yea yea. There is no logical explanation for what could have triggered the bang.

Answer 1

well, it's simply that if you measure the speeds of galaxies, and their acceleration, and put all the data together, it shows that, at some point back in time, all the visible stuff in the universe was at the same "point" (it cannot exactly be a point, because that would be of infinite density, and Einstein's equations break down in such conditions).

apparently there are some people who seem to believe that God and the Big Bang are incompatible - but this is wrong, and actually quite a few scientists believe in God and simply put Him at the source of the Big Bang.

Answer 2

Gravity should cause the stars to come back together if there is enough mass to do so. Apparently there is not. If you think the idea that the physics were different at the big bang is so silly, i suppose you find it much more logical that a being has existed for "eternity" and one day decided to make a universe? An he made a universe 14 billion light years across so that one little planet could have human beings on it for 15,000 years or so?

That's logic to you?

Answer 3

no, god is in the 10th dimension which is able to see everyone and be there at the same time and be invisible and other stuff. we are only in the 3rd.

God is not god as you people think but someone that made the universe. the only reason for a "god" is because the atoms and substances had somehow made the exact string of life to make life. if the string were +1 we would die from the atmosphere. if it was -1 we would die from gravity and air.

There are billions or combinations that could have made it so that we "people" could not be here today but out of all those billion it was set correctly. so therefore there had to be "someone" who must have done that combo which we refer to god, though we imagine him as something else.

The big bang theory may have been the reason we live today also... But that was also a 1 in a million chance so unless we humans are the luckiest things in the whole universe and to come, the one who created us and only one.

The big bang was made from god and his dimensions and advanced science and math that the human brain would explode if you tried to understand it.

There was only one Big bang because god wanted only one being or life form in our Galaxy so that we and other life forms would not be able to communicate until about maybe in the next century(year 3000).

There was more than one big bang which I like to call the gate of life. except it was not in our galaxy, but in another part of the universe.

Answer 4

I have no idea where people get the idea that scientists make things up without having good evidence behind it (oh wait… we’re out to disprove God because all scientists hate God or some crap like that).

The Big Bang theory does have a good amount of evidence behind it. So we’ll take a look at the three biggies.

a) Cosmological Redshift: As I explained in my earlier post, we can use spectroscopy to determine the rate at which galaxies are moving away from us. Additionally, since it takes light time to travel, the further away we look, the further back in time we are looking.

What we find, is that all galaxies in the universe are moving away from us. The further they are, the faster they’re moving away. So if we play the whole thing in reverse, all the galaxies will come back together at a single point in time. This point in time is what we call the Big Bang.

b) The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): Figuring that if you played everything back in time like this that all that energy would be crammed into a smaller space, that means the temperature would go up. And also since galaxies couldn’t have formed yet, we’d expect a gaseous sort of universe early on. As I discussed earlier, hot dense gasses emit photons at a peak wavelength corresponding to their temperature. Unfortunately, since things were so dense, photons couldn’t get very far.

However, with the available information, astronomers were able to determine at what density and time, photons would finally be able to get far enough that we could observe them. This is called the “surface of last scattering” and has a very specific temperature. So we should be able to look for photons with energy (wavelength) corresponding to that temperature.

But due to redshift, they will appear at a different wavelength. This radiation should appear from every direction. This was a prediction made by the Big Bang theory that was later confirmed by Penzias and Wilson who stumbled on it accidentally!

No other theory of the universe has ever been able to make such a profound prediction to the degree of accuracy the Big Bang did in this instance. Making such amazing predictions is one of the highlights of a good theory. None before or since have ever been able to pull off such a feat.

But the successes of the CMB prediction don’t stop there. Another important piece of the puzzle lies in that the CMB couldn’t be completely even. If it were, then galaxies couldn’t form since there would be no “seeds” with higher mass and thus a stronger gravitational pull to form around.

Thus, the Big Bang theory had to predict that the CMB would not be completely homogeneous. It should have some variations to it, and those variations would have to be of a specific size in order to get the universe we see today.

Early results for the Big Bang didn’t look too good for this prediction and threatened to sink the whole ship. However, the devices used were not actually sensitive enough to pick up these minute variations. But recently, with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), these perturbations have been discovered precisely as predicted.

Score two strong predictions for the Big Bang. Zero for any others.

c) Distribution of Elements: With the conceptual framework intact thanks to the first point, it was also possible to calculate how much of each element should be formed in the initial event. It should be obvious that, given a bunch of protons, electrons, and neutrons, hydrogen should be the easiest to form. Indeed, stick a proton and an electron in a room together and they’ll automatically hook up due to their magnetic attractions.

Additionally, with such high energies, it would be possible to fuse some of this hydrogen into helium and even a little bit of heavier elements. Since astronomers had a good handle on the energies, it was possible to calculate how much of each there should be. If that number didn’t match up with observations, the Big Bang theory would be shot.

Fortunately, the predictions do match up pretty closely. I stated a value earlier of 80% hydrogen, 20% helium, and neglected the rest since it would be statistically insignificant. In the universe today, we observe 75% hydrogen, 24% helium, and 1% everything else. This discrepancy is easily accounted for by nearly 14 billion years of stars cooking hydrogen into helium and other heavier elements.

So there’s three major pieces of evidence for the Big Bang, any one of which, if it had turned out any other way, would completely discredit the theory. Fortunately for the Big Bang, it has passed all of those tests, and not a single other theory has yet been able to adequately explain such things, or many anywhere near as profound of predictions (or any successful predictions for that matter). This is why the Big Bang stands alone as the premiere theory in cosmology today.

Answer 5

I guess the Big Bang theory is the theory supported by the most number of scientific evidence.

Have you read Dan Brown's Angels & Demon's? Although in there antimatter technology was fraudulently claimed to be the newest discovery by man so far, the evidence that antimatter existed would suggest really the possibility of a singularity which contained all of the energy of the universe.

Answer 6

I think you shouldn't insult scientists man. They know what they're doing or understand what they are saying more than priests and holy men do. Scientists think over and over again about a subject before giving a word about it. They study hard and work hard and debate hard before arriving at even the lightest of conclusions. So I think if they can give us good cellular phones, better aircraft, smaller and faster computers, heal us of our sickness, and if they can predict eclipeses and meteor showers with precisions of up to a millionth of a second, why wont we trust them when they think the world started as a point?

Answer 7

Which part of the Einstein Field equations and their solutions as applied to observed mass and velocity distributions of stellar bodies is it that you think these people have miscalculated? Do your own observations call into question any of the body of evidence?

Or is your statement based on ignorant dogma and not an understanding of cosmological science?

Answer 8

The big bang. It could not be anything else.
I am waiting for some one to come up with some thing better!

Answer 9

Hey I don't know if you check the news....but the other day the Hubble telescope took pictures of "Dark energy" ya know the stuff Einstein said created the universe....Seriously man..pay attention. As each year passes Scientists are finding more and more evidence...you just have to pay attention.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2006/11/16/2379283-ap.html

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2006/52/

Answer 10

I guess anyone who wants the 10 points should just agree with you and say it's exactly as the Bible describes it, eh? Blind acceptance is not consistent with the "intelligent" beings you allude to in your post.