TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Big bang is out!,

Lets look at the big bang from a distance. Outer space!, if you were to explode a large planet or sun, what would the pieces look like? Sharp, jagged pieces of rocks and debris, right??? The planets in our solor system are round and not sharp or jagged. Why? God!! He is the intelligence that magnificantly designed our place of existance. Imagine living on a sharp, jagged rock, you would fall off every edge that you walked over to. Water would run off the edges etc.... I have blown up stuff as a kid and never saw a piece of material perfectly round after detonation. Agree? God, jesus and all we have been taught as a child exsist. I believed as a child in Santa, the Easter bunny, tooth fairy but learned that my parents were all of them. Why is it that so many people still believe in god and visit Rome every year and many religous sites if they did not believe in a supreme being? Life after death....sounds crazy I know, but this cant be the only stop before the end. Why go through life to learn, live, suffer and die just to be eaten by worms and be forgotton unless, " there is more to it!!" Please comment.


Closing Statement from Dave McManus

Well, now that all the college educated scientists put their opinions in, I will say this. Yes, there is science behind every origin or birth of a planet, person, animal or what have you, but behind science, there is god. God allowed the science to take place to start the b.b or any other birth of a gallaxy, person, star, planet etc....but when god meets each of you down the road, you better tell him that you were always believing in him, just trying to figure out how he did it.. He may laugh and he may push the down button, but god is the real scientist that has figured it all out. You college people that have spent years exhausting theories, may never know the real answer when it has been in front of your noses all along!! ;-)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 16 2013: You got it Dave. The Big Bang is a silly idea. Hydrogen doesn't collapse into stars planets, or anything else; it spreads out as fast as it can. Certainly it looks like the universe started off smaller, but not at zero.
    If God were real, don't you think he would have given us some means of knowing him?
    What could that means be ?

    • Oct 17 2013: Well,
      if we are made in his image and likeness, then how we know him is through the law of expansion.
      I shall call that law, The Peter Law.
      As it expands, it gets larger and longer and further reaching into the future, for more,
      before there is once more a Big Bang and then the ever-coming retraction back to nothingness.
      ( ' ' )
      • thumb
        Oct 22 2013: fractal?

        I like that.

        Irregular fractals are unknowable chaotics .. that's infinite enough for me :)
    • Oct 18 2013: Depends on how much hydrogen we're talking about. If there's enough the gravitation would take over. Well understood by physicists. But people with little knowledge think that they know better. Go figure.
      • thumb
        Oct 19 2013: "Supernovae add enriching elements to space clouds of dust and gas, further interstellar diversity, and produce a shock wave that compresses clouds of gas to aid new star formation."

        Physicists seem to think that supernovae are needed to compress the gas. Never heard one explain how a critical mass of hydrogen could do it by gravity alone. Maybe you can point me in the right direction ?

        • thumb
          Oct 20 2013: Peter,
          Let me say this, matter in the universe is created by the big bang, but not in the form that we see today. First, there is very strong evidence that most of the matter in the Universe is in the form of unseen or dark matter - matter that (at least so far) cannot be seen by standard astronomical methods, but whose presence can be inferred because it influences the Universe gravitationally. The nature of this dark matter is one of the most important unsolved problems in science. Second,when the universe was first created, essentially all matter was in the form of two elements- hydrogen and helium. Their relative abundance (by weight) was 75% hydrogen and 25% helium. (This means that for every He nucleus there were 12 H nuclei/protons) They were not evenly distributed throughout space. This is critical, because this uneven distribution allowed gravity to act in the areas of higher concentration to initiate the "clumping" of matter. If everything were evenly spread out, nothing would have happened, for each atom would have been attracted evenly from all directions, and would have remained where it was relative to neighboring atoms. As a result of slight discrepancies in the distribution of matter, gravity was able to initiate the collapse of huge volumes of H and He into more concentrated areas of gas. These areas eventually would evolve to form galaxies. Within these areas, there was a second level of more concentrated clumping of H and He that would form stars, where the higher mass elements would be created. Also be aware that part of the energy of the BB turned in to the Higgs field and when the Universe began to cool particles acquired mass from the Higgs field, slowed down and began to bunch up to form composite particles and, eventually, atoms.which gave rise to molecules--> chemistry--> Life.
          Check Nucleosyntehsis theory -since 1920- Eddington,Bethe,-1946 F Hoyle- -1960 Fowler,Alastair and others
        • Oct 20 2013: That stars can start being formed via a supernova explosion does not mean that they are necessary to start star formation. Hydrogen formed in quite dense clouds after atom formation was possible (after the universe was cold enough for atoms to exist). That would be quite the compressed form. Also, because hydrogen (and helium and other elements that formed at the beginning) did not form uniformly, then some parts had a lot more than other parts of the universe, enough to collapse under their own weight into stars.

          Google around if you wish. Someone has given you links (I think it was Jimmy Strobl), but you were unable to read it and understand it. It seemed more like you would search for a little paragraph, misinterpret it, and jump into conclusions without reading the whole thing. If you don't have the patience to read and understand the science, I see no way in which anybody will convince you. So I just make the point that ignorance does not trump knowledge. That your middle school physics does not trump that of astrophysicists. If other people are authentically interested they should be able to find explanations about how gravitation works and how lots and lots and lots of hydrogen won't behave like the little amounts we can have here on Earth. That with enough quantities we cannot ignore gravitational effects.

      • thumb
        Oct 20 2013: It is very easy to claim superior knowledge. However there are 'experts" on both sides of this argument. For me it is a matter of faith.
        We are asked to believe in Dark Matter/Energy/Flow etc. This is all assumed to exist in order to make current gravity calculations work out.
        We are asked to believe in the Ort Cloud. This to explain the existence of Short Life comets we see flying by.
        We are asked to believe in Multiverses. This in order to explain the conditions we have suitable for life which are impossibly unlikely by normal means of calculation.
        If you believe these things, then you are more likely to have your scientific endeavours funded. Personally, I have no such axe to grind, & I chose to doubt.

        • thumb
          Oct 20 2013: Peter,
          I make no claim to any"superior" knowledge-?-no mental ivory tower here-.BB is like a hammer in a toolbox-it gets used a lot- because it works, until someone invents a "better hammer". Now if to you faith is a cornerstone then it's settled, there shouldn't be a need for trying to debate scientific theories for you have scripture and your interpretation of them-I can respect the fact that you honestly believe in god as a creator.
          As for Science the data is available for study-to anyone with interest in it-(no conspiracy). And you don't have to take any scientist's word for it. If you think someone is being dishonest, double check. The nature of science is that every claim is tested by hundreds, or thousands of scientists all over the world; all trying to disprove every claim.
          I like that you choose to doubt, perhaps you may also want to question your core beliefs as well and, with the same animus.

        • Oct 22 2013: No Peter, there are experts on science's side and snake-oil salesmen on yours. Sorry to bring these news to you.

          You make the mistake of thinking of gas behaviour as "repulsion" between atoms. What keeps the gas molecules expanding when in small quantities is kinetic energy. Gravitation on the other hand is collective in the sense that a huge quantity of hydrogen can deform the space/time continuum and thus each atom feels the attraction of the whole thing. They will collapse until the temperature/kinetic energy equals the gravitational "pressure." This is what the proper equations for each, the kinetic energy and the gravitational effects predict. Nothing mysterious about it. Physicists can learn this early in the BSc.

          Dark matter is a inference from measurable gravitational effects. If you prefer to think that such effects are gods, then that's all right. But I don't see a reason to do that myself or a reason for authentic scientists to do that.

          The Oort cloud only explains short-lived comets that run in orbits that don't follow the plane of our solar system. There's many other short-lived comets that come from observable clouds but run mostly within the plane of the solar system. Scientists infer the Oort cloud because they can observe how the observable ones "lose" their alignment with the distance from the sun (gravitation and centrifugal force explain the plane, while departure from the plane is explained by the distance from the heavier bodies of the solar system), so that the observable clouds would continue into the darkness makes sense because of the eccentricity of those orbits, the fact that out-of-plane comets are still appearing around, and the presence of the observable clouds. Nothing evil about it. Just proper math, data, and observations.

          Multiverses? Well, there's data that makes sense if there's multiverses. But this is much newer and I have no informed opinion about it. However, I trust scientists first, snake-oil salesmen never.

        • Oct 22 2013: Again, if the big bang theory's problem was something that infantile I'm sure that a lot more scientists would reject it. Mainly physicists.

          Are you really convinced that physicists would not know if there was such a basic kindergarden-level "problem" with their theories? I mean, really?

      • thumb
        Oct 21 2013: Hi Carlos,
        I like the hammer analogy. Yes, theoretically the whole BB theory is open to refutation by a superior theory. Same with evolution etc. Christianity however is seen as cast in stone. Immune to new discoveries; a belief system. When push comes to shove, however, folks will stand by the BB just as I would stand by Christ. To question the scientific dogma of the day brings derision on one's head.
        I continually check my beliefs, I do my best to keep abreast of the latest pertinent information. I am very aware that as a human being, I am only scratching the surface. To me Christianity is the most likely scenario; given all the information at my disposal.
        I do not call in to question the intelligence of BB proponents, they are entitled to their beliefs, & I am sure they have thought it through. However there is a religious fervour attached to many of these theories that would put Billy Graham to shame, that makes me wonder just who is the zealot.
        This is a general observation, & not to you personally. More of the Dawkins school, you get my drift.

        • thumb
          Oct 22 2013: Peter,
          If you take a gander at the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) you will see a display of the status quo in Physics of the time Vs. the results of MM. You see in those days ether was the "hammer" that gave a medium for EMR and Gravity propagation (action at a distance). Imagine when MM failed again & again to detect ether wind , no matter how it was rotated or revised it yielded the same results-no evidence for the motion bias that the scientific community was looking for.Now folks like Fitzgerald & Lorentz came up with some elegant answers,tools to be of great use later on (Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction), but the point is that the Scientific establishment of the 1900s fought tooth & nail to hold on to the ether concept. It took 20 years or so, ( and Prof. Einstein) for the Scientific establishment to abandon old concept of ether as a mechanical medium for propagation (now replaced by: Relativity & Quantum Theory).
          To me the amazing thing here is the process that unfolds, that is - the Paradigm shift between two world views (ether-no ether) and how science proceeds via a "revolution" and overthrows a dominant theory by another(until replaced), Imagine, not the same premises , not the same facts or the same standards-what is true in one is totally irrelevant in the other,or it doesn't exists at all, Its a new reality a new language.Everything is explained in books, but Do folks get the meaning?
          So yes, scientists -as human beings- can fall prey to their own devices as the old folks did in the 1900s -very true- but as evidence mounts, well- is like the morning sun it can't covered with the hand and thus can't be denied.
          I don't believe in Science (Moore's Paradox) -You can't believe in something and know it at the same time, To me Science has the Scientific Method and EDP(engineering design process), that will keep all the swans white until a black one is found.
          I think that religion will evolve as the scientific paradigms shifts.
          Thanks, Pete.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.