Quote:

that science doesn't understand gravity as well as it thinks it does.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

Ludicrous perhaps, but I have to wonder. Anyway, what is scientific about the Big Bang Theory?  It seems the sort of thing that humans can only guess at.  I might as well say the Universe rolled out of bed one morning.

---

I would say that cosmology is not your calling. Perhaps pastry chef...

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

that science doesn't understand gravity as well as it thinks it does.

---

Science is a methodology and does not have the capability of thought. Must we go through this every single week?

---

toys in the attic said:

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

that science doesn't understand gravity as well as it thinks it does.

---

Science is a methodology and does not have the capability of thought. Must we go through this every single week?

---

I am sorry, I forgot to cater to my audience. For the simpletons in the audience We will replace the word "science" with "the scientific community". Maybe we should create a remedial forum.

---

You're starting to unravel. Sooner than most.

johnm214 said:

As others have said, you haven't supported your conclusion.  You just say non-existance is impossible so the universe has always existed.


So what?  What does that have to do with the big bang? 


You touch on this in the conclusion ( a bit strange, since you've shown no evidence for it) that the big bang implies non-existance, but you don't demonstrate that it does, and therefore you've go ta whole in yoru logic.



(I'm also unsure if the word 'universe' as used in teh big bang is inclusive of time, space, matter, energy, et cet prior to the big bang, if not then there is no problem with it not existing prior to the big bang.  Have you dealt with this?  I didn't see that you had...)

---

Quote:

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Poid said:

I'm sure they will expose all the holes in my logic that the Shroomery failed to.

---

If you believe you have a valid challenge, then a physics board will give you much better analysis than a 'stoner' board.

Of course, we know you are just killing time and so you post here.

---

I might just go to a physics board and post this then...

Qubit said:

I like how you define your terms before stating the argument. 

But I dont really understand your argument.  Remenmber, big bang theory only describes the process the universe has gone under in the last 13.6 billion years.  Thats all it is about.

Quote:

Remember, it's just a theory...

---

---

If the Big Bang theory implies that the universe was developed, created, or born, then it is an incorrect explanation for the universe.

zouden said:

Quote:

Zouden. This is so difficult to explain to you, your argument says nothing because it gives no premise. It seems that your argument is simply a re-statement of the theory that the universe is expanding. "Existing matter is moving farther apart" is an more complex way to say its expanding. What proof do you have AND more importantly, how do they disprove my premises?

---

You say it as if it's my theory. It's not. It's just the big bang theory, the way it's taught in high school. You were saying that it can't be true because matter can't be created, and I'm simply pointing out that the theory doesn't claim that matter is created; the matter has always been there, but it's getting further apart from itself. All atoms are moving away from one another. Even the space within the atoms are expanding. So the big bang theory doesn't violate the theory of conservation of matter

---

Assuming that space can 'expand' implies that it is finite. If space is finite, what's on the other side of it's boundries? Non-existence?

Icelander said:

toys in the attic said:

I am sorry, I forgot to cater to my audience. For the simpletons in the audience We will replace the word "science" with "the scientific community". Maybe we should create a remedial forum.

---

You're starting to unravel. Sooner than most.

---

Icelander said:

I'm not concerned, just entertained.

---

AlphaFalfa said:

zouden said:

Quote:

I believe that the universe is infinite, in accordance with the theory that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

---

How does that follow? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that there's a finite amount of matter that has always existed?

---

The problem is simple, yet we still may suffer from an unrefined term structure.  So first a few definitions.

Finite:When something has this quality, it will always have a point of beggining and a point of end.
Dictionary.com defines it as;

�adjective
1. having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable.
2. Mathematics.
a. (of a set of elements) capable of being completely counted.
b. not infinite or infinitesimal.
c. not zero.
3. subject to limitations or conditions, as of space, time, circumstances, or the laws of nature: man's finite existence on earth.

Premise: A thing(universe) that has a quality of being impossible to create and impossible to destroy, has no beggining and no end. Finite, can be best metaphorically represented as a set of elements, elements is no different to things in this definition. A set of elements has the quality of beggining and ending. IE. 10 Apples begins at the first apples and ends at the last. Take one apple away and destroy it by consuming it and you have destroyed the set that was created previously into a set of 9.

Reasoning: On behalf of this definition and the premise, the universe and the matter which exists in it, cannot possibly be a set of elements, because a set of elements has to be created and has to have the quality of being destroyed, in order for it to exist as such. Otherwise it will be best described as an infinite structure IE. A set of 10 apples can only exist, if you have experienced a higher or lower numbered set, of which you can compare the present set of 10 with. This is because a distinction such as 'a set of 10' only exists in relation to another present set, in order to appear distinct. A distinction is basically like bad and good, if all that exists is good and no bad, then we would never be able to distinguish and draw up a mental distinction of good, because distinguishment relies on there existing two or more objects of which one can see a noticable difference too.

Resolve

Considering that a finite object, has the quality of being a set of distinct elements and that this set has a beggining(creation) and an end(destruction), how can the universe be finite, when it has the quality of never having a beggining/creation or an end/destruction.

Question:  If the universe cannot be create or destroyed, has no beginning or end, then how can it be considered 'a set of elements(things/objects)' or Fininite, when this adjective has the quality of having a beginning or end?

Prove to me that 'a set of elements(things/objects)' does not need to have a beginning or end and I will believe your conclusion.

---

Quote:

I guess it takes too much BEING HERE NOW to respond to the person to whom you are addressing.

---

zouden said:

Oh I see. You're missing one of your other premises - that nothing can be created. This premise is false in the case of the beginning of the universe. Put quite simply, the law of conservation of matter does not apply to the creation of the universe, because those laws didn't exist then.

---