Quote:
Originally posted by freddie
Big bang is just as much a stab in the dark as evolution. They are both imposible to prove but there are enough cirrcumstantial evidence to prove them beyond a resonable doubt.
The main support behind the Big-Bang theory is the radiation that's coming from every direction around us and originates from 15 billion light years away - literaly the edge of space (though there is no real "edge" as we would imagine it). And there is no other reasonable explanation for the existance of it other then big bang.
|
freddie I've been thinking about what you said. Unfortunately I don't know very much about evolution or the evidence for it, but I know a little more about the theory for the big bang ... the way I understand it, the model of the big bang describes a universe that's expanding and that used to be much hotter and denser than it was now. And I think that's really all that we can say: there's a great deal that we still don't know; first of all, because we can't tell exactly what happens to matter at temperatures that high - just as Newton's approximations become radically invalid at speeds close to the speed of light, so Einstein's approximations may break down under conditions that are far removed from anything we have experience of. In any case (from what I know, and it's true I don't know very much) it seems like there is nothing 'reasonably proved' here - this isn't a law court - natural laws are very subtle things. Werner Heisenberg said: "Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think." There are some odd things going on, surely.
I don't mind the holographic theory; even if it's wrong it's exciting, and new ways of looking at things are always good
fred, I'm also a little confused about the idea that something is obviously connected to something else because they started at the same place. That doesn't seem obvious to me at all
A little off topic, I read one description that said what we've been able to tell about the universe is about equivalent to a bunch of protazoa under a rock charting the entire Pacific Ocean. Well, that's not nothing, of course, but as there's much more to the earth than the Pacific Ocean ... maybe there's much more to "everything" than our universe, than what we can see? Defining the universe as "everything that is, all space and time," I don't really see how we can presume to know that .... or am I missing something? Does anyone have an answer, cause almost everything I've read makes this assumption (often directly)
edit: I was doing a little more research on this topic and came across a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened," about the work & theories of Hannes Alfvйn, a Swedish Nobel laureate: according to this book there are some problems with the big bang (for example, some galaxies would require several billion more years to form than the dating for the big bang would allow), and it suggests a possible replacement involving plasma cosmology ... I'm not sure exactly what that is; you see I do not know what I am talking about
at all, LoL ... but it doesn't seem to be totally crackpot; I think there is still a lot of discussion going on.