Quote from Captain Cook

Listen, "bro", you haven't explained shit to me. What this sounds like is you simply re-explaining what I said and then simply covered your tacks by stating that you're rushed and confused. If you don't have the time to post, don't fucking post.

I never said it did, that was implied.

It sounds logical because it fucking is logical. This wasn't made up by 4th graders in science class, the people who came up with this are extremely intelligent people who know what they're talking about. And as for our limitations, what the fuck are you talking about? I giving you the official explanation for an event, and simply because you don't agree with it you say it's not true. Of course, there's a chance it isn't true, but we're not the ones to make that decision. The option I have given you is the generally accepted one.

All in all, you didn't explain anything, you basically told me that my thesis was wrong because the scientific evidence I was basing it may or may not be wrong.


If your "bro" was supposed to explain something to me, he did it in an incredibly shitty way.

EDIT: What side are you two even on?

Ok, I see your point. Please though, remain emotionally detached. This isn't a shouting (or swearing) match. Nothing from your post was "implied". you said
"the farther away from an object we are, the redder the light that object emits is. If we were to measure objects in space for an extended period of time, one would clearly see a change in distance, since the object's light is becoming redder and redder, which means that it's moving away."
Also, according to that theory, the faster it is moving away the deeper the red shift. distance has nothing to do with it. Please though, if you can find somewhere on the internet where they have actually proved this method, please tell me. I wont just take your word for it. Also, its besides the point. Scientists interpret this theoretical evidence in a way that supports the big bang because they believe in the big bang. If you saw someone walking down the street at a rate of 2 mph, you could calculate that he had been walking for 2 hours from his house or 1 hour from his work but the fact is that you don't really know. You will interpret the evidence according to your presuppositions (what you believed in beforehand) Scientists look at the stars and see them as moving away. Does this prove in any way that it all came from a certain point?
Also, you expect me to just believe something because its generally accepted? Science is constantly changing. Many things like phlogiston, ether, and a flat earth were extremely well accepted. Its only because someone decided to step out and question these that wrongs were made right. Stop suppressing science. Things change.
Lastly, logical guesses are fine. I have nothing against making a guess based on prior knowledge. I do however find fault with making people assume that those guesses are facts. Why should I accept something just because someone smarter than me made a guess? I'm not Einstein. I'm analytical.

Quote from iRakodai

Also, according to that theory, the faster it is moving away the deeper the red shift. distance has nothing to do with it.

Yes, it does. If an object is 10 lightyears away, that light has had 10 years to travel a distance that's been stretched by the expansion of the universe, which increases the wavelength. An object that's 100 lightyears away has been stretched for 100 years before reaching us. The redshift effect increases depending on distance. It has everything to do with

Quote from iRakodai

Please though, if you can find somewhere on the internet where they have actually proved this method, please tell me. I wont just take your word for it.

This is physics, dude, fucking pay attention to what we're saying.

If an ambulance is moving towards you, its siren appears to be high pitched. When it passes you, and starts to move away from you, the siren sounds lower pitched. This is the doppler effect, and it applies to all waveforms.



The increase or decrease in wavelength is dependent on the velocity of the object emitting the wave.

Light is a wave. It undergoes the same effect. This effect that we observe on a cosmic scale, redshift, has been experimentally observed and verified. We've mapped large sections of the sky through Redshift surveys[/i] using a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Mathematical_derivation]consistent, proven mathematical formula to determine the distance of objects in the sky. It's how we know how far away a star or anything else is.

Quote from iRakodai

Also, you expect me to just believe something because its generally accepted? Science is constantly changing. Many things like phlogiston, ether, and a flat earth were extremely well accepted. Its only because someone decided to step out and question these that wrongs were made right. Stop suppressing science. Things change.

The scientific community is the first to acknowledge that they might be wrong. That's why they constantly test and verify their findings, and revise mistakes when they become known.

That doesn't mean you can dismiss everything scientifically known. The big bang is by far the most scientifically sound theory of the origin of the universe. It's not just a guess. It's supported by more scientific findings than you or I could even make sense of.

Quote from iRakodai

Why should I accept something just because someone smarter than me made a guess? I'm not Einstein. I'm analytical.

You're not analyzing anything. You're immediately dismissing the validity of something without considering or even understanding why it's considered valid.

Quote from Exilement

Yes, it does. If an object is 10 lightyears away, that light has had 10 years to travel a distance that's been stretched by the expansion of the universe, which increases the wavelength. An object that's 100 lightyears away has been stretched for 100 years before reaching us. The redshift effect increases depending on distance. It has everything to do with



This is physics, dude, fucking pay attention to what we're saying.

If an ambulance is moving towards you, its siren appears to be high pitched. When it passes you, and starts to move away from you, the siren sounds lower pitched. This is the doppler effect, and it applies to all waveforms.



The increase or decrease in wavelength is dependent on the velocity of the object emitting the wave.

Light is a wave. It undergoes the same effect. This effect that we observe on a cosmic scale, redshift, has been experimentally observed and verified. We've mapped large sections of the sky through Redshift surveys[/i] using a consistent, proven mathematical formula to determine the distance of objects in the sky. It's how we know how far away a star or anything else is.



The scientific community is the first to acknowledge that they might be wrong. That's why they constantly test and verify their findings, and revise mistakes when they become known.

That doesn't mean you can dismiss everything scientifically known. The big bang is by far the most scientifically sound theory of the origin of the universe. It's not just a guess. It's supported by more scientific findings than you or I could even make sense of.



You're not analyzing anything. You're immediately dismissing the validity of something without considering or even understanding why it's considered valid.

First off, those physics have to do with sound. Sound is dependent on a medium to travel through. Its also a longitudinal wave. Electromagnetic waves are energy. They do not require a medium to travel. They are also transverse wave. The animation you posted is the Doppler effect on sound. Electromagnetic waves are in an entirely different ball park.
Second, your right. "The big bang is by far the most scientifically sound theory of the origin of the universe." And why is that? because we cannot come up with anything better. What I disagree with is trying to convince the world that this is what happened when we don't really know.
I'm not dismissing anything. I'm just trying to present that we may have been wrong. Just because the universe may be expanding, and there may be radiation permeating the universe, can we say for a fact that that means that everything in the universe was in one point, and a cataclysmic event shot particles throughout the universe? Why are we so quick to jump from a studied guess of what happened to This is exactly what happened. I feel like the big bang theory needs to undergo more scrutiny before we can use it as a base of cosmic studies. I feel like if anything is to be a base of any study, it should be observable. We can make guesses as to what a culture was like or what an artifact was used for but we can never know for sure. If the big bang theory was correct, this would bring into question reality itself. Hear is a quote from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n3/are-you-reading-this

"According to a report in The New York Times, some cosmologists claim this universe may be an illusion of your brain.1 At least, that is the conclusion if you carry out the logic of the big bang theory.

The most popular version of the big bang says that the universe popped into existence from a quantum fluctuation. But since it is more likely for quantum fluctuations to produce simpler things, it is more likely that your solitary brain popped into existence from a quantum fluctuation. (After all, if the big bang could produce a universe filled with billions of brains, producing one brain with false memories is much simpler.)

While most big bang supporters do not actually believe such a conclusion, it is the logical outcome of the theory.

Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist working at Answers in Genesis, notes that self-refutation is a common defect in nonbiblical worldviews. “If a theory leads to conclusions that are contrary to the theory,” Lisle notes, “then the theory refutes itself. If the big bang were true, it would lead to a conclusion that is not true!” "

And to address the big bang, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/big-bang-gods-chosen-method[/url]


"Since the philosophy of naturalism does not allow for anything beyond nature, a naturalist would insist that the universe was created by the kinds of processes currently operating within it. The big bang is based on this critical assumption; that is, the big bang model attempts to describe the formation of the entire universe by processes currently operating within the universe. Stars, planets, and galaxies are all said to have formed “naturalistically”—by the laws of nature currently in operation today.

Is it rational or necessary to assume that the universe was created in the same way it operates? Not at all. We can see the absurdity of such thinking by applying it to other objects. A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electrical energy into light; would it be rational to assume that the flashlight was created by the conversion of electrical energy into light? No, it was created by an entirely different process. Most things are.

Logically, we can’t necessarily conclude that the universe was created by the kinds of processes operating within it. Naturalism is an assumption— nothing more.
Fast Facts

Ironically, the one thing the big bang does not explain is the origin of the universe. It is only a story about what supposedly happened afterwards.
The cosmic microwave background is much more uniform than was predicted by the big bang model.
In the past decade, astronomers have discovered hundreds of planets orbiting other stars. They are large Jupiter-sized planets orbiting very close to their star—the opposite of what was predicted by secular models."

I'm not posting this to say your wrong or stupid in any way. I want you to search very hard to find the truth. If you believe in something, test it for yourself. Especially, don't ignore whatever results you get. Even if the only explanation is God.

Lastly, if something is constantly changing, but every time it changes its stated as the truth, I tend to lean towards checking the foundations of that statement. There is probably a problem there.
Thank you for reading this if you have. Please continue to cite your information.

Quote from iRakodai

First off, those physics have to do with sound. Sound is dependent on a medium to travel through. Its also a longitudinal wave. Electromagnetic waves are energy. They do not require a medium to travel. They are also transverse wave. The animation you posted is the Doppler effect on sound. Electromagnetic waves are in an entirely different ball park.

I was using it as a simple example because apparently you're not capable of comprehending facts even when they're spelled out to you. I'm aware of the differences, but apparently you aren't aware of this:

"For waves which do not require a medium, such as light or gravity in general relativity, only the relative difference in velocity between the observer and the source needs to be considered."

That velocity between the observer and the source is caused by the expansion of the universe. Get it now? Redshift is known to exist. There's nothing agreeing with the presumption that it might not.

Quote from iRakodai

Second, your right. "The big bang is by far the most scientifically sound theory of the origin of the universe." And why is that? because we cannot come up with anything better. What I disagree with is trying to convince the world that this is what happened when we don't really know.

Nobody's trying to say it's what happened as if it's fact. It's a theory, theories can be wrong, but it's still backed up by more evidence than you can comprehend.

Scientists are very aware of the fact that they might be wrong. That's why the scientific method exists. That's why they don't present theories as infallible. Nothing you're saying is new and it doesn't address anything.

Quote from iRakodai

"According to a report in The New York Times, some cosmologists claim this universe may be an illusion of your brain.1 At least, that is the conclusion if you carry out the logic of the big bang theory.

We have an extremely weak understanding of how matter interacts at the densities and temperatures present within the first few moments after the big bang. We can't really replicate those conditions to perform experiments, but we're trying to do that with supercolliders"

It's not as simple as a "quantum fluctuation", it was a point where all matter that exists today was a white-hot plasmic gas cloud full of elementary particles in conditions we don't fully understand. We also have a weak understanding of quantum states.

Again, these are things that scientists readily admit, and yet you're taking their findings, presenting them as facts, and then using them to refute their lack of knowledge. What the fuck is that supposed to prove?

That we do not know.

This has gotten way too smart for me :P

Well, I don't think that a big bang is going to kill all life, I mean, what, in the universe, would create a giant nuclear meltdown that would kill everything. We must be the first big bang, because, if there was more than one, wouldn't that mean that there was life before anything else? And, I think that, what triggered the big bang? There was nothing for, who knows how long, and we know that humans didn't live at that time, nothing did, something would create that meltdown of that size, no one actually knows how we became or what created us, a sun couldn't do that, and a planet couldn't, but we do know that the big bang happened at some point in time. It is the reason we are here, so let's worry less about how the big bang happened and enjoy that it did happen to us.

The...what???

What could survive the universe collapsing in on itself forming a singularity?

Atams, matter, anything that can't be touched. It's easy to find that out.

What living things- I couldn't understand your post. Were you suggesting humans from the past surviving the big bang and populating earth? wtf man....

Well, I fixed that. Anyway, I didn't say that human's populated the Earth surviving a Big Bang, and in the past? I said that if this weren't the first Big Bang, that means, the last Big Bang had humans, or other forms of life.

Well then that is a diffferent topic as I'm concerned.

Do all big bangs happen exactly the same way? because everything in our exsistance was set in motion by it- from the sol system being where it is, the giant meteor crashing into the earth causing the moon, and the chemical running through a neuron making you think one way about this post.

Are some big bangs at different places? If you managed to fix a camera in space- lodged and untouchable, for eternity, would the big bang be in the same spot? lower or higher?

think about it

Good point there, that would be a interesting thing to see. I like how you think, and I agree. It would be amazing to see the creation of the universe we know today.

but would it be the same?

And if the big bang happens when a singularity becomes a subatomic particle- and thus obtains the ability to 'pop' in and out of exsistance- and explode to form the universe-

Why can't it happen twice in one cycle? What if a big bang 'god' particle appeared just outside the milky way? Or does it require certain conditions to appear?