Bashing the big bang theory!

[cperkinson]

The big bang is only the beginning of our one and only percieved universe. While this may be true I began to think deeper into this region of science known as astrology, and came out with a theoretical understanding. What if the vastly small atom that blew up creating our universe was one of millions? I believe in infinancy to the fullest extent in that there may not have only been just one atom that blew up creating the many galaxies, stars, and solar systems we know of today... I believe that there were many atoms that blew up creating their own little universes, and there still are these little atoms blowing up creating their own universes. And as our universe may be viewed, by many, as being ever expansive and the only one out there, I don't view it that way. I believe that it is being thrusted outwards away from the central point of the explosion. I believe that at some point our universe will collide with others, just as the particles of atomic bombs do after they begin their initial activation.

Edited June 17, 2009 by cperkinson

[iNow]

I believe you'd find a better fit at a philosophy forum than at a scientific one.

I believe that this is yet another thread that will land in the P&S bucket.

I believe that you are not long for this community.

[cperkinson]

I'll have you know that science has been my entire life! And for you to tell me that I won't be a member of this community long is hanous! I have spent my entire educational career praising Einstein, Edison, Tesla, Lemetra, Hubble, Hoyle, and Gammof as gods! So what if I enjoy thinking in a theoretical sense. So did EVERY great scientist in history. They all thought theoretically, and in order for new understanding to be brought into existance there has to be speculation. This is a science forum, therefor I speculate about known science. Now before you decide to dismiss an idea based on a person's reputability try and understand his ideas first.

[mooeypoo]

The big bang is only the beginning of our one and only percieved universe. While this may be true I began to think deeper into this region of science known as astrology,

Oh my.

 

Do you, perhaps, mean astronomy?

 

Astrology isn't a science. It's the mistaken belief (proven to be mistaken) that celestial bodies arbitrarily affect your character as you are born, and then as you move through life. We can discuss the (VERY wrong) wrongness of astrology if you like, but I have a feeling that what you ACTUALLY mean here is "Astronomy" which is, in fact, actual science.

 

and came out with a theoretical understanding. What if the vastly small atom that blew up creating our universe was one of millions?

What you do here is called a "Strawman".

 

The "Big Bang" theory does not state that an atom blew up. In fact, the "Big Bang" theory does not speak of an explosion, it speaks of a rapid expansion. There are VERY important differences in these two definitions, the least of which is the amount of energy expelled from either one, and the method of dispersion.

 

The misleading part of a strawman means that you (accidently, I assume) mis represent the theory so you could then crush it. It's, of course, very easy to crush the theory when it is put forth like that, the only trouble is that this is not really the theory.

 

You might be "crushing" something, but it's not the "Big Bang".

 

I believe in infinancy to the fullest extent in that there may not have only been just one atom that blew up creating the many galaxies, stars, and solar systems we know of today...

What's infinancy?

 

That asked, Astronomy and Cosmology do not depend on beliefs. They are both sciences which are dependent on mathematical and observational models.

 

The current theories have very strong mathematical constructs that both explain very large parts of the phenomena in our universe and make predictions that are held true. If your belief opposes these, you need to bring forth the mathematical constructs that are *at the very least* equally predictive and explain *at least* more than the current theory does.

 

Otherwise, what good does is your theory, and what is our motivation of switching from a WORKING, predictive contruction to yours?

 

I believe that there were many atoms that blew up creating their own little universes, and there still are these little atoms blowing up creating their own universes.

 

That's an interesting hypothesis, but, again, you need to come up with a way to show some evidence of this. At the very least soem BASIS for us to consider.

 

And as our universe may be viewed, by many, as being ever expansive and the only one out there, I don't view it that way. I believe that it is being thrusted outwards away from the central point of the explosion. I believe that at some point our universe will collide with others, just as the particles of atomic bombs do after they begin their initial activation.

Okay, so, first, the "Big Bang" is a misleading name: It wasn't an explosion.

Second, we have no proof there were other big bangs. I'm not sure we *can* prove it, but theories like "M Theory" or "String Theory" claim this type of hypothesis too, but at least they have a very strong mathematical construct that show a bit of their potential.

 

There are arguments about the validity of string theory, because some of it might not be possible to prove - but there are no arguments about its MATH. At least this math exists, and we can start debating whether or not such theory is valid or not because there's some sort of basis to it that shows there *might* be something there.

 

Your idea is interesting, but it is, so far, based on nothing other than a false representation of the "Big Bang" theory and your imagination.

 

You can't truly expect us to go from a well based theory that *help us explain* and PREDICT the universe to a theory that has neither, can you?

 

~moo

[cameron marical]

You are new. Welcome to SFN. Theres alot of critism{wich is good}, especially when you present ideas that are like this. Dont take it the wrong way, we no one is exhiling you, or saying that it is wrong, just pointing the wrong parts out. look at your idea, and look at the stuff people say is wrong about it, and adjust it so it fits.

[mooeypoo]

That's an excellent point, cameron.

 

You know, there's a concept in science we are all mostly familiar with called "Peer Review". The point of peer review is to prove a theory is *wrong*. This is just like playing "Devil's advocate" and the point of this is to make sure that only the BEST and most accurate theories pass into the acceptance of science.

 

When we analyze a theory, it's not personal against the inventor of the theory. It's our obligation, as scientists, to test and see if the theory has any merit to it, and if it will hold the test of reality before we decide to accept it.

 

If your theory failed peer review, it means you should either examine the problems and fix them (if possible) or pick the GOOD parts (if there are any) and try to think of a theory that better suits the evidence or s better defined or stands the trial of reality better. This method often leads to *BETTER* theories. Which is, I'm sure, the goal of all of us, just like it's the ultimate goal of scientists in general.

 

~moo

[cperkinson]

Thx... be looking forward to a post before too long giving an extremely detailed explanation of this theory i have.... i understand about the expansion and the four parts to the primeval atom that what's-his-face (could care less about names and details of people, i prefer the more generalities of life) more recently came up with. And i also formulated this idea through the understanding that gravity was the one part that was taken away from the primeval atom which caused it to begin it's rapid expansion. I choose to call it an explosion because it was and still is rapidly expanding. What exactly is an explosion defined as anyways. And further more i believe the gravity element was not merely removed from the atom, it was displaced by some outside force (maybe a smaller primeval atom hitting it), in turn causing the rapid expansion. Sort of like how the atomic bomb begins it's explosion (or rapid expansion as you people enjoy calling it). The nucleus of an atom is split thus releasing it's subatomic energies at great speeds into the other whole nuclei and therefor causing its explosion. I speak of this infinancy as a form of understanding.. not actuality. Just understand that within just one atom are an infinant amount of vastly expanding universes and within those universes are atoms that have infinant amounts of universes within them. This is the idea of infinancy. And as for a static universe, i believe it and will until the day i cease to draw air... Just as Fred Hoyle did.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

ASTROLOGY = Astronomy and Cosmology. Shorter for me to write. (should've explained)

[mooeypoo]

You know, google is your friend.

If only for the sake of clarity, please try to avoid "whats-his-face" as a name of a scientist, and take the minute or two it takes to figure out who that "whats his face" of whom your theory you want to crush (or use).

 

A bit of respect for the scientist who initiated the theory, and a bit of respect to us, the people who read your posts and try to help out.

 

About your theory, I will have to get back to you after a night's sleep.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

ASTROLOGY = Astronomy and Cosmology. Shorter for me to write. (should've explained)

That's not astrology. Astrology isn't science. Please do not use it, unless you want a detailed explanation of why this isn't science (at the expense of considering your actual post).

 

Seriously, cperkinson, we give you respect, we expect a bit of it back. Astrology is astrology. Astronomy is Astronomy. Cosmology is Cosmology. If you feel you're not up to typing it all the time, we'll accept it when you write "astronomy" and actually mean "cosmology" or the other way around. Otherwise, since in computers we deal, you could also use the (very useful) "Copy/Paste" method.

 

Calling astronomy and cosmlology astrology is unacceptable. It's like calling a "12 year old human child" cheeta because you don't want to write '12 year old human child' all the time. Only "AStrology" is worse, because to astronomers, quite frankly, it's derogatory. Astrology is crap. Astronomy is science. Don't mix the two. Please be serious.

 

If you want us to take you seriously, try to take our fields of study seriously too. Please.

 

~moo

[cperkinson]

Remove me from the forums then.. you'll read about my theories in papers across the globe. And go ahead and dismiss this as a form of enraged response, but my whole life has been built upon becoming a famous scientist. While my ways are strange i have a method to my madness. While i accept the fact that my life is predetermined and that i cannot alter its course no matter what decisions i make, i still understand that in some point in my life i learned to accept this fact and that it enables me to have a wider understanding of the universe around me. I ONCE SAT IN MY BASEMENT FOR 3 WEEKS CONTEMPLATING SUICIDE UPON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PREDETERMINED DESTINY, KNOWING THAT NO MATTER WHAT I DO IT IS'NT MY CHOICE, THAT I DO THINGS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN PREDETERMINED FOR ME. THE ONLY THING THAT STOPPED ME FROM KILLING MYSELF WAS THE CONTINUAL REPEATING OF THE PHRASE "if nothing matters anymore, then why am i here." MY SOLE PURPOSE FROM THEN ON WAS TO SPREAD MY UNDERSTANDING TO THE REST OF THE WORLD IN HOPES THAT I WILL BE THE GREATEST NAME IN HISTORY. I AM CURRENTLY WORKING ON MY ASSOCIATES IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND WILL THEN BE WORKING ON MY BA AND ONWARD TO MY MBA IN THE HOPES THAT I WILL MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO FUND ALL THE RESEARCH NECCESARY TO PUSH OUR COMMUNITY INTO THE SPACE AGE AND MAKE FURTHER PREDICTIONS ABOUT THIS PLANET. Moo, the theory i fed you just an hour ago i had thought up in about 30 minutes after whatching the history channel's episode of "The Universe 'beyond the big bang' " ps: his name was alan guth (check spelling)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

and you're right moo, i should have more respect for the scientific community. Respect is something i lack upon my more natural state of being, hence my father being an undeserving drunk and druggy, respect is something i dont show much of. Plz forgive me. I truely do have great potential, just give me a shot.

[mooeypoo]

Remove me from the forums then..

If all I"ve asked you was a bit of respect, and the answer you give me is to remove you from the forum, then perhaps you need to follow your own advice and get out to never return.

 

Please refer to our rules of conduct, the rules you have agreed to follow when you registered to the forum. We started with a decent argument, which you degraded, and you alone. I am not going to entertain you when you give this forum and its members not an ounce of respect.

 

Consider your next posts and your attitude carefully, please. This will go in one of two possible ways: the argument will be resumed nicely, or you will be banned for your attitude. Your ideas were tested, you have no case to claim we're "closed minded". Take your pick - either be respectful, or get out.

 

~moo

[cperkinson]

fair enough. i ask hence forth that no one removes me directly. I merely ask you and everyone else to disprove my theory of multiple universes coexisting with each other. if it can be disproved then kick me out, and i'll never return.

[iNow]

What test(s) have you identified which can be run to disprove your idea? What can we do to disprove it? As a general rule, that information comes with the theory conjecture itself, and is offered by the author of said theory conjecture.

[cperkinson]

i couldn't tell you which tests to run, i have never tested my THEORIES. I simply use basic logistic skillz to FORMULATE them. I capitalize theories and formulate because there is scientific cognition in my thoughts when i come up with these THEORIES.

[mooeypoo]

But a theory requires a mathematical formulation and SOME SORT of evidence, cperkinson (and falsifiability, etc). You don't have any just yet, and your idea is not quite a theory. This isn't meant to "offend" you, it's a matter of definition.

 

You will need to come up with a theoretical way to check and test these ideas, otherwise we can't go on. Can you think, theoretically, what would test them?

[iNow]

i couldn't tell you which tests to run, i have never tested my THEORIES. I simply use basic logistic skillz to FORMULATE them. I capitalize theories and formulate because there is scientific cognition in my thoughts when i come up with these THEORIES.

 

Just as an FYI... You seem to have more of a philosophical theory than a scientific one, especially considering your concession that you don't know how to disprove it or make predictions using it.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation.

 

Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.

 

 

Lots of other great information also available at the link I provided. I shared it because I remember you having a similar run-in with another well-educated long time member here just yesterday about this exact word. I thought perhaps you'd be ready to understand why people continue correcting you on your use of it. Enjoy.

[cperkinson]

People are testing my beliefs in this universe right now.. they have been testing them since the beginning of science... and they always will be testing them. I merely ask anyone who reads or hears about my "thoughts" to simply think within that perspective when trying to figure something out. It will help them make sense of everything around them.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

just as an fyi... You seem to have more of a philosophical theory than a scientific one, especially considering your concession that you don't know how to disprove it or make predictions using it.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/scientific_theory

theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation.

 

Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.

 

 

lots of other great information also available at the link i provided. I shared it because i remember you having a similar run-in with another well-educated long time member here just yesterday about this exact word. I thought perhaps you'd be ready to understand why people continue correcting you on your use of it. Enjoy.

 

thx

Edited June 17, 2009 by cperkinson
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

my whole life has been built upon becoming a famous scientist. While my ways are strange i have a method to my madness.

 

Then you have, of course, learned the protocols of doing science properly. Please follow them. What is your evidence, and how would one falsify your ideas? Surely you know that these are cornerstones of theories.

[cperkinson]

while they are the cornerstones of theory formation, are they the cornerstones of science? There are many different regions of science. Cosmology, for example, deals with the universe in it's entirety and human's place in it. While many scientists don't enjoy that this form of science has been recently recognized by the science community, it is still a reputable form of science and therefore cannot be ignored. PS: many of my ideas are cosmology related.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

what im trying to say is that science itself doesn't necessarily deal solely with theories and equations. Simply thinking can be a great way to come up with new ideas and answers for many questions. After all, that IS what science is all about, right?

Edited June 17, 2009 by cperkinson
Consecutive posts merged.

[insane_alien]

what im trying to say is that science itself doesn't necessarily deal solely with theories and equations. Simply thinking can be a great way to come up with new ideas and answers for many questions. After all, that IS what science is all about, right?

 

unless those ideas are tested to see if they conform with reality then those ideas are meaningless in a scientific context.

[Phi for All]

what im trying to say is that science itself doesn't necessarily deal solely with theories and equations. Simply thinking can be a great way to come up with new ideas and answers for many questions. After all, that IS what science is all about, right?

Science is about using a rigorous methodology to ensure that "ideas" are tested using models that can be duplicated by other scientists. That's why terminology is important, that's why maths are important, and that's why every step of every hypothesis must be examined before it passes on to the next one. Scientific method insures that we're not just idle speculators basing our work on shaky foundations. Edited June 17, 2009 by Phi for All

[GutZ]

Are you trying to say that there were "a-toms" at the beginning of the big bang? Wouldn't that specific atom need a lot of energy to describe all the potential energy the universe has? You still would need to explain how that atom got the way it did.

 

I though atoms formed after the universe started to cool down and allow atoms to form...are you say one of those atoms would explode and create a new universe within a universe? How does an atom cause space to expand?

 

You are going to have to give alot more detail in this.

 

Being creative and imaginative is great, but if you are looking for answers in reality you are going to have to make you ideas match them.

 

I can makes a brilliantly imaginative theory, it doesn't help anyone if it does not mimic reality.

 

You don't believe me?

 

Watch...I have a theory that people can fly....what you have to do is spin really fast in both direction and then jump.

 

Go head try it out.

[swansont]

while they are the cornerstones of theory formation, are they the cornerstones of science? There are many different regions of science.

 

Yes, there are. And while the specific instances of e.g. repeatability differ depending on the specifics of the type of science you are doing, all proper science has a certain degree of rigor. If that is missing, then you aren't doing science. You are possibly doing philosophy, as iNow has noted, or perhaps some other form of contemplation about the universe.

[GutZ]

I think the issue a lot of these people that come here is that they see or read about ideas of the likes of newton and Einstein the earlier pioneers of physics and such as to how they formulated their ideas.

 

Like with Newton and that damn apple story, Einsteins though experiments with light and how he came to derive his theories. What they don't understand is those idea were based on the foundation of reality. So much was unknown at that time that they had to ponder certain ideas from imagination and forcing their minds to think differently. Can anyone conceptualize Einsteins way of thinking in a universe that was understood to be absolute?

 

The most important aspect of those times to me was the breaking of common sense, accepting that what they perceived to be obvious was not, and from that point on science has really picked up on the rigor of things being repeatable . Until we see the repeatability most things are subject to ANY possibility of being true.

 

Even though the introduction to science to a laymen such as myself is usually done in a way that makes it easier to grasp I think sometimes the total idea of what science is gets lost in process if you are not careful.

 

This is why I made that thread in the suggestions sub forum, because as a lot of you experts have a hard time to see....repeating the same thing over and over again isn't going to change a person to see the truth, they have to develop what you developed, and that came with desire to see the truth for what is....no body can start learning without knowing how to learn.

 

I can tell you a there is an invisible cat in the corner a billion times over, but unless I can give you a method to see it, there is no reason for you change your thought that there is nothing there.

[cameron marical]

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think the issue a lot of these people that come here is that they see or read about ideas of the likes of newton and Einstein the earlier pioneers of physics and such as to how they formulated their ideas.

 

Like with Newton and that damn apple story, Einsteins though experiments with light and how he came to derive his theories. What they don't understand is those idea were based on the foundation of reality. So much was unknown at that time that they had to ponder certain ideas from imagination and forcing their minds to think differently. Can anyone conceptualize Einsteins way of thinking in a universe that was understood to be absolute?

 

I agree. Also, they both did quite a bit of mathmatics to prove their theories. so they werent only thought experiments.

Edited June 18, 2009 by cameron marical
Consecutive posts merged.

[GutZ]

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

I agree. Also, they both did quite a bit of mathmatics to prove their theories. so they werent only thought experiments.

 

Very true, but when you start out you're not like:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations#Mathematical_form

 

Oh I get it!