Isn't the Big Bang theory just one big joke?

0  2016-09-19 by factsnotfeelings

Every recorded explosion in human history has been destructive, are we supposed to believe that this one time, an explosion somehow produced al chemical elements, all subatomic particles etc.

The basis of this theory is that the universe is expanding and therefore must have been small at one point.

There is no physical evidence that the universe is expanding, however.

The red shifted light we see could just as easily be caused by chromatic aberration due to the glass sky (google it).

Nobody has proven that the Doppler effect seen in sound waves is possible in light waves.

Sound waves are a change in pressure amongst air molecules, light is essentially packs of photons.

Why would we assume that the Doppler effect is possible in light?

51 comments

Ok so what is your belief in how the universe came to existence?

And you haven't disproven the big bang theory at all. Just because you don't understand the principles behind it doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Edit: love the down votes with no explanation or counter argument. Cowardly move. I'll be here to refute any claims and maybe we can all learn something. Discussion is always better than down voting and running away.

How about no starting point? An infinite universe has no beginning and no end.

In a physical sense, sure. Does that mean there's infinite time?

Our universe has no physical beginning or end because we don't count what isn't space. What is 'not space'? What is nothing?

How can you say the universe has no end in terms of time? Do you have proof of this claim?

As much evidence as the Big Bang.

Are you going to provide it? Or just keep talking out of your ass?

Do you believe that your 5 senses give you an adequate representation of reality?

Are you going to answer my question?

My 5 senses are the only tools given to me to understand reality, thus I must make do with the tools given to me.

Are you going to answer my question?

I'm not sure what proof you want. can you prove to me that the universe has an ending?

Do you believe that people who ingest substances or otherwise naturally end up having an altered perception of reality either from an injury or birth anomaly are perceiving the same reality you are?

If they are seeing the same reality Is it not logical to conclude that there are all kinds of things happening around us that we simply do not pick up on?

This opens up the realm of the immaterial where things no longer need to be defined by the laws that your senses perceive. Our senses tell us that everything has a beginning and an ending but can we trust our senses? I don't think so.

You're speaking of a result of chemical reactions caused by drugs. Alter the brain's chemistry and you can experience some crazy shit, sure. That doesn't mean spiritual or metaphysical things exist. I mean, what about if you go blind because of some alteration in your brain? Does the hniverse become the void that you see? No, you just altered how your brain perceives the universe from one or mlre of your senses. That's what happens during drugs, sleep, and near-death experiences. There is a physical, rational experience for what you described so why believe in what you cannot observe?

Also, there are a few qualities scientific models must follow and one of these is predictability. That is, it must be able to predict an event that has not occurred within the system's time frame. If a model is predictable, you can use this model to extrapolate outside of the time frame into either the past or the future. A good example of this is gravity. Pick a ball up at 3 meters and drop it and I know it will hit the ground in ~0.78246079643 seconds +/- some minute uncertainty for air friction, where on the earth (mountain vs a sub in the Marianas trench), mass of the object, etc.

Using this same principle, physicists use the same models of physics (which are predictable in our time frame when tested) and are able to extrapolate outside of the given time frame to understand how the universe will interact. Heat death/entropy is the most accepted view of how the universe will end iirc. The big crunch is second due to our lack of understanding of dark matter and dark energy. Heat death is what I lean towards because, given the evidence presented, is the event that lies closest to our model's predictable behavior.

So idk how many times I need to ask, but are you going to answer my question?

And if you don't have evidence, why believe something to be truth when there is no evidence to lead to that conclusion? What's to stop you from believing leprachauns riding dragons created the universe?

Always follow where the evidence points. Always find the simplest explanation given the evidence presented.

And are you going to answer my question?

The man asked you if yoy had evidence. You said you had as much as there is about the Big Bang. He then politely asked you to go on and share the evidence. You're response was "I'm not sure what proof you want".

He probably wants as much evidence as there is about the Big Bang, like you said you had.

So... He wants zero proof?

No. something like physics models and logical explanations that are widely accepted by most of the planets best scientists. You know like, some rational thoughts, the kind smart people think.

You're the sort of guy who can give it but can't take it

Give n take what?

Everything has a beginning and end. The time frame is just irrelevant to us because we are incapable of understanding periods of billions of years.

You clearly don't understand any of the phenomena you are attempting to talk about.

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it was a rapid expansion.

Makes more sense than "a big sky man snapped his fingers and infinity appeared"

Well, no not really. Sure, the big bang happened, but how existence can even be a thing does not make any more sense than big sky man snapped his fingers. They are both equally impossible.

No, the big sky man with a snap is twice of imposible.

Something, cannot come from nothing...

Quantum physics are basically that in a nutshell.

Oh, and, in common physics, electrons are never in the same place. They are always teleporting.

Age old debate of Idealism v. Materialism (modern physics). Simulation theory (idealism) is more plausible than the Big Bang (materialism)..

How can there be a simulation of this universe without another universe in which this simulation is run?

Every recorded explosion in human history has been destructive,

There was nothing to destruct.

[removed]

Stupidity is in the eye of the beholder.

You're right about so much, but why do you start bringing it towards this flat earth garbage angle? Don't you understand that the flat earth is a psyop meant to take you in the wrong direction? I see you understand that modern physics is a lot of crap, and I completely agree with you, but taking it in that direction is not the right answer. The right answer is to prove them wrong with real mathematics and watch them squirm, like Miles Mathis has done. Light cannot be redshifted and it is bundles of individual photons. Photons also create the charge field, the very real charge field that surrounds the earth. This field is a simple bombardment field of individual photons, as you suggested. Please check out the source I sent you, and drop the flat earth/concave earth garbage!

http://milesmathis.com/index.html

it's a theory... got anything better to propose?

Can it be equally good? Because then i can propose an infinity of models...

Probably not.

If the Doppler effect didn't work on light waves, radar and lidar wouldn't work. They work, therefore, electromagnetic waves do indeed undergo Doppler shifts when there is a relative velocity between the emitter and detector.

The big bang wasn't really an explosion. It's more accurate to think of it like a balloon filling with air. Also, the big bang didn't form all the elements, it formed H (and maybe He), the rest were formed via nucleosynthesis.

A joke? You mean like Hilary's campaign? Seems like this is a classic distraction post.

not everything is politics. jesus people, wake the fuck up.

Everything is sound. There. I said it.

More like, vibrations...

I said that yo.

Eta: get out of my brain, Putin. Lol

How can everything be sound? lol

The same way everything can be light or matter. I know that's not really an acceptable answer, but I'm not sure r/conspiracy is the place to discuss it.

We don't know how the universe began, that's the only fact here. A scalar vibrational reality is no more far-fetched than any other "approved" scientific dogma.

In fact, it's less far-fetched than what passes as physics today, you'd be really challenged to come up with a theory all your own that could be as ridiculous as "quantum physics".

Thanks, kind person. :)

Btw, I didn't downvote you for asking a legit question.

More on this, if we observe redshift from 99% of observable galaxies, doesn't that make us at or near the center of the expansion?

The Big Bang is complete nonsense. It is equally as dogmatic as any religion. It is designed to breed generations of nihilists that can be easily manipulated.

Your confusion is simply down to the fact that you havent read up about it.

In an expansion everything is moving way from everything else.

The model used to explain this is usually the following:

Blow up a ballon a little bit, and then draw dots on the surface of the balloon. Now blow up the balloon some more - the space between the dots increases. This would apply to a 3D model too.

[deleted]

Not sure how you expect me to respond to that. Perhaps?

Edit: Ah, I see this has been linked in Top Minds. I would love to elaborate but you are only here to scoff.

I assume with your superior intellect you are able to read the first rule of your precious community?

Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will shadowban your account if they catch you.

It appears you are on a tirade of commenting on threads from that sub. Tssk Tssk...

Fine, but I have a serious question. How is the Big Bang theory designed to breed generations of nihilists that are easily manipulated?

The logical conclusion of the big bang is that we are all random and meaningless. Our lives, as well as our galaxy, are a product of random collisions of particles over millions of years. The human condition that we experience came about due to natural selection and our consciousness is merely a mechanical phenomenon that takes place within our brains.

There is no significance to where we are, there is no significance to our lives or our actions, we simply live out our days here and accumulate all of the things we can because once we die, that's it. Without your material body, you don't exist.

If you believe this, then what difference does it make what you choose to do? You are a cosmic accident after all, you are far removed from any sort of creator or overseer (most don't even believe that there is one.)

This makes people hopeless, confused, and nihilistic. Where do people find meaning for their lives? They find it in their jobs, and they find it in their things. This breeds materialism and moral relativism.

Believing that our universe spontaneously emerged from the void randomly is equally as dogmatic as believing that God snapped his fingers and created it. The difference is that in one theory your existence is meaningless, and in the other your existence has a purpose. (Although I am unsure what it is.)

The big bang stifles any query into who we are and what we are here for because it insinuates that it is all random and meaningless.

As long as the masses believe they are meaningless, they will do just about anything that is asked of them in order to be comfortable during their life. That means it is commonplace for people to work the vast majority of their life doing something that they hate just to make their breif and meaningless stay here a bit more enjoyable.

Meanwhile the fruits of our labors are restricted from us and consolidated into the hands of the few, and there isn't much that any one person can do about it, so why even bother?

That is nihilism, and the big bang is the initial premise IMO.

I know many people who are materialistic but not nihilists, I also know many people who are nihilists and anything but materialistic.

But religious people who find meaning in life by serving God, are controlled far easier.

No. something like physics models and logical explanations that are widely accepted by most of the planets best scientists. You know like, some rational thoughts, the kind smart people think.