Theory Acceptance

[NavajoEverclear]

A comment I previously posted on another thread :

 

Oh so your idea is like mine, only more indepth. I think this idea is just as credible as the big bang. The universe suddenly expands into everything/ the particle suddenly begins to move thus simulating everything. Whats up with the big bang anyway, what triggered it? obviously this cant be answered, but then why do they claim that the big bang is the most reasonable idea? Its really not. Oh well i dont really care to be honost. Hey why don't you get the idea published? I wonder if it has already . . . . i'm going to go look.

 

 

 

To see what i'm replying to, its A New Look at the Big Bang (a thread by Aman). I'm the last one who replied to that in the pseudoscience forum. By the way will someone reply there, i'm the last one to reply to both religion and psuedoscience, having my names there makes me feel like a crackpot.

 

 

So basically the big bang is on theory, but we put so much faith in it that i think we stop questioning the problems to find a better solution. OK i'm probably wrong, there are probably many people working very hard to expand our knowledge--- but it seems to me kind of hypocritical to put so much FAITH in the big bang. I know there's background radiation, i know i cant ask: where did it come about in the middle of nothingness (nothingness is nothing so theres not a logical way to consider it as any expanse of space, it's really that we are everything), i know that our existense probably isn't the first time it exploded then collapsed ------- actually thinking about that i just gained more faith in the big bang (or at least lost any valid way to dispute it).---------

 

Um does anyone have anything to say about the argument i just lost the energy to pursue? I thought i had a good point but i don't see it anymore. But i know that some of you might agree with me, but have better defenses.

 

Are we putting too much faith in something that we can never know? (well maybe we can somehow, but that will probably be a long time away) Well i guess i do got one question to the credibility: which possibility is more possible (do we have any idea)----- that the universe collapses, or dissipates? If it collapses, that mean it repeats this forever (right?) but if it dissapates, that means this is the first time it exploded, which would mean it had a beginning, which isn't comprehendable.

 

So in the collapse case, i don't think i have an argument against the big bang, but if it disperses that leaves too many questions to justify the majority of scientists accepting it so firmly.

[JaKiri]

The heat death of the universe is the current accepted likely outcome, given the acceleration of the universe is increasing.

 

Why does the heat death of the universe leave too many questions? To my mind, it's much much simpler than the 'big crunch' theory.

[NavajoEverclear]

by way of google, here i found the defintion of heat death http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm

 

i'll say again the problem i think this has---- it means this is the first time our universe big banged. Hasn't all matter been around forever? If not- theres a question: why did it just jump into existence? It must have existed forever. Then, if existing in all of forever why did it just expand at that precise moment of the big bang? What willed it to change? There are no questions that can be to directly dispute the end, all of those sound possible, but an end means a beginning, how do you explain it beginning? Wouldn't it go against the laws of physics to say something didn't cause the beginning, but there being something to cause, implies there was already something in motion TO cause it. There can of coarse be a beginning and ending of certain states of matter (i think), but how there is a beginning of everything has no explanation.

[NavajoEverclear]

A question about how we know the universe is expanding--- how in our short life span (not only as individuals, but as science, or even the span of the existence of our race) can we detect and, propperly determine what means, matters of the universe which is incomprehensibly larger than us? Hubble (or the next hubble) doesn't even reach that far. A guy in my neighborhood is on the engineering project of the next hubble (i don't know how high up he is, but he's doin something with it), and says that though it will be ten times stronger than hubble, its not near as strong as they could make it, due to lack of funding.

 

How can we, from our small reference point on earth know that the movement we detect means expansion. Maybe things are just moving around.

 

Ok maybe this was a dumb post. Reply to the other one first, it has more relevant and valid questions.

[JaKiri]

I don't know about the beginning. Unless we get into the universe creation business ourselves, we may never.

 

And as to the 2nd post, the simplest explanation for what we see is that the universe is expanding. The chance of things 'just moving' is small enough to ignore.

[NavajoEverclear]

Ziddlezathmophu----- in those words are all the words language cannot supply for my reply.

 

I guess its not really that big of a deal, or if it is my means of approaching it are profitless. I think the beginning does matter (not that you said it didn't), or should matter to the world of science, you got a good point-- theres not really any application for it.

 

I spend too much time here, and its not really productive. I need to go reprioritizize my life. Seeyall later.