• Sections
The Myth of the Big Bang

# The Myth of the Big Bang

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2177 Aug 17, 2013
Part 3

Issue #2: Problem of expanding

The expanding universe theory is often compared to a balloon being blown up. As the balloon expands the amount of space available also expands. The problem of an expanding universe is that it must expand INTO something. If there's anything to expand into, that space must, as shown above, belong in the universe.

But where did all that empty space come from, and why are they forgetting that it's also part of the universe? This seems to be a case of people forgetting what the term universe really refers to.

Issue #3: Problem of time

Along with the problem of empty space, the expansion theory also runs into the problem of time.

Let's look at the empty space ahead of the light waves again. Since we have shown that the empty space ahead of the waves is a part of the universe, let us go back in time 10 seconds.

Would the same empty space still be a part of the universe 10 seconds ago? The obvious answer is yes. Well what about 10 years ago? Long before the waves reaches the empty space, it is still a part of the universe.

Taking this to it's furthest conclusion, would that same space ahead of today's light waves still be a part of this universe way back when the Big Bang happened only 1/2 second ago? The answer again is yes.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Part 4

Issue #4: Problem with light at zero MPH

What does the universe look like when light is reduced to 0mph or is stopped altogether?

One of the main parts of the big bang theory is that we will eventually see a contraction. That is, eventually the expansion will stop, and the natural gravitational forces will pull everything back together over a long period of time until it is all collected into the same singularity from which the Big Bang happened and everything will start all over again. This is generally referred to as the Big Crunch.

The important consequence of this theory is that it will pull everything, matter and light back into the crunch to begin the process. If anything is left outside the Big Crunch before it explodes again, then this, by definition contradicts the concept of the Big Bang being the start of everything. Also if you consider a universe to contain a huge, but ultimately finite amount of matter and photons, then if everything is not sucked back in with each crunch, even if that amount is only an amount of photons, then the bang gets smaller and smaller with each instance. Also that would mean that the universe is equal in size to the speed of light times the time of the very first bang, if there ever was one. So the theory must maintain that the Big Crunch pulls EVERYTHING back in.

Well usually our attention is focused at the beginning (Big Bang) and the end (Big Crunch) but I think we need to look at the midpoint.

So let us imagine we are at the very outer reaches of space riding along with the furthest light waves in the universe. The time occurs when the gravity behind us is so great, we will go back to where we began.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2178 Aug 17, 2013
Part 5

Or will we?

In this case, the gravitational forces must act upon the furthest light waves and slow them down little by little until...

We can imagine at some point the exact moment when the light waves reach their zenith where their outward force exactly matches the gravitational pull. In other words, light is stopped altogether. I'm sure Einstein would've loved to try to consider what this scenario should be like. Maybe he did. I'm not sure.

The most realistic way around this bizarre scenario is to imagine that the pull is not precise and simply turns the light wave in a large slowing arc until they head back in the other direction.

This case creates a possible scenario where if we place ourselves in the right place at the right time (In the light waves path on their return trip) It would be possible to look forward any observe the universe forming behind us. Of course we couldn't turn around and watch the crunch at the same time since the gravity would presumably pull all tell tale light back into itself. Again, this is a very strange effect to imagine.

In either case it is hard to imagine the situation of a gravity so strong that ALL light photons would eventually be stopped before reversing course or arcing back to the beginning. This is not to say that this can't happen, but on a universe wide scale this would indeed be an interesting phenomenon to work out.

Issue #5: Problem of the edge

Another problem with an expanding universe theory is the presupposition that an edge to the universe must exist.

We have already shown that the empty space ahead of all matter exists in the universe as well, so what is at the edge of the universe? Let's look at it logically.

Let us imagine the edge of all space and time as a barrier of some kind. An impenetrable barrier enclosing all space, both empty and occupied through which matter and time can not pass. The edge of the universe must be something of this nature, right?

Any barrier, no matter what shape, size, composition, thickness, etc. always has two important sides: The side holding the contents and the opposite side, which is furthest away from the contents. Both sides always have a defined edge and therefore something on the other side of each edge. In this theoretical case, one edge touches the universe.

http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2179 Aug 17, 2013
Part 6

The simple question that should come to mind then is: What is at the other side of the barrier?

With this basic understanding, we must conclude that anything on the other side of this "barrier", even if it's pure empty space must also be a part of the universe. Even if the other side consists of space/matter that doesn't conform to any law of physics currently known to man, it does still exist, and therefore must be included in the list of "Everything that exists anywhere" and therefore is part of the universe.

This means that any imagined barrier to the universe can not exist.

OK so just for thoroughness let's take away an assumption: Let's assume that the aforementioned "barrier" has no other side. To do this it must be a barrier of infinite thickness. Anything less would create another "side" as mentioned above.

OK so we now have a barrier of unknown composition and infinite thickness enclosing the entire universe.

What's wrong with this picture? Simple: Any barrier, no matter what it's made of, how impenetrable or how thick is still a part of this universe. Even a barrier of a thickness of 10,001,000 googolplex light-years (Trust me that's VERY thick) is still a part of this universe. The fact that we can't analyze it, penetrate it or get any information on its internal composition doesn't mean that isn't a part of the universe.

So if the barrier to the universe is infinite in thickness and since the barrier is part of the universe, the universe is also infinite in size.

If no barrier to the universe exists, then the universe is still infinite in size.

If the outermost edge of the universe is completely empty space then the universe is still infinite in size.

Ultimate conclusion: The universe is infinite in size at all times.

Since this is the case, the big bang becomes not the creation of the universe, but only a major occurrence during its existence.

The birth of a tree
How old would a tree be in the year 2002 if the seed start sprouting back in 1921? The obvious answer is 81 years old.

But how old is the seed? How long did it exist before it started sprouting? How long ago was it on the tree from which it sprouted? How old is the mother tree?

The basic information given can't give us the full picture in terms of multigenerational questions.

If a Big Bang actually occurred, the most likely scenario is that is part of a cycle of explosion, contraction, explosion and contraction ad infinitum. One explosion is simply one generation of an infinite life span. In fact, my guess is that Big Bangs happen in multiple places at different times.

The universe is infinite in size and time
Time had no beginning and will have no end
In other words, the universe is infinite in size, has always existed and will never end.

Why do I believe these concepts? Simply because any other explanation I've found runs into many of the same problems. Mainly: "But what happened before that?"

The funny part is that most opponents to these truths I show usually don't like the concept of an infinitely sized, never-beginning, never-ending universe. Then they try to hurt these arguments with rebuttal theories involving something equally large such as an infinite sized barrier or an infinitely powered deity.

I would like to hear if you have another plausible more logical explanation than a never-ending universe.

Judged:

3

3

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#2180 Aug 18, 2013
God/Allah did it is enough for christians and muslims it's so much easier than thinking
Thinking

Royston, UK

#2182 Aug 18, 2013
Bollocks.

Show me one post where I disagree with this statement: Pluto is usually farther from the Earth or Sun than Neptune is.

But you said Pluto is "past Neptune", when relative to us, they are in quite different directions today. It's a bit like saying something 10 miles East of here is past something 8 miles North of here.

If only you'd used the word "farther"... back to school with you, twart! Stop revising history, your posts are well "past" it!
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>

Pluto is past Neptune.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2183 Aug 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Part 6
The simple question that should come to mind then is: What is at the other side of the barrier?
With this basic understanding, we must conclude that anything on the other side of this "barrier", even if it's pure empty space must also be a part of the universe. Even if the other side consists of space/matter that doesn't conform to any law of physics currently known to man, it does still exist, and therefore must be included in the list of "Everything that exists anywhere" and therefore is part of the universe.
This means that any imagined barrier to the universe can not exist.
OK so just for thoroughness let's take away an assumption: Let's assume that the aforementioned "barrier" has no other side. To do this it must be a barrier of infinite thickness. Anything less would create another "side" as mentioned above.
OK so we now have a barrier of unknown composition and infinite thickness enclosing the entire universe.
What's wrong with this picture? Simple: Any barrier, no matter what it's made of, how impenetrable or how thick is still a part of this universe. Even a barrier of a thickness of 10,001,000 googolplex light-years (Trust me that's VERY thick) is still a part of this universe. The fact that we can't analyze it, penetrate it or get any information on its internal composition doesn't mean that isn't a part of the universe.
So if the barrier to the universe is infinite in thickness and since the barrier is part of the universe, the universe is also infinite in size.
If no barrier to the universe exists, then the universe is still infinite in size.
If the outermost edge of the universe is completely empty space then the universe is still infinite in size.
Ultimate conclusion: The universe is infinite in size at all times.
Since this is the case, the big bang becomes not the creation of the universe, but only a major occurrence during its existence.
The birth of a tree
How old would a tree be in the year 2002 if the seed start sprouting back in 1921? The obvious answer is 81 years old.
But how old is the seed? How long did it exist before it started sprouting? How long ago was it on the tree from which it sprouted? How old is the mother tree?
The basic information given can't give us the full picture in terms of multigenerational questions.
If a Big Bang actually occurred, the most likely scenario is that is part of a cycle of explosion, contraction, explosion and contraction ad infinitum. One explosion is simply one generation of an infinite life span. In fact, my guess is that Big Bangs happen in multiple places at different times.
The universe is infinite in size and time
Time had no beginning and will have no end
In other words, the universe is infinite in size, has always existed and will never end.
Why do I believe these concepts? Simply because any other explanation I've found runs into many of the same problems. Mainly: "But what happened before that?"
The funny part is that most opponents to these truths I show usually don't like the concept of an infinitely sized, never-beginning, never-ending universe. Then they try to hurt these arguments with rebuttal theories involving something equally large such as an infinite sized barrier or an infinitely powered deity.
I would like to hear if you have another plausible more logical explanation than a never-ending universe.
As usual, mentally ill creationists don't know when to shut the f*ck up about their cult in the atheism forum.
LCNlin

United States

#2184 Aug 18, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, mentally ill creationists don't know when to shut the f*ck up about their cult in the atheism forum.
Revealing, your references to mental illness.
So far in ten thousand posts you have NOT proved atheism.

Your reference to "....f*ck..." is not a proof!

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2185 Aug 18, 2013
LCNlin wrote:
<quoted text>
Revealing, your references to mental illness.
So far in ten thousand posts you have NOT proved atheism.
Your reference to "....f*ck..." is not a proof!
You make ignorance look so easy.

When you're brave enough to prove your god instead of lie about it, you will become smarter in the worlds eyes.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2186 Aug 18, 2013
LCNlin wrote:
<quoted text>
Revealing, your references to mental illness.
So far in ten thousand posts you have NOT proved atheism.
Your reference to "....f*ck..." is not a proof!
Atheism is correct and always has been. What you need to do is simply prove your god or f*ck off.

Its been that simple since the dawn of time itself, but a mental illness is an illness after all.

Instead of proving your cult true, you reject science altogether - the ultimate cowardice and psychological denialism.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2187 Aug 18, 2013
This denial of reality + your arrogance and inability to defend it is what makes you look so stupid here time and time again.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2188 Aug 18, 2013
Mikko wrote:
God/Allah did it is enough for christians and muslims it's so much easier than thinking
Where did time come from mikko?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2189 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Show me one post where I disagree with this statement: Pluto is usually farther from the Earth or Sun than Neptune is.

But you said Pluto is "past Neptune", when relative to us, they are in quite different directions today. It's a bit like saying something 10 miles East of here is past something 8 miles North of here.

If only you'd used the word "farther"... back to school with you, twart! Stop revising history, your posts are well "past" it!
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>What percentage of the time is that wrong?
Nearly 50%.
So I don't really think you're an authority on "Pluto's place", twart.

50%. LMFAO

What a dolt!

"Is Pluto sometimes closer to us than Neptune?

Because Pluto has an orbit around the sun which is very elliptical, there are times when it crosses Neptune's orbit and is actually closer to the sun than Neptune. This happened recently during a twenty year period from 1979 to 1999. For now, Pluto is back to being farther away from the sun than Neptune. It will be more than 230 years before Pluto and Neptune trade places again. Pluto slips inside of Neptune's orbit once every 248 Earth years for a period of twenty years."

That's less then 10%.

What a nut job.

Oh and it will be 230 more years that I'm right with my comment.

Ya you sure showed me. Bawhahaha

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2190 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Twart's posts are well "past" it.
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>What percentage of the time is that wrong?
Nearly 50%.
So I don't really think you're an authority on "Pluto's place", twart.

50%. LMFAO

What a dolt!

"Is Pluto sometimes closer to us than Neptune?

Because Pluto has an orbit around the sun which is very elliptical, there are times when it crosses Neptune's orbit and is actually closer to the sun than Neptune. This happened recently during a twenty year period from 1979 to 1999. For now, Pluto is back to being farther away from the sun than Neptune. It will be more than 230 years before Pluto and Neptune trade places again. Pluto slips inside of Neptune's orbit once every 248 Earth years for a period of twenty years."

That's less then 10%.

What a nut job.

Oh and it will be 230 more years that I'm right with my comment.

Ya you sure showed me. Bawhahaha

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2191 Aug 18, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>Just because you are clueless about orbital mechanics is not my problem

The distance between Pluto and earth (or the sun) and the distance between Neptune and the earth (or the sun) depends entirely on the time of year of each planet and not on some pretty childish picture of the solar system you used to study your abysmal knowledge of astronomy.

P.S what is a san attempt? I would be gratefull if you could clarify your attempt at speaking English, perhaps you mean senior advocate of nigeria? Or storage area network? I really have no idea what ignorant abuse your were trying to convey here.
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>What percentage of the time is that wrong?
Nearly 50%.
So I don't really think you're an authority on "Pluto's place", twart.

50%. LMFAO

What a dolt!

"Is Pluto sometimes closer to us than Neptune?

Because Pluto has an orbit around the sun which is very elliptical, there are times when it crosses Neptune's orbit and is actually closer to the sun than Neptune. This happened recently during a twenty year period from 1979 to 1999. For now, Pluto is back to being farther away from the sun than Neptune. It will be more than 230 years before Pluto and Neptune trade places again. Pluto slips inside of Neptune's orbit once every 248 Earth years for a period of twenty years."

That's less then 10%.

What a nut job.

Oh and it will be 230 more years that I'm right with my comment.

Ya you sure showed me. Bawhahaha

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2192 Aug 18, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, as several people have shown you on several occasions you are wrong, all you need to do now is grow yourself a set of balls and become man enough to admit it.

It is astronomically factual that Pluto is closer to the Sun than Neptune for around 8% of its orbit. Have a look at the NASA explanation to provide yourself with a little light education, something you are so obviously lacking.

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild...

Not my problem that you are so stupid you donÃ‚Â’t even realise it however your will be glad to know that such a disability does have a name, it is called the Dunning Kruger effect, perhaps something else you could look up and learn about. Eh?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-p...

.

Thank you for acknowledging your error Ã‚Â– oh wait a moment, you didnÃ‚Â’t did you? Your problem seems to be complete lack of balls. However It leaves me with the knowledge that you either ignore your spell checker or you suffer yet another disability, that of dyslexic.

From reading your posts that indicate an extremely high degree of ignorance concerning anything scientific, even by the high standards of ignorance set by funnymentalist godbots of any religion then it is my theory that that you are just ignorant.

BTW, I do not suffer Seasonal Affective Disorder
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>What percentage of the time is that wrong?
Nearly 50%.
So I don't really think you're an authority on "Pluto's place", twart.

50%. LMFAO

What a dolt!

"Is Pluto sometimes closer to us than Neptune?

Because Pluto has an orbit around the sun which is very elliptical, there are times when it crosses Neptune's orbit and is actually closer to the sun than Neptune. This happened recently during a twenty year period from 1979 to 1999. For now, Pluto is back to being farther away from the sun than Neptune. It will be more than 230 years before Pluto and Neptune trade places again. Pluto slips inside of Neptune's orbit once every 248 Earth years for a period of twenty years."

That's less then 10%.

What a nut job.

Oh and it will be 230 more years that I'm right with my comment.

Ya you sure showed me. Bawhahaha

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2193 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Bollocks.

Show me one post where I disagree with this statement: Pluto is usually farther from the Earth or Sun than Neptune is.

But you said Pluto is "past Neptune", when relative to us, they are in quite different directions today. It's a bit like saying something 10 miles East of here is past something 8 miles North of here.

If only you'd used the word "farther"... back to school with you, twart! Stop revising history, your posts are well "past" it!
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>What percentage of the time is that wrong?
Nearly 50%.
So I don't really think you're an authority on "Pluto's place", twart.

50%. LMFAO

What a dolt!

"Is Pluto sometimes closer to us than Neptune?

Because Pluto has an orbit around the sun which is very elliptical, there are times when it crosses Neptune's orbit and is actually closer to the sun than Neptune. This happened recently during a twenty year period from 1979 to 1999. For now, Pluto is back to being farther away from the sun than Neptune. It will be more than 230 years before Pluto and Neptune trade places again. Pluto slips inside of Neptune's orbit once every 248 Earth years for a period of twenty years."

That's less then 10%.

What a nut job.

Oh and it will be 230 more years that I'm right with my comment.

Ya you sure showed me. Bawhahaha

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#2194 Aug 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm...
Exploding the Big Bang Theory
More spam that only shows you don't understand the first thing about the Big Bang theory. Nor, for that matter does the person you copied this from.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#2195 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>More spam that only shows you don't understand the first thing about the Big Bang theory. Nor, for that matter does the person you copied this from.
Come up with a way out of your Box yet?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#2196 Aug 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Come up with a way out of your Box yet?

Instead of proving your cult true, you reject science altogether - the ultimate cowardice, intellectual dishonesty and psychological denialism.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#2197 Aug 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did time come from mikko?
Not from a god

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.