Big Bang explained in 2:20

[Tenchu]

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu

Time is all subjective...


It's like the old adage, "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there -- does it still make a sound?"


If nobody is around to perceive time, does it even exist?

No. That's not right at all.

Did earth exist before life was here to see it? Yes. Did time exist before life was here to measure it? Yes.

You obviously havn't read anything I've written.

[Barone1551]

I am actually watching a documentary on the big bang as I write this. Its pretty amazing. Its crazy to think that scientists are able to watch the universe as it was forming. They are able to track the light of the stars with are billions of years old. They are unable to see the universe creating because it is that old. But they estimate they can view the universe as it was when it was only about 400 years old.

The doc Im watching is a BBC doc call the six million dollar experiment. Its about a machine that scientists are building that is supposed to recreate what happened during the Big bang. Its a scaled down version obviously but they can run the experiment over and over again, and study how our universe came about. I urge everyone here to watch it, it is very informative.

[burkhartdesu]

I love BBC.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Yes.. modern science is the product of our imaginations... we just made it all up. *sarcasm*

I'd like you to tell me the method of investigation which is more rational than the scientific method since you seem to believe that science is all made up...

And the hypothesis that nothing became something can be foreseeably tested if humans develop a sufficient understanding of time and space perhaps. Creationism could never be tested because in the minds of the creationists, the inconspicuousness of their creator is merely "not proof of non-existence" (which is completely irrational).

Also I'm not saying that the big bang is true... just that it is a more probable theory than creationism.

Oh and by the way... I'm not emotionally attached to the big bang theory... so it doesn't bother me if a more plausible theory is developed later on when more about our universe is discovered. So please don't come at me as though I made up the theory or I have any sort of investment in the theory.

Furthermore... you're not a scientist. Therefore anything you say about science which you deem irrational I will put down to perhaps your misunderstanding of something in which you are out of your depth.

lol... Do you even know what modern Science (Physics) is? Have you ever heard of Quantum Physics or even Quantum Mechanics? I study this at Uni! The only rational part of it all is the maths (and that's if you can get a grasp of it). And for the math to even be applied, you would have needed a HUUUUUUGE imagination to think of what is happening at such a small scale. You CANNOT see anything. You see certain effects from some random experiments, and you put your imagination to work to see what’s happening. Once you have an idea, you think up of tests to prove that your image of what is happening is in fact correct! So, I don’t really get why you’re being sarcastic when you don’t even know what Modern Physics is all about!
Even when studying it and are told what is happening, the majority of people that study this at Uni end up failing because they CANNOT imagine how it could be possible. You’re told to forget all the classical laws of physics. Newton is an idiot when it comes to anything Quantum!

And when did I say Science is all made up? Do you really think I would be wasting my time and money studying Math and Physics at University if I thought it was all made up? I LOVE these two subjects. I love the theories. AND I love that they’re not called facts and that anyone that actually studies these theories will tell you that accepting them as they are now means you’re just stupid! I’ve studied The Big Bang Theory in depth at uni! You probably don’t even know what the Doppler Effect is, do you? If you had any clue about the big bang theory and the Doppler Effect, you’d realise why it’s not conclusive. You could even prove this at a pond near you. Drop a big rock into the pond to show the actual big bang! Then drop another rock further out to show a star or galaxy blowing up… Then tell me what the waves look like and if you could really tell a lot about the big bang from it!

As for The Big Bang theory being more probable than creationism… how does that work? You do realise that they don’t go against each other right? That for example, the majority of religious people do believe in a BIG BANG! The main difference to a lot of people is; what was there before the actual Bang? Was it nothing that exploded, or was it a power that made everything explode? I’d like you to tell me how on earth you think science can prove something like that? Scientists can’t even prove that wind is real! According to the methods of science, you can’t prove it because we only see its effects, not its origin!

To be honest, I don’t even know why I’m talking to you about this. You say I’m not a scientist, but if someone isn’t a scientist when he studies science, then I wonder what you are! You don’t have a clue about the details of a theory (or even Science), yet you argue it!

[burkhartdesu]

Originally Posted by noodle

Scientists can’t even prove that wind is real! According to the methods of science, you can’t prove it because we only see its effects, not its origin!

Very interesting question. The temperature differences caused differential heating of atmosphere cause convection in the atmosphere(eg at the coast, the air over the land heats faster during the day than it does over the sea). The convection currents lead to high and low pressure zones at the earths surface and the wind we can feel at the earths surface is part of the convection cycle supporting these airflows.

Interestingly, if we were on a planet that didn’t rotate these pressure differences would equalise quite quickly. However, because the earth rotates, the air moving over the surface is deflected(to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere). This is due to the coriolis force created by the earths rotation(which also affects tides). This deflection makes the presure differences “longer lived” and we get the familiar depressions(low pressure) and anticyclones (high pressure) structures.


thebigquestion.com

[noodle]

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu

Very interesting question. The temperature differences caused differential heating of atmosphere cause convection in the atmosphere(eg at the coast, the air over the land heats faster during the day than it does over the sea). The convection currents lead to high and low pressure zones at the earths surface and the wind we can feel at the earths surface is part of the convection cycle supporting these airflows.

Interestingly, if we were on a planet that didn’t rotate these pressure differences would equalise quite quickly. However, because the earth rotates, the air moving over the surface is deflected(to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere). This is due to the coriolis force created by the earths rotation(which also affects tides). This deflection makes the presure differences “longer lived” and we get the familiar depressions(low pressure) and anticyclones (high pressure) structures.


thebigquestion.com

Yes... That is the explanation of wind on the whole!... but for it to be proven in Science, they would have to be able to predict it. i.e. with enough calculations, you could tell that a gust of wind will hit your face in the next 5 seconds. Or, if you're given enough variables, you could tell what would happen. But the truth of the matter is, wind is too erratic, and therefore, according to the "methods of Science", Wind cannot be proven or be said to be a law or whatever!

As stupid as it sounds, that's how it is. I don't feel that there is a need for any more information to prove that wind exists, but my point is that Science is very pedantic!

[Tenchu]

You're very smart, Noodle, I mean, taking into account your handicap. But you do have a rather dull outlook on science, especially for someone who is supposedly as "enthusiastic" enough to study it in school...

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

You're very smart, Noodle, I mean, taking into account your handicap. But you do have a rather dull outlook on science, especially for someone who is supposedly as "enthusiastic" enough to study it in school...

lol... I'll take that as a compliment (because of my handicap of course )
And no, I don't have a dull outlook on science. My way of thinking means that I always question things! Therefore, science never gets dull, because we can never truly know everything about science. The more questions you ask, the more answers you will find

[burkhartdesu]

touché, noodle.


And what is your 'handicap'?


And regardless, is think it's pretty tactless of Tenchu to bring it up o.O

[iPhantom]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

I didn't mess anything up, you're just the one who does not understand it.

All things must have a source. There's no well thought through theory that things have always just existed. If there is, I challenge you to explain it. That is as daft as claiming a pile of dog shit can exist without any dogs around. It pretty much is the same exact thing.

There's only one element that can exist without a source and can exist without a dimension to exist in.

If you want to stand there and ask yourself where eggs came from all day, then answer they came from chickens... which lay more eggs... which make more chickens... so on and so on, you're a bit of an idiot if you don't ask yourself where the first chicken came from... you're even more stupid if you tell yourself it's another egg...

People like you, I don't think they understand the whole product thing; products have producers. There's nothing in this world that does not have a parent element.

If you talk about elements aside the Void (so any particle) existing before the Big Bang, then clearly the Big Bang was not the first moment of creation, and there's another moment you'll be searching to answer what produced these products.

I think the idea that shit has always just existed is thought up by people not very clever. I heard once someone said why can't the planets always just have existed, why do they need to have been created. Pretty daft thing to say. Dirt can only be made by Fire. Thus, one time, there had to be a fire... keep tracing.

I clearly see you haven't understood my explanation that nothing new has or is being produced in this world, everything has existed since humans have been. Only a dumbass would say shit is a creation of dog. It did not come from nothingness, it was just food transforming. IF you don't supply the food to the dog, he won't shit at all. See? There is no creation, just chemical reactions. This is what the theory that everything has existed says. It's a very solid one tbh, people always say everything needs a source while actually you can't find any real source. To understand this, you need some knowledge on chemistry.

Anyway, I already said my comment on your weird cycle elements. Fire is not an element, what you reading through classic science? We're in 2009 FFS.