DieCommie said:

Quote:

I'm saying that noone in this thread is qualified to talk about the Big Bang.

---

I think I'm qualified to talk about it.  I'm not a world class expert, but I have a couple degrees in physics and taught astronomy at the university while in grad school.

---

Ok, 1 person in this thread knows what they are talking about.

There may be others, but I am pretty sure if you put Wiccan on one side of the room, and Hawking, Tyson, Krauss, Greene, et. al on the other.

Not only would Wiccan be royally embarrassed. He wouldn't be able to even follow what they were talking about. I'd like to see his reaction as soon as those equations went up.

Quote:

I am pretty sure if you put Wiccan on one side of the room, and Hawking, Tyson, Krauss, Greene, et. al on the other.

Not only would Wiccan be royally embarrassed. He wouldn't be able to even follow what they were talking about.

---

Confucian said:

I'm saying that noone in this thread is qualified to talk about the Big Bang. It requires a lifetime of study.

---

You don't need a degree in mycology to talk about mushrooms and fungi, you don't need a degree in chemistry to talk about droogz and you don't need a degree in physics to talk about the big bang.

Just because you're academically unqualified doesn't mean your barred from even discussing something

Dawks said:

Confucian said:

I'm saying that noone in this thread is qualified to talk about the Big Bang. It requires a lifetime of study.

---

You don't need a degree in mycology to talk about mushrooms and fungi, you don't need a degree in chemistry to talk about droogz and you don't need a degree in physics to talk about the big bang.

Just because you're academically unqualified doesn't mean your* barred from even discussing something

---

*you're

He's not discussing. He is saying that the Big Bang never happened. And he has a couple basic astronomy 101 questions he doesn't have the answer to so he thinks he's disproved the Big Bang. (I can't answer his questions because, as I've previously admitted, I am not a scientist.)

If you look at the 3rd comment of this thread Wiccan said if I am interested in made-up myths like the Big Bang then I should look at the Bible or Quran.

He went on to say, and I quote: "If you're young you'll probably see the big bang theory debunked" and then "it never happened. We're in an eternal universe and the big bang is an illusion."

Then he said this: "The Big Bang theory seems elegant, but if you look closely at the details its about as elegant as a rhino in a pink speedo."

Then he posted this link in BIG FONT to support his opinion:


When you go to the link (WhatReallyHappened.com!) you can see a ton of links at the top: FAKETERROR, THEMYSTERYOFTHESPHINX, WACO, JFK, you get the point.

Sure - he can discuss the Big Bang, but he has no credibility. As another person pointed out, he may even have a few screws loose to believe conspiracy websites > the scientific method.

Confucian said:

Bodhi of Ankou said:

Confucian said:

They were 10 sec to 20min after the bang when nucleosynthesis had produced all those baryons.. and that conveniently light years away and inexplicably cooled down to prevent mass creation of heavy elements.

---

All Physics breaks down at the Planck wall, .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a second after the Big Bang...

---

Thats quite the copout, so are you saying the universe was magic for one brief moment in time?

---

Quote:

I dont need a degree to see that "the laws of physics broke down" equates to " the universe was magic, for a few seconds"

---

Quote:

Yes thats all good and fun but if a theory falls apart at the beginning then it really isnt much of a theory.

---

Bodhi of Ankou said:

lol. Dude. The entire theory is about the beginning.

---

Quote:

As there presently exists no widely accepted framework for how to combine quantum mechanics with relativistic gravity, science is not currently able to make predictions about events occurring over intervals shorter than the Planck time or distances shorter than one Planck length, the distance light travels in one Planck time—about 1.616 × 10−35 meters.

---

Quote:

everything about it hinges on wheather or not it actually burst forth from a singularity and how that happened.

---

DieCommie said:

You dont prove things in science.  You show them with evidence.  Proof happens under axioms which are assumed for the sake of the proof.  Thats why a proof is a mathematical idea.  In science the axioms are called postulates and they are never taken as unassailable.  To do so would contradict the fundamental philosophy of science that all conclusions are tentative with respect to evidence.

Quote:

Yes thats all good and fun but if a theory falls apart at the beginning then it really isnt much of a theory.

---

Nope, that is not how theories work.  All theories have bounds, none are purported to apply to all phenomenon, everywhere at every time.  You wouldn't use cell theory to describe plate tectonics, you wouldn't use atomic theory to describe population dynamics and you wouldn't use the theory of evolution by natural selection to describe the solar wind.  By the same token you would not use quantum theory to describe phenomenon before the first plank interval.  All theories have bounds and acknowledging them is a strength of science, not a weakness.  Investigating where the bounds specifically are and what modifications or new theories are needed to cross those bounds is what scientists do.

---

dude I'm starting to really like you nohomo