Originally posted by Metal Brain This was before all of your examples took place.
And so? Can you answer my questions or not?
Like Humy, you are just relying on opinions that have not been verified and probably cannot ever be. In what way? Which opinions am I relying on, and why can't they be verified?
How do you know for sure? Convince me. How do I know what exactly? And why should I convince you?
Originally posted by Metal Brain "How is the fact that it happened before life existed relevant to whether we can deduce from the data how it happened?"
What data? Enlighten me.
"no, there was no 'before' space/time and we are not claiming that there was and that is not part of the big bang theory because there being a before time is a logical contradiction. Can't you see that? Yo ...[text shortened]... opinion and nothing more. Try thinking for yourself instead of letting others do your thinking.
"How is the fact that it happened before life existed relevant to whether we can deduce from the data how it happened?"
You are saying lots of things but not proving any of it.
See above
Space cannot expand without time expanding.
Yet another nonsense statement: what does “time expanding” mean? You can have “spacetime expanding” but not just “time expanding”. Perhaps you would like to elaborate?
The big bang theory doesn't say "time expands" nor words of that effect because "time expands" is nonsense.
The big bang theory doesn't say anything, people do
The fact that there has to be people to state it doesn't change the fact that a stated theory always says something else it is not a stated theory by definition.
Try thinking for yourself instead of letting others do your thinking.
I come to believe the evidence because I think for myself. Why can't you?
Originally posted by Metal Brain This was before all of your examples took place. Like Humy, you are just relying on opinions that have not been verified and probably cannot ever be.
How do you know for sure? Convince me.
You can find a decent summary of the evidence for the occurance of the Big Bang on Wikipedia.
All of your examples are not even similar to the big bang theory.
they are similar in the one way that counts; we can deduce from the data that the events happened without anyone being there at the event to witness the event thus debunking your claim we cannot know that an event occurred if nobody witnessed it.
[quote] That took plac ...[text shortened]... an explosion although it is very often misquoted as saying it does and by many flawed websites.
"there was no 'before' space/time"
Hawking disagrees with you. Do you disagree with him?
Originally posted by DeepThought I have demonstrated that there is evidence that the laws of physics have not changed in the last 13.7 billion years. I have proved my case beyond any sane doubt. If you read the article you posted properly you will see that Hawking says that the laws of physics break down at the beginning of time. He does not say that they break down or change at any other time in the universes history.
This is what Hawking said in the link I provided you:
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."
I never said that the laws of physics break down at any other time in the universes history. If you read what I posted properly you would know that.
Originally posted by Metal Brain I have never disputed the big bang theory. All I claimed was that the assertion that there was no explosion cannot be proved.
If the Big Bang theory is true, it trivially follows there was no explosion.
Originally posted by twhitehead And so? Can you answer my questions or not?
[b]Like Humy, you are just relying on opinions that have not been verified and probably cannot ever be. In what way? Which opinions am I relying on, and why can't they be verified?
How do you know for sure? Convince me. How do I know what exactly? And why should I convince you?[/b]
"In what way? Which opinions am I relying on, and why can't they be verified?"
The assertion that the big bang was not an explosion. I am asking for proof because I don't believe anybody has it. That is all I dispute. Many posters on here seem to think I am disputing the big bang theory which is not the case at all. Can't you people read?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra If the Big Bang theory is true, it trivially follows there was no explosion.
Prove it then. That is all I am asking for. Humy claimed he had data to prove it, but posted a link that did nothing of the sort. I'm hoping you or someone else can do better.
Originally posted by Metal Brain Prove it then. That is all I am asking for. Humy claimed he had data to prove it, but posted a link that did nothing of the sort. I'm hoping you or someone else can do better.
The Big Bang theory does not describe an "explosion" in the common sense.
Originally posted by Metal Brain This is what Hawking said in the link I provided you:
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."
I nev ...[text shortened]... any other time in the universes history. If you read what I posted properly you would know that.
In your first post in this thread, post 4, you stated that there was no evidence for what sonhouse and twhitehead were saying because they weren't there. Since they were replying to of Ants and Imps who had disputed the constancy of the laws of physics in the last sentence of his post I naturally assumed you were defending that claim. If you were replying to Ants&Imps and not to sonhouse then you should have made that clear using the reply to widget. In any case my general observation, that there is evidence of what happened in earlier epochs holds. Further there was nothing in Hawkings lecture notes that contradicts anything I've said here.
Actually there is some disputable evidence for time before the Big Bang. The speculative idea of an eternal universe in which some regions undergo rapid expansion and bud "baby universes" which in turn produce more baby universes has some currency within the theoretical physics community.
Incidentally time doesn't expand. The volume of space increases with time, this is what is meant by expansion of space. It's impossible to produce a sensible equivalent sentence for time, it would be something like: by expansion of time we mean the length of time increasing with with the length of time...
Originally posted by DeepThought In your first post in this thread, post 4, you stated that there was no evidence for what sonhouse and twhitehead were saying because they weren't there. Since they were replying to of Ants and Imps who had disputed the constancy of the laws of physics in the last sentence of his post I naturally assumed you were defending that claim. If you were reply ...[text shortened]... like: by expansion of time we mean the length of time increasing with with the length of time...
"Further there was nothing in Hawkings lecture notes that contradicts anything I've said here."
What Humy said contradicts Hawking, you are making the claim that because we can see back in time by observing stars and galaxies we have proof the big bang was not an explosion. Explosion or not, we can't see back that far. Do you agree or disagree?
25 Aug '14 05:42
NASA has said the big bang is a misnomer
Back to Top