BF2S Forums Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?

Humm, i sorta believe in it....but its hard also...like...How can something happen when there is nothing...and so far, nothing have never existed.

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

Yes, but the real crux question is what came before the big bang.

Nothing. Time itself was created.

You can't get something from nothing.

Wanna bet? We are a part of the universe, so the thought of living outside of time is extreme hard to accept. If you are content with asking yourself an endless supply of "what happened before" questions have a ball.

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

Yes, but the real crux question is what came before the big bang.

Nothing. Time itself was created.

You can't get something from nothing.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

oug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Anything we ever learn is only what we believe, there is no way to prove it truly correct.

In a philosophical sense, maybe not. But there are the laws of physics for example, and they seem to work. There is nothing there to believe in. You are either aware of something, or you're not. The evidence is there for anyone who wishes to check up on them. If an allegation or theory can be proven, then there simply is nothing to believe in. It's about knowledge.

And like I said before, in the case of a theory, well, all that's left is for someone to prove or disprove it. Until then, it is speculation. Believing in it is fine so long as you keep looking for proof and don't allow belief to act as a replacement for it.

In a philosophical sense perception is reality, nothing is here, yadda yadda yadda. Even firmly grounded in reality however, we have had our fair share of boat-rocking discoveries that have changed our most fundamental levels of science. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to believe that we have more reason to believe our scientific foundation is any more correct than the Greeks thought theirs was?

I don't know what you're referring to, the Greeks were right on most things. Everything that has been proven has not ever been disproved, has it? And again, you are using the word "believe" in a wrong way I think. That was my objection in the first place. I don't know if we're talking about the same thing here... ?

oug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

oug wrote:

In a philosophical sense, maybe not. But there are the laws of physics for example, and they seem to work. There is nothing there to believe in. You are either aware of something, or you're not. The evidence is there for anyone who wishes to check up on them. If an allegation or theory can be proven, then there simply is nothing to believe in. It's about knowledge.

And like I said before, in the case of a theory, well, all that's left is for someone to prove or disprove it. Until then, it is speculation. Believing in it is fine so long as you keep looking for proof and don't allow belief to act as a replacement for it.

In a philosophical sense perception is reality, nothing is here, yadda yadda yadda. Even firmly grounded in reality however, we have had our fair share of boat-rocking discoveries that have changed our most fundamental levels of science. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to believe that we have more reason to believe our scientific foundation is any more correct than the Greeks thought theirs was?

I don't know what you're referring to, the Greeks were right on most things. Everything that has been proven has not ever been disproved, has it? And again, you are using the word "believe" in a wrong way I think. That was my objection in the first place. I don't know if we're talking about the same thing here... ?

r u srs? We still believe in 4 basic elements? We believe in a geocentric model? Not everything has been disproved, but an awful lot of it has been. Looking at physics through the ages is a wonderful example.

Belief - something based on faith. Very similar to the religious version in this case. There is a mystical element in science, especially when studying the very large and the very small. Throwing yourself behind any theory takes more than a little faith to go along with the facts.

topal63 wrote:

Why do "we" all assume such an antagonistic role on forums? I sometimes wonder if it's deliberate - the attempts to misunderstand what people say/think/type?

I am not going to address everything - I simply don't have the time. But for example, I doubt he was referring to 4 elements (fire, water, air, earth) and considering it wasn't mentioned until you mention it, well no further explanation is necessary. But, rather reality is elemental; made of discrete elements (the effects behave in discrete packets: quanta) - and that is similar to the Greek conception. Did he bring up a geocentric model - no, you did and how does that support your point ("Isn't it a bit presumptuous to believe that we have more reason to believe our scientific foundation is any more correct than the Greeks thought theirs was")? It doesn't support your point at all.

PS: Flame, I apologize if am coming off as antagonistic with this or any other post in this thread, it isn't my intention.

I find my point and the two examples I provided very basic.

Hypothesis: Science changes so much and proves itself wrong so much that it takes an almost religious faith to believe a theory, even if it is based on experimental data.

I) The Greeks had from our current day perspective very far fetched views of how the universe works, and what they took to be as factual as we take the Big Bang theory to be today now seems absurd.

Supporting 1) They believed in 4 elements that made up all matter. This is completely wrong according to our current knowledge.

Supporting 2) They believed the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun orbited around it. Also completely wrong.

II) If the fundamental beliefs of 2000 years ago seem childish today, the beliefs of today will seem childish in the next 2000 years.

Assumption: Technology will evolve at the same pace it has in the past 2000 years.

He said the Greeks were right about most things, and I assume in context he meant in the area of physics. I can't see how one would manage to prove that statement true and provided a few obvious counterexamples.

topal63 wrote:

That second assumption is just that - an assumption (technology may very well hit a wall and stop progressing - until humans get involved in their own evolution, personally I am not assuming either.)

An assumption, but a pretty safe one. A recently used example but a good one, are you going to be the guy in the U.S. patent office who thought there was nothing left to be invented?

topal63 wrote:

I don't see science as a discipline that just attempts to prove or disprove ideas right or wrong. It's more like an ocean that's expanding. Some ideas get wash away others simply do not - they get carried in the tide and basically refined. Newtonian physics is basically right - excepting it's not as accurate as Einstein's refinements; even though the classical idea of absolute-time has been washed away with that refinement. Science-history is filled with examples of continual refinement; the expansion of knowledge - not the destruction of it.

Last time I checked Newton was not Greek. It's less than 500 years old, and Einstein's theories less than 100 years old. To call these changes a "refinement" of the state of physics before them is a joke. They each rocked the core foundations that had been laid before them, ideas that were hard to explain and even harder to accept. There are people continually washing away older theories and refining them, expanding our sea of knowledge, but then there are also people dumping buckets of orange dye in the water.

topal63 wrote:

Also, I see nothing similar about natural explanations backed by data - and "belief." I also doubt basic very-usable Newtonian physics will ever be seen as wrong any more than I think the basic Greek conception of a basic elemental (discrete) nature will be seen as wrong; or the basic idea that things have natural explanations will be seen as wrong. The particulars are wrong, but not all of it. And I don't see a single reason, idea, spec of data, in existence - that is going to overturn the basic ideas of: our Universal expansion, evolution, basic chemistry, general physics, etc.

Saying the Greek definition of basic elements and our current definition are close is like saying dirt and apples are both food because they're edible. When your basic concept is "The world is made up of a lot of little stuff" the details are important.

Now if you saw the reason why something was going to be overturned, you would publish it and become rich and famous right? Of course none of us understand how any of these theories can be wrong, which is why we believe in them. It's honestly pretty religious because in there is a small chance nothing would change about any one thing in science in the next ten thousand years. Our current ideas wouldn't suddenly become any less right, they are the same ideas the whole time. The only difference is people who have the opportunity to look at both ideas at the same time has the ability to see the flaws in the old idea, whilst we are still blind to them. We have to know, scientists especially, that what we believe right now is more than likely wrong, but we hold on to it anyways because it's the best we have right now. If that's not religious I don't know what is.

Also, your example of the basic ideas of universal expansion is really bad. We're completely unsure of how or why the universe is expanding, and at the moment are really stumped by why we believe the universe is not only expanding, but why that expansion is accelerating. That is why people began to introduce the dark matter element into the FLRW model, but no one is sure what is going on by a long shot.

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

Yes, but the real crux question is what came before the big bang.

Nothing. Time itself was created.

Rather large unsubstantiatable claim there...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Not so much. According to Einstein's theories space and time are intertwined, as one was created so was the other. You can't think of time in the classical sense.

What the fuck did Einstein know? He was just a mathematician theorising about ridiculously complex things that we yet have little mental grasp on. Dismissing the potentially infinite nature of the universe requires a proof not a theory.

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

A better question is how will it end? Big rip? Big crunch? We need a topic on the cosmic apocalypse.

Entropy. All energy in the universe will dissapate into an unusable state and there will be no energy to move anything. basiclly a big freeze.

Very true... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/historysans.html

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Not so much. According to Einstein's theories space and time are intertwined, as one was created so was the other. You can't think of time in the classical sense.

What the fuck did Einstein know? He was just a mathematician theorising about ridiculously complex things that we yet have little mental grasp on. Dismissing the potentially infinite nature of the universe requires a proof not a theory.

You may have little grasp on it, but there are people in this world that use GR as we use a fork.

Yes it is a theory not a proof, and because of that no one is dismissing anything. The fact remains however that GR explains a lot of experimental data and is the best we have right now to work with, and we are sure enough about it to base most of our theories of the universe on it.

edit: Commie the first thing you explained is one theory, a "bouncing" universe.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Not so much. According to Einstein's theories space and time are intertwined, as one was created so was the other. You can't think of time in the classical sense.

What the fuck did Einstein know? He was just a mathematician theorising about ridiculously complex things that we yet have little mental grasp on. Dismissing the potentially infinite nature of the universe requires a proof not a theory.

You may have little grasp on it, but there are people in this world that use GR as we use a fork.

Yes it is a theory not a proof, and because of that no one is dismissing anything. The fact remains however that GR explains a lot of experimental data and is the best we have right now to work with, and we are sure enough about it to base most of our theories of the universe on it.

edit: Commie the first thing you explained is one theory, a "bouncing" universe.

It seems odd expounding upon the merits of theories developed when phenomena such as dark matter had not even been chanced upon. I would not feel confident in expressing any opinion dismissing one possibility or endorsing one theory unless quite frankly I had a PhD in astronomy, physics and mathematics.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-06 17:15:01)

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Nothing. Time itself was created.

You can't get something from nothing.

I should have figured.

Sorry bro.
It's like arguing the existence of lack thereof of God.

It's unknowable.