d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > The Big Bang Theory > "impartial Discussion"
Prev1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 912Replies: 34Track Topic
Member
Posts: 23,679
Joined: Nov 13 2008
Gold: 1,253.69
#21
Oct 26 2017 08:21pm
doesn't this prove that the universes energy changed sometime 'after' the big bang?
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#22
Oct 26 2017 09:56pm
Quote (caswallen @ Oct 26 2017 08:21pm)
doesn't this prove that the universes energy changed sometime 'after' the big bang?


That doesn't really make sense as a statement
Member
Posts: 23,679
Joined: Nov 13 2008
Gold: 1,253.69
#23
Oct 27 2017 12:17am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 26 2017 09:56pm)
That doesn't really make sense as a statement


you try to make sense of the statement saying the universe shouldn't exist

if they are basing the universe shouldn't exist using big bang theory then what does that mean?

it sounds to me like the universe shouldn't exist, based on the current theory, and the current theory is that all the energy was the big bang, i dunno was there a second bang? did the energy change?
Member
Posts: 437
Joined: Aug 17 2017
Gold: 30.00
#24
Oct 27 2017 12:50pm
Quote (Superman @ Oct 26 2017 02:12pm)
Today, top scientists at CERN debunked the big bang theory. They concluded that anti-matter and matter symmetry is impossible. The mere existance of the universe defies the laws of nature. In conclusion, it could not have happened naturally. According to the laws of nature, antimatter must equal matter and they found that there's far less antimatter so therefore the big bang could not be.

I think the biggest issue is that top scientists should try their very best to validate the various forms of creationism, but they won't. It's called confirmation bias. Scientists try their very best to find an alternative to the various forms of creationism instead. When what they should be doing is impartially testing every theory.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this subject, please keep it impartial in nature or I'll report posts for spam.


You're misguided on what science is. It tests things that are testable and gives credit to the one that survives the most tests.
The faith based belief can not be tested in any way and is therefore unrelated to scientific inquiry. This is not confirmation bias. You're expecting them to use the wrong tool for the job.

As a bonus, the premise of this thread is in the first place incorrect.

I propose a question for you. It's based on your statement that scientists should be investigating the faith based approach.

Which faith should they investigate? What are the criteria that deem a particular faith worth investigating?

This post was edited by iDoYardWork on Oct 27 2017 01:00pm
Member
Posts: 7,324
Joined: Dec 22 2002
Gold: 1,261.00
#25
Oct 27 2017 04:11pm
Quote (Superman @ Oct 26 2017 11:43am)
Put The Bible through it all and see what happens? It may seem absurd, but try to prove it like any other theory until you can't.


Very well, please provide one testable biblical hypothesis that you'd like tested. Give the steps required to test it and the expected outcome.
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#26
Oct 29 2017 03:12pm
Quote (caswallen @ Oct 27 2017 12:17am)
you try to make sense of the statement saying the universe shouldn't exist

if they are basing the universe shouldn't exist using big bang theory then what does that mean?

it sounds to me like the universe shouldn't exist, based on the current theory, and the current theory is that all the energy was the big bang, i dunno was there a second bang? did the energy change?


"Energy changing" doesn't really make sense as a concept when you're talking about things like the origin of the universe.

Under the current theory the universe shouldn't exist because the current theory does not lead to different properties for protons and anti-protons. We can either derive a theory that does naturally lead to a difference then test it, or we can measure a bunch of properties until we find the difference and then derive a consistent theory.

What this measurement does NOT do is prove that there is no difference. It could be that the difference is so minute that we can never detect it.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 29 2017 03:12pm
Member
Posts: 23,679
Joined: Nov 13 2008
Gold: 1,253.69
#27
Oct 29 2017 10:22pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 29 2017 03:12pm)
"Energy changing" doesn't really make sense as a concept when you're talking about things like the origin of the universe.

Under the current theory the universe shouldn't exist because the current theory does not lead to different properties for protons and anti-protons. We can either derive a theory that does naturally lead to a difference then test it, or we can measure a bunch of properties until we find the difference and then derive a consistent theory.

What this measurement does NOT do is prove that there is no difference. It could be that the difference is so minute that we can never detect it.


oh ok got you, so is CERN going to continue measuring the different properties now? just wondering how much time i have to wait before they arrive at an explanation, meh it's ok i dont mind waiting, cheers.
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#28
Oct 30 2017 09:15am
Quote (caswallen @ Oct 29 2017 10:22pm)
oh ok got you, so is CERN going to continue measuring the different properties now? just wondering how much time i have to wait before they arrive at an explanation, meh it's ok i dont mind waiting, cheers.


We could never arrive at an explanation. It's very possible that the difference is so minute that we could never actually build an instrument sensitive enough to detect it.

Even if we derive a theory that leads to a difference it's also possible we could derive several theories that all have different differences and we would never know which one is accurate.

They're going to continue looking, the most recent attempt was just the most precise attempt to date. Not the most precise that we could conceivably achieve.



Let's just take one thing away from this thread though, OP is a dishonest hack.
Member
Posts: 8,308
Joined: Jan 27 2008
Gold: 0.00
#29
Oct 30 2017 08:16pm
Well first I say we should figure out the basics then move onto more stuff like this. Let's just take magnetism for example we know very little about it but yet it plays a huge part in everything.
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#30
Oct 30 2017 09:19pm
Quote (Germany @ Oct 30 2017 08:16pm)
Well first I say we should figure out the basics then move onto more stuff like this. Let's just take magnetism for example we know very little about it but yet it plays a huge part in everything.


We know a fuck load about magnetism.

Quantum electrodynamics prediction of the magnetic moment of the electron is the most accurate prediction weve ever made.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact