Big Bang Theory?

[Soulja]

Do you all believe in the Big Bang Theory?

 

I do infact believe in it, along with some of Darwin's principles in the Evolution Theory,

[aman]

The big bang was supposed to create everything now. have you got any theories no haw it did this?

Just curious

Just aman

[Soulja]

Well the thing about the big bang theory is

 

it all just STARTED

 

there has to be SOMEWHERE where EVERYTHING started

 

where does it start in evolution?

 

where the 1st cell evolves?

 

where did that cell come from?

[aman]

Your right to question what happened at the big bang that lead up to evolution and then us.

It's kind of a complicated story. I didn't know everything in the world until I was 24 so just keep learning for another nine years and you'll have it.

Just aman

[jvanhalderen]

That's a pretty broad question. I agree with aman, read more about it, think about it and when you created your own fascinating theory or hypothese..Post it. Because that's when it gets interesting!

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Soulja

Well the thing about the big bang theory is

 

it all just STARTED

 

there has to be SOMEWHERE where EVERYTHING started

 

where does it start in evolution?

 

where the 1st cell evolves?

 

where did that cell come from?

 

no no, you're misunderstanding the big bang. It didn't start in a place, since there was no place for it to start in. In effect it 'came about'* everywhere at the same time.

 

as for the first cell, it probably just came about as a result of a few billion generations of simple self replicating chemicals. nothing difficult about that, it's all just statistics.

 

oh, shouldn't this be in physics?

[fafalone]

Personally I find it very hard to believe that even the simplest forms of life could come from chemicals randomly combining. There simply isn't enough evidence to say if you mix a bunch of chemicals together and add some electricity you'll suddenly get life. The simplest known forms of life are still so complex that if you really think about it from a evolutionary point of view, it's hard to say you could go from organic molecules to self-replicating systems in only a few billion years. I'd like to hear about evidence firmly suggesting otherwise, but I sure can't find it.

[aman]

Since it doesn't seem to go against entropy that building on lower levels of energy from upper levels can be true. There is such an abundance of energy in the universe injected since the big bang, maybe a medium range of energy is where we find ourselves and some natural equation pressures toward the creation of life here for a time. It would have to have been encoded in the math of the big bang.

It's like they say, follow the money to the truth in humans. Here it's follow the math to the truth in existance.

There is a very large equation that got us here.

Just aman

[Radical Edward]

If any energy had been 'injected' since the big bang, I expect there would b some issues with energy conservation. furthermore, life needn't acually be 'in' the equations that describe the universe, merely it neds to be possible. I see no raeson why life shouldn't have come about as a result of random interactions, it need only happen once, and the universe is a pretty big place, especially when you consider all those amino acids swimming abuot the cosmos.

[aman]

I use the term "injected" since it seems in popular assumption that everything here came through a tiny point in our universe and expanded. It seems to me that a universe could easily progress from begining to end without us, but we introduce change. That is our only difference. Change is vital. Think of your life without change. Maybe that's the way the universe sees it.

If you gave me a computer, a superior intellect, unlimited time, unlimited energy, size, velocity, and direction, I could create this universe since we know it's pattern but because of life and change I have no idea what tommorrow will look like until it gets here. I think evolving universes might have a benificial pressure to have change in them.

Just expanded evolution.

Just aman

[JoeDaWolf]

Originally posted by fafalone

Personally I find it very hard to believe that even the simplest forms of life could come from chemicals randomly combining. There simply isn't enough evidence to say if you mix a bunch of chemicals together and add some electricity you'll suddenly get life. The simplest known forms of life are still so complex that if you really think about it from a evolutionary point of view, it's hard to say you could go from organic molecules to self-replicating systems in only a few billion years. I'd like to hear about evidence firmly suggesting otherwise, but I sure can't find it.

 

There is evidence...most biology books talk about the experiments with high voltage and several amino acids. The leading theory/proposal is that little bubbles of amino acids existed on the surface of oceans, and lightning hit one. many of them, which created the first proteins. Then these formed single-celled organisms.

 

Originally posted by Radical Edward

If any energy had been 'injected' since the big bang, I expect there would b some issues with energy conservation.

 

There's no issue with conservation of energy. The energy went into 'fusing' the amino acids together. It also converted into heat energy and some of it got lost in the enviornment.

 

~Wolf

[BPHgravity]

In my opinion, any and every system should be able to decribe any and ever other system. For example, a comparison can be made about electrons orbiting the nuecleus of an atom with the orbit of the planets around the Sun.

 

There must be something in nature that can basically describe the event of the big-bang. It will most likely be at a different scale and complexity. Supernovae perhaps?

 

As far as the life issue goes, everything is life. If it wasn't for the real small stuff that makes up all matter, matter couldn't exist. Maybe without planets and stars, galaxies could not exist. Without the galaxies, the universe would not be that interesting. The universe is definitely alive. This may be the unifying idea that connects everything from the quarks to the largest black hole. Human existance must be some small function to the whole system or we never would have came to be. :zzz:

[KHinfcube22]

you know how some say god created the Universe, and others say the big bang did, well, my friends dad says God was the big bang!

[NSX]

How would you guys describe the Big Bang in terms of Entropy?

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by NSX

How would you guys describe the Big Bang in terms of Entropy?

 

Please define the question better.

 

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

you know how some say god created the Universe, and others say the big bang did, well, my friends dad says God was the big bang!

 

See the work of William of Occam.

 

If a God exists, 'he' is definitely not the God of the Bible.

 

Originally posted by BPHgravity

In my opinion, any and every system should be able to decribe any and ever other system. For example, a comparison can be made about electrons orbiting the nuecleus of an atom with the orbit of the planets around the Sun.

 

That's an exceptionally bad comparison to make. Electrons do not 'orbit' the nucleus, they merely have a high probability of existing nearby. It'd be like saying that the CDs on my desk orbit my PC.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by JoeDaWolf

There's no issue with conservation of energy. The energy went into 'fusing' the amino acids together. It also converted into heat energy and some of it got lost in the enviornment.

 

The way aman described it, it sounded like more energy was added to the universe after the big bang, not conversion of one type of energy to another, which is what you describe.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by BPHgravity

In my opinion, any and every system should be able to decribe any and ever other system. For example, a comparison can be made about electrons orbiting the nuecleus of an atom with the orbit of the planets around the Sun.

 

There must be something in nature that can basically describe the event of the big-bang. It will most likely be at a different scale and complexity. Supernovae perhaps?

 

As far as the life issue goes, everything is life. If it wasn't for the real small stuff that makes up all matter, matter couldn't exist. Maybe without planets and stars, galaxies could not exist. Without the galaxies, the universe would not be that interesting. The universe is definitely alive. This may be the unifying idea that connects everything from the quarks to the largest black hole. Human existance must be some small function to the whole system or we never would have came to be. :zzz:

 

First of all, do not believe anything school science books tell you. As MrL points out, the electrons orbiting the nucleus idea is wrong, and very old - almost as old as the plum pudding model of the atom. These modely are useful in that they can help simplify some models (orbital for simple bonding, and plum pudding for thermodynamics), where you don't need all the extra information, but they are still inaccurate.

 

saying that without quarks, electrons etc, there would not be any atoms is obvious, same for no galaxies wihout stars... since that is the definition of a galaxy. The thing is, you can't immediately go from this analogy to saying that the big bang is like a supernova, as the physics is completely different. The Supernova exists within space, wheras the Big Bang didn't .... furthermore the supernova is an artefact of the old(ish) universe, in which all the forces have separated, however in the early universes, the forces were unified.

[JoeDaWolf]

Originally posted by BPHgravity

In my opinion, any and every system should be able to decribe any and ever other system. For example, a comparison can be made about electrons orbiting the nuecleus of an atom with the orbit of the planets around the Sun.

 

There must be something in nature that can basically describe the event of the big-bang. It will most likely be at a different scale and complexity. Supernovae perhaps?

 

 

Scientists originally thought that electrons orbited the nucleus of an atom because that's how the planets acted. They were wrong. You can't make the assumtion that everything that happens is like another naturally occuring phenomonom.

 

~Wolf

[BPHgravity]

I appreciate your responses to my comments, but I still believe that if everything that is and that everything that will ever be came from the same event and energy, anything should be able to explain anything else. Or maybe it would be clearer to say that everything can explain everything?

 

How can anything be unique when it all comes from the same stuff? Life, black holes, and the tree in my back yard was determined at the moment of the big bang. We may not be able to conceive this math now, but I think at some point in the future, we will be able to take any event that occurs and precisely predict the outcome over any time frame we choose. :bs: ?

[Preston Taist]

If you would, I would like to hear your reasons why god

can not be the God of the bible. try to avoid the old arguments, write somthing fresh. convince me.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by Preston Taist

If you would, I would like to hear your reasons why god

can not be the God of the bible. try to avoid the old arguments, write somthing fresh. convince me.

 

It's quite simple.

 

Parts of the bible are demonstrateably wrong.

 

This by definition makes it impossible for the God OF THE BIBLE to exist.

 

People may say that those parts are metaphorical or whatever, but not only does this raise doubts in the rest of it, it means that whatever god they believe in isn't the Yahweh of the bible, because they believe other than is written.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by BPHgravity

How can anything be unique when it all comes from the same stuff? Life, black holes, and the tree in my back yard was determined at the moment of the big bang. We may not be able to conceive this math now, but I think at some point in the future, we will be able to take any event that occurs and precisely predict the outcome over any time frame we choose.

 

The simple answer is that we can't and we never will.

 

Laplacian Determinism (which is the proper name for what you've stated there) doesn't work with quantum theory, which deals in probabilities rather than certainties, and to be more precise the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states we can never be certain of the absolute properties of an object; we can know it's location with precision, it's velocity with precision, or both with less accuracy.

 

It's impossible to predict events with total accuracy, and because of this it's impossible to predict any event with precision over time (due to chaos theory, which states that small changes in the initial state of a system will produce significant changes as the system evolves).

[Preston Taist]

I understand that it my be hard to overcome, intelectualy, the arguments that are in vogue concerning the Bible's scientific accuracy. i have heard the argument that parts of the bible are "demonstrateably" wrong and i had hopped that you would offer somthing different. But in light of your comments i will submit to you that there is nothing in the Bible that contredicts any major aspect of modern physics. On the contrary, there are many instances in the anciant hebrew writings in which modern scientific views are referred to, even though the anciant people of scripture had no natural evidence to cause them to take such a view. An example: The repeated referrence to the "stretching of the heavens"* a theory that has only recently been observed.(Einstein's Cosmological Constant)

 

I look forward to your responce.

 

* Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2

Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15

[blike]

You're welcome to argue, just be nice! No personal attacks.

[Michael F. D.]

Originally posted by Soulja

Do you all believe in the Big Bang Theory?

 

I do infact believe in it, along with some of Darwin's principles in the Evolution Theory,

 

Greetings. I do interesting this question too.

I have some doubts in respect a "capacity to work" of BB theory, which is just a hypothesis indeed. Except BB, we know other hypothesises explaining the existence of universe. Nor one a hypothesis is not a proof on determination. Just a faith is expected. But religion is untouchable here.

However a people wants know for sure "how does it works" and they trys to describe this by formula (TOE). While this a lucky event has not occurred, I offer to compare the hypothesises upon their a function algorithm. It is not a complicated way to get one from hypothesis. The algorithms comparison will give the objective result.

 

P.S. My apologys for a possible inaccuracy in English.