First off, Rules:
1. No Religious nuts! I consider myself spiritual, but I'm also open minded so I don't want any "Jesus! That's how!" style comments.
2. Comments should contain either proof (please cite, I want to know), or reason (logical reasoning).
3. Opinions are welcome, but again, please explain the reasoning behind them.
Second off, purpose:
I'm not a scientist and I'm making the below assumptions based only on what I myself have learned from others' research. If you know more, that's what I'm looking for. That and a friendly debate.
Onward!
I watched a show last night that covered the Big Bang Theory, I believe it was "How The Universe Works", Ep.1, "The Big Bang".
In it scientists (and some very well renowned ones) were explaining the beginning moments of the Universe. They described how they came to some of the conclusions, but not others.
I gotta tell you, some of the things they spoke about like they are scientific fact, were absolutely preposterous (IMHO) and don't even pass a smell test! Now, I get the logic behind why we believe that everything started from a big bang, specifically the Universe's expansion.... it only seems reasonable that if everything is headed in an 'outward' direction, it must have come from a point of intense singularity. However, some other things they were stating as fact were a little hard to swallow. Specifically:
When the Big Bang initially happened, most everything happened within a single second. In this second, there was a huge fight between matter and anti-matter where there proved to be more matter than anti-matter. Thus, everything you see around you is the 'left-over' matter from all of it colliding and cancelling each other out.
My Beef: That claim would mean anti-matter was wiped out of existence (if matter came out on top... anti-matter must be gone). So why do we believe it still to exist? Or am I confusing this with dark matter?
During the first few planck units, matter would pop in and out of existence. As the universe expanded and subsequently cooled, matter became for permanent, producing what you see around you. The physical manifestation of energy as stagnant matter.
My Beef: Our ventures into quantum physics have shown that matter still does this, all the time, so that whole thought process is out. We have been able to observe that in the black of space, energy will collide, create matter which breaks down and moves on. Even the matter we see around us that we believe to be very permanent is constantly popping in and out of existence.
Now, I'm no physicist. However, as a being of reason, I would know that even my most internally accurate assumptions of how things worked 14 Billion years ago are still assumptions. I can build a computer generated model to prove my point, but I'm only serving to fulfill my own assumptions based on a model that I created the variables for. Therefore, I'm defining all the variables and running the test over and over until my results match what a bunch of other people like me think happened.
With CERN, it's a fantastic machine, sure. However, colliding energy and then simply watching energy fly apart, while it can explain certain things I myself don't fully understand, it is still (IMHO) a far stretch from knowing how everything we see came into existence.
Now, before anyone says it... Yea, I get that we can't possibly go back in time to the Big Bang and test stuff out and we're left only with these assumptions. However, I think I myself would've been a little more cognizant to the fact that we don't really know in my interview.
So begins the discussion; for any other proponents of the Big Bang Theory, do you agree or disagree with the assumptions made by mainstream scientists? Why/Why not?
Before posting, please see rules!
1. No Religious nuts! I consider myself spiritual, but I'm also open minded so I don't want any "Jesus! That's how!" style comments.
2. Comments should contain either proof (please cite, I want to know), or reason (logical reasoning).
3. Opinions are welcome, but again, please explain the reasoning behind them.
Second off, purpose:
I'm not a scientist and I'm making the below assumptions based only on what I myself have learned from others' research. If you know more, that's what I'm looking for. That and a friendly debate.
Onward!
I watched a show last night that covered the Big Bang Theory, I believe it was "How The Universe Works", Ep.1, "The Big Bang".
In it scientists (and some very well renowned ones) were explaining the beginning moments of the Universe. They described how they came to some of the conclusions, but not others.
I gotta tell you, some of the things they spoke about like they are scientific fact, were absolutely preposterous (IMHO) and don't even pass a smell test! Now, I get the logic behind why we believe that everything started from a big bang, specifically the Universe's expansion.... it only seems reasonable that if everything is headed in an 'outward' direction, it must have come from a point of intense singularity. However, some other things they were stating as fact were a little hard to swallow. Specifically:
When the Big Bang initially happened, most everything happened within a single second. In this second, there was a huge fight between matter and anti-matter where there proved to be more matter than anti-matter. Thus, everything you see around you is the 'left-over' matter from all of it colliding and cancelling each other out.
My Beef: That claim would mean anti-matter was wiped out of existence (if matter came out on top... anti-matter must be gone). So why do we believe it still to exist? Or am I confusing this with dark matter?
During the first few planck units, matter would pop in and out of existence. As the universe expanded and subsequently cooled, matter became for permanent, producing what you see around you. The physical manifestation of energy as stagnant matter.
My Beef: Our ventures into quantum physics have shown that matter still does this, all the time, so that whole thought process is out. We have been able to observe that in the black of space, energy will collide, create matter which breaks down and moves on. Even the matter we see around us that we believe to be very permanent is constantly popping in and out of existence.
Now, I'm no physicist. However, as a being of reason, I would know that even my most internally accurate assumptions of how things worked 14 Billion years ago are still assumptions. I can build a computer generated model to prove my point, but I'm only serving to fulfill my own assumptions based on a model that I created the variables for. Therefore, I'm defining all the variables and running the test over and over until my results match what a bunch of other people like me think happened.
With CERN, it's a fantastic machine, sure. However, colliding energy and then simply watching energy fly apart, while it can explain certain things I myself don't fully understand, it is still (IMHO) a far stretch from knowing how everything we see came into existence.
Now, before anyone says it... Yea, I get that we can't possibly go back in time to the Big Bang and test stuff out and we're left only with these assumptions. However, I think I myself would've been a little more cognizant to the fact that we don't really know in my interview.
So begins the discussion; for any other proponents of the Big Bang Theory, do you agree or disagree with the assumptions made by mainstream scientists? Why/Why not?
Before posting, please see rules!