Oh for the love of....dude. YES. YES SCIENTISTS CAN PROVE THAT THE FUCKING BIG BANG HAPPENED. It's not a question of IF it happened. Theoretical physicists are trying to figure out how. not if. Basic knowledge of physics is all you need to prove that it did happen.

If you are going to lambast a subject at least have a working knowledge of its fundamental properties you stubborn stubborn little man.

 

If there is anyone with any genuine interest in the subject then read:

*not_secure_link*www.universetoday.com/11430/the-end-of-everything/

 

:shock:

so don't go buying ripe bananas people.

 

It is bullshit. It hasn't been falsified because there is nothing to falsify. It contains a self-contradiction and doesn't even qualify as a conjecture, much less as an attempt to explain anything.

 

?

Creationism?

Yes, it is bullshit, but it does not help to yell about it, young man.


It is a theory in the minds of many. It is simple enough to falsify, but one must go through the motions of doing so. Not that it convinces them.

As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church allowed the Big Bang Theory to stand (and did not hold Lemaitre accused of heresy) on the claim that it validated the Biblical story of Creation by corroborating the Bible's claim that the universe had a beginning.

The big problem with the Biblical account is not so much its claim that the universe had a beginning, as the rest of the Old Testament, which chronicles the genealogy from Adam to Christ and puts the age of the earth, since the Creation of the universe, at less than 10,000 years old. (Roughly 9,000, as memory serves, though accounts do tend to vary.)

This is clearly bunk, and is easily falsified in countless ways, not least of which being the fact that we can see the sun. This would be impossible if the universe were only 10,000 years old. To see the sun with the naked eye, the solar system would have to be at 100,000 years old. (And according to the Bible, the universe and the solar system are one and the same.)

Of course, there are other concrete ways to falsify creation. The existence of heavy elements up to iron in the sun, for instance.

And then, Cepheid variables are a problem. Cepheid Variables are standard astronomical candles that allow us to get a rough approximation of the distances to the nearest galaxies. Andromeda, for instance, is roughly 2.54 million light years away, and was already old at the time the ancients could see it as a tiny blur with the naked eye and worked it into astrological charts. They believed the earth to be flat and approximately 10,000 years old, covered by a solid shell called the firmament, yet they were drawing diagrams containing a feature of the cosmos that proved the world to be at least three million years old and far bigger than God could possibly have imagined. (Or else we would have read about a much bigger universe in the Bible.)

Oh, well.

I still think Capnip is just joshing everyone for laughs.

 

Ok, you want to get serious on this subject? I have plenty of time right now to show how false you BBT is. Let's see if you can answer this question. Can you?

If black holes represent the ultimate density of matter in the universe and they, like the one at the center of our Milky-Way, may be light-years in diameter, then, how is it possible that the whole universe could be shrunk to the size of a proton? So black holes are not the ultimate density?

 

Easy peasy.

The diameter of a black hole's event horizon is determined by its mass, and its entropy is determined by the event horizon's surface area.

The universe prior to the big bang was much, much smaller than a proton. Trillions of times smaller, in fact (roughly the Planck Length, i.e., the diameter of a superstring). It was this small, because its mass and entropy were very small.

The mass of the universe increased as it expanded. Its entropy increased, too.

Initially the universe had the topology of a quintic surface of eleven dimensions or more, yet its entropy was still quite small, because the Planck Length is trillions of times smaller than an electron. Its entropy took on a more spherical topology through several stages of symmetry-breaking, but a hypersphere, in order to accommodate time.

Time was created with the Big Bang, too. Time is one of the broken symmetries.

That is why it is nonsensical to ask what came before the universe. There was no before, because there was no time. That is also why a Creator-God is nonsensical. God could not have existed before the universe, in order to create it, because there could not have been a before.

At any rate, the expansion of time, mass, and entropy with the expansion of the universe is why it has not been called the Big Bang Theory for at least forty years.

It is called Inflation Theory.

 

seriously. this is the best you could come up with?

how could something that evolved after the BB be more dense than the BB itself?

Black Holes occupy a finite space. The singularity that ignited into the BB was all of space and time and matter and energy.

Black Holes are the core remnants of super massive stars. stars evolved after the BB.

any of this getting through to you or are there too many notions of talking snakes and winged angels blocking the path?

 

A marine is no different than the army, they all pieces of shit! I would have no problem saying that to your face. i do feel sorry for you, and all military since most of their wives and gf's sleep around on them when they're overseas. How many times were you cheated on? i could go for a lower hit, but I'm too nice for that since you're sufferring from it already.
I already stated that I'm up for a friendly debate on this topic, not in those words. You want to continue this is a better manner, then quit bashing my religion and beliefs. My first post was worded wrong. If someone wants to believe in the bbt, fine tell me something though if the bbt supposedly created all matter and the planets, why are they round? i guarantee a stick of dynomite insode a bowling ball would not create round pieces. Motion, gravity, and time caused the pieces to become round you say? I've never seen a round comet or asteroid. They have been around just as long as the planets and satelites. Why are some of them not round either? The gases and pices coalesced in gravity wells that swirled and formed the palnets? so you're telling me that coincidentally there were pockets of gravity in certain places that just happened to be perfect? especially Earth, with it's perfect distance from the sun so that life could form. How probable is it that these gravity wells just happened to be spaced so individual planets could form?

 

If we were in person I'd hug and kiss you right now. no homo. :neutral:

This bit of logic I just quoted here is so blatantly obvious to me it amazes me that more people haven't figured this out on their own.

 

No, science says that black holess have the mostdensity of anything out there or that was ever out there including bb's. Also, the bible doesn't talk about a talking snake, it describes a serpent, which could be many things. The bible never described angels with wings. When the first pope died, they put angels on his casket, the engraver added wings to these angels and ever since then, people associate angels with wings.

 

You see this shit? all this shit? if you'd spent just a little time investigating it you wouldn't have to come on a porn forum asking questions that a 12 year old doing basic physics should know you lazy bum.

What time period do you live in the 1400's?

Do you know anything about gravity or centrifugal force? If not you don't have the academic or intellectual gravitas to be debating this subject.

Go jerk of to Asian porn or something. You're in way over your stupid little head here.

 

Can't answer it can you? Explain to me how there just happened to be individual gravity pockets to form all this shit in the universe instead of one giant ass gravity well which would cause all the matter to coalese into one formation? See you try to talk big, but you can't explain shit when a valid point is brought up to punch a hole in your theory.

 

*not_secure_link*corsi.c.o.pic.centerblog.net/xgcjs6hf.gif

wait...:shock:

*not_secure_link*www.frexx.de/sburns.jpg

 

Keep posting this stuff cause you know you can't answer the questions. Nice try though

 

Here's my reply. Fuck you you lazy, uneducated twat.

We're in the year 2012 and you are asking why the planets are round?

Who are you? one of Christopher Columbus' ship mates who was sent forward in time?

 

watch this video. this video was meant for CHILDREN. you're a grown ass man.

for shame.

[YOUTUBE]iUMMKQhCXqU[/YOUTUBE]