The Universe had a beginning (Atheism...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#62 Jul 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Who were they maybe I know them?
Mostly grad students working on MINOS. It's been a few years.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Sunderland, UK

#63 Jul 8, 2012
The spanner comment was a joke.
But you haven't answer the serious part of my question what did you do there?

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Sunderland, UK

#64 Jul 8, 2012
And you still haven't answered my perspective explanation.
And polymath is right the hand grenade analogy has nothing to do with what you want to do the big bang, and that is pointing to the Andromeda galaxy to refute the big bang as a piece of shrapnel wouldn't have enough of a gravitational field, to attract another piece of shrapnel to it.
And you still haven't answered my accusation of plagiarism and quote mining in post #44
Ya... you aren't doing to well.
KJV

United States

#65 Jul 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>A hand grenade is an explosion where things are moving through space. The Big Bang is an expansion of space itself. Furthermore, the density of the early universe was much, much higher than what you see in a grenade, so the gravitational effects were much more pronounced than what you get in a grenade. And, when it comes to galactic collisions, the main question is the degree to which gravity overwhelms the overall expansion. it can, and does, do so for galaxies that are close.

I see the analogy you are attempting to make, but I also know that analogy is a false one. it neglects the many relevant differences. Unlike a typical explosion, the expansion in the Big Bang is uniform and isotropic: it looks the same everywhere. Second, all of space is involved with matter in all locations of space. Unlike a typical explosion, there is no 'inside' or 'outside' of the hot dense state of the early universe. EVERYWHERE was hot and dense and expanding. If you want to call such a situation an explosion, that is acceptable, but it is an explosion with characeristics that are quite different than ordinary explosions.
So you were there and know all of this by witnessing it?
Or is it just a theory?
KJV

United States

#66 Jul 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, that is one of the possibilities, although it is less supported by the evidence now than it was a couple of decades ago.

[QUOTE]"Physicists believe the collider simulates conditions that existed immediately following the Big Bang, the massive explosion thought to have preceded the formation of the universe. The proton collisions in the collider emit debris signals that are captured by detectors and analyzed by computers, and CERN stated "only one experiment in three million would see an apparent signal this strong in a universe without a Higgs.""

Yes, and? Once again, the universe early on was isotropic and uniform to a very high degree. Every location looked the same as every other location: hot, dense, and expanding. This is quite unlike any conventional explosion. The clues from colliders about how the basic particles behave is critical to our understanding of the thermodynamics of these early stages.
You keep claiming there was no explosion in the big bang and I keep quoting scientist who claim there was a explosion in the big bang. And you tell me I don't get it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67 Jul 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep claiming there was no explosion in the big bang and I keep quoting scientist who claim there was a explosion in the big bang. And you tell me I don't get it.
I think that the word 'explosion' is a bad one to use in this context because the situation is quite different than any explosion most people about. Some poeple do use the word. The point is that a typical explosion has a high density volume that expands into a larger low density volume. This is NOT what happens in the Big Bang. Instead, the *whole universe* is the high density volume and the whole thing is expanding (but not into any space that is larger).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#68 Jul 8, 2012
I'd also point out that your argument, even if valid, would not disprove atheism. At most it would call into question one particular model of the early universe.
KJV

United States

#69 Jul 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
I'd also point out that your argument, even if valid, would not disprove atheism. At most it would call into question one particular model of the early universe.
You have to start some where.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#70 Jul 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to start some where.
You might start by providing evidence that a deity exists. That would be a much more effective method than the one you seem to have chosen. Alternatively, describe *in detail* what characteristics a universe without a deity would have that the observed universe does not have (or vice versa). Make sure you support your claims.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#71 Jul 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you were there and know all of this by witnessing it?
No, but we can collect data that tells us what the universe was like 13 billion years ago.
Or is it just a theory?
Well, it is a scientific theory that is supported by all the available evidence in spite of many competing theories over the last several decades. It is consistent with all known laws of physics. yes, even the law of conservation of angular momentum (which is automatic in Einstein's equations) and the second law of thermodynamics (which is incorporated into the hot Big Bang model).
KJV

United States

#72 Jul 8, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>No, but we can collect data that tells us what the universe was like 13 billion years ago.

[QUOTE]Or is it just a theory?
"

Well, it is a scientific theory that is supported by all the available evidence in spite of many competing theories over the last several decades. It is consistent with all known laws of physics. yes, even the law of conservation of angular momentum (which is automatic in Einstein's equations) and the second law of thermodynamics (which is incorporated into the hot Big Bang model).
Try collecting data from 14 billion years ago.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#73 Jul 9, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Try collecting data from 14 billion years ago.
Have you tried? Oh, yeah that's right you haven't - you're content to simply make sh*t up and threaten us into believing in it...

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Sunderland, UK

#74 Jul 9, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Try collecting data from 14 billion years ago.
Try collecting data from last week…
Now here's why your argument sucks, we collect data showing the time span between the universe’s “creation” and now, then using that time span as a good estimate of how long the galaxies have been moving we draw the path of travel and find all the galaxies were in a centre point at the start, if you want to explain other basics let me know I'll be waiting with the textbook.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#75 Jul 9, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Try collecting data from 14 billion years ago.
If you have a way to do so, please let someone know. It would violate at least a couple of different scientific hypotheses. Having definite evidence that general relativity is wrong would be groundbreaking.
LMT

Medina, OH

#76 Jul 9, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Try collecting data from 14 billion years ago.
We can, and our most powerful telescopes are observing radiation that was produced as early as 300,000 years after the Big Bang. That's almost 14 billion years ago.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#77 Jul 9, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
So you were there and know all of this by witnessing it?
Or is it just a theory?
so youwere there when God made the earth the way you say? or is it just a superstition?
KJV

United States

#78 Jul 9, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Have you tried? Oh, yeah that's right you haven't - you're content to simply make sh*t up and threaten us into believing in it...
Wrong. I have it.
KJV

United States

#79 Jul 9, 2012
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>Try collecting data from last week…
Now here's why your argument sucks, we collect data showing the time span between the universe’s “creation” and now, then using that time span as a good estimate of how long the galaxies have been moving we draw the path of travel and find all the galaxies were in a centre point at the start, if you want to explain other basics let me know I'll be waiting with the textbook.
My point idiot is how in your would did it all start?

Come on you're so sure of your theory's fill us in on how at one time did nothing become something. This of course is step 1 in evolution. Step 1 is a great place to start didn't you think?
KJV

United States

#80 Jul 9, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>If you have a way to do so, please let someone know. It would violate at least a couple of different scientific hypotheses. Having definite evidence that general relativity is wrong would be groundbreaking.
I have the bible that states in the beginning ......

And before the beginning lets say 7000 years and earlier there was nothing as far as our universe is concerned. No spinning singulars. No small dot that contained everything. No matter no mass no light no gravity no neutrons no Haggs Boson partial.
KJV

United States

#81 Jul 9, 2012
LMT wrote:
<quoted text>We can, and our most powerful telescopes are observing radiation that was produced as early as 300,000 years after the Big Bang. That's almost 14 billion years ago.
Or radiation put there by God 6000 years ago.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr superwilly 258,479
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Eagle 12 - 32,252
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 hr Science 854
Religion sux ? 3 hr Eagle 12 - 4
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Science 77,044
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 10 hr Dogen 4,321
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... (Dec '16) 22 hr Frindly 291
More from around the web