Don’t really understand the Big Bang theory because I thought nothing can come from nothing? How would the explosion happen without something that transcends space and time?
nobody knows but people are willing to die on that hill of their beliefs. that’s always been weird to me
It makes more sense to co-sign that notion, which any scientist worth a penny himself will tell you they don't know for certain, than a religious notion. Science works on objective truths and quantified data. Religion works on your hopes and the hope that you don't look closely into how it makes absolutely no sense and skips key moments in history like the Dinosaurs.
that’s what I’m saying lol
mfs just like to say “the Big Bang is real, that’s what happened, and there’s no explaining it” like bro where does the first atom even come from s*** doesn’t just birth itself out of thin air
I just think it’s invalid to run with such a detailed theory with almost no explanation of why or how it happened in the first place.
Don’t really understand the Big Bang theory because I thought nothing can come from nothing? How would the explosion happen without something that transcends space and time?
the idea that things have a beginning and end is a european idea. europeans whole idea of things beginning with one instead of zero is why there's so much unsolved s*** in the universe. a lot of ancient cultures had a concept of zero and calculated time much differently. the big bang was just A thing that happened not THE thing that happened
I feel like ancient cultures do a better job of explaining that transcending force because they understood life wasn't solely based on being honest which is only one aspect of humanity, they knew love, revenge, lust, etc all needed to be respected as the foundations of humanity which is why there's so many different gods
It makes more sense to co-sign that notion, which any scientist worth a penny himself will tell you they don't know for certain, than a religious notion. Science works on objective truths and quantified data. Religion works on your hopes and the hope that you don't look closely into how it makes absolutely no sense and skips key moments in history like the Dinosaurs.
Isn’t the Big Bang equally as unlikely as other theories? No one knows and can actually prove what was the start of the universe
Isn’t the Big Bang equally as unlikely as other theories? No one knows and can actually prove what was the start of the universe
No it isn't just as unlikely. Maybe just as unexplainable, but just as unlikely? Can't say that when one has data you can refer back to and the other is a book of stories.
No it isn't just as unlikely. Maybe just as unexplainable, but just as unlikely? Can't say that when one has data you can refer back to and the other is a book of stories.
Not trying to be rude, but could you show me the data? Seems like blind faith, just like people who believe god created everything
Not trying to be rude, but could you show me the data? Seems like blind faith, just like people who believe god created everything
Yeah I'm on my way home and I'll pull some data they've found supporting the idea.
Yeah I'm on my way home and I'll pull some data they've found supporting the idea.
Ok good luck finding it
Ok good luck finding it
1. The constant expansion of space. For space to constantly be expanding would be to imply that it was once concentrated in a small region of space. There is scientific evidence that space is constantly expanding.
2. The abundances of the lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, deuterium, lithium) are consistent with their creation in a Big Bang event and not via subsequent nucleosynthesis in stars. In particular, the abundances of helium (the total amount is much larger than could have been produced by stellar nucleosynthesis) and deuterium (stars can only destroy deuterium) strongly suggest their synthesis in the Big Bang.
3. The cosmic microwave background radiation. As a result of the expansion of the Universe, it was predicted that radiation from the Big Bang would have cooled to about 3 degrees Kelvin at the present epoch. The microwave background radiation, with a wavelength dependence extremely close to that a perfect blackbody, permeates the Universe at 2.725 Kelvin. This is completely consistent with a fireball event in which the radiation field was in thermal equilibrium, and is perhaps the most convincing evidence for the Big Bang.
4.The number of quasars drops off for very large redshifts (redshifts greater than about 50% of the speed of light). The Hubble-Lemaître Law says that these are for large look-back times. This observation is taken to mean that the universe was not old enough to produce quasars at those large redshifts. Which would indicate the universe did have a beginning and has developed more through the passage of time.
1. The constant expansion of space. For space to constantly be expanding would be to imply that it was once concentrated in a small region of space. There is scientific evidence that space is constantly expanding.
2. The abundances of the lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, deuterium, lithium) are consistent with their creation in a Big Bang event and not via subsequent nucleosynthesis in stars. In particular, the abundances of helium (the total amount is much larger than could have been produced by stellar nucleosynthesis) and deuterium (stars can only destroy deuterium) strongly suggest their synthesis in the Big Bang.
3. The cosmic microwave background radiation. As a result of the expansion of the Universe, it was predicted that radiation from the Big Bang would have cooled to about 3 degrees Kelvin at the present epoch. The microwave background radiation, with a wavelength dependence extremely close to that a perfect blackbody, permeates the Universe at 2.725 Kelvin. This is completely consistent with a fireball event in which the radiation field was in thermal equilibrium, and is perhaps the most convincing evidence for the Big Bang.
4.The number of quasars drops off for very large redshifts (redshifts greater than about 50% of the speed of light). The Hubble-Lemaître Law says that these are for large look-back times. This observation is taken to mean that the universe was not old enough to produce quasars at those large redshifts. Which would indicate the universe did have a beginning and has developed more through the passage of time.
But do you know or can even look up the math behind these statements? Or are you just taking their word as truth?
But do you know or can even look up the math behind these statements? Or are you just taking their word as truth?
Why does that matter
But do you know or can even look up the math behind these statements? Or are you just taking their word as truth?
Bro you sound like a flat Earther. "HoW dO yOu kNoW tHe EaRtH iSn'T fLaT, hAvE YOU sEeN iT???" Those are conclusions astrologists GLOBALLY have come together and agreed upon. And yes there are numbers for all those, but I guess since I didn't go in the field and personally collect those numbers they aren't valid.
Why does that matter
Bro you give niggas evidence they ask for and they really turn around and quote you with dumb s***. That reply actually pissed me off how stupid it was. I'm not a f***ing astrologist I don't have all the math sitting in my f***ing notebook wtw
Why does that matter
Cause if the actual proof (math) isn’t available to us then isn’t it just like believing a religion?
Cause if the actual proof (math) isn’t available to us then isn’t it just like believing a religion?
True but the math is available, you’re just not interested enough in physics to fact check it yourself
True but the math is available, you’re just not interested enough in physics to fact check it yourself
No I was I really in to the Big Bang but couldn’t find any actual math behind it, if you can post it I’ll admit I’m wrong
Cause if the actual proof (math) isn’t available to us then isn’t it just like believing a religion?
Man NO. No it isn't, AT ALL. There isn't a single thing I said that you couldn't become an astronomer yourself and personally observe. There's quantifiable data showing that things in space are in a constant state of outward movement. Every element listed and their quantity levels in space can also be observed, and we know what it takes to create them. The radiation is also quantifiable. There is nothing stopping you from taking up astronomy as a career and getting all these numbers you're asking me for, that's the difference.
That's like saying well jeez I never personally observed Hydrogen and Oxygen come together to form water guess scientists are out here just lying for s***s and giggles.
All information available at your fingertips and niggas act like it's your job to spoon feed them knowledge. I promise the numbers are out there. Science has literally calculated the current rate of expansion and it's increase. You wanted evidence, it was presented. If you want number specific numbers, find them yourself you lazy b******.
Man NO. No it isn't, AT ALL. There isn't a single thing I said that you couldn't become an astronomer yourself and personally observe. There's quantifiable data showing that things in space are in a constant state of outward movement. Every element listed and their quantity levels in space can also be observed, and we know what it takes to create them. The radiation is also quantifiable. There is nothing stopping you from taking up astronomy as a career and getting all these numbers you're asking me for, that's the difference.
That's like saying well jeez I never personally observed Hydrogen and Oxygen come together to form water guess scientists are out here just lying for s***s and giggles.
The formation of a water molecule is well documented, im just asking for the proof and math behind your statements it shouldn’t be hard right?