I can disprove the big bang in one.

[Suprememessage]

sentence....

"You can't reach into an empty cookie jar and pull out a cookie."

Discuss

[Gagsy]

Challenge accepted.

[Cordyceps]

Are you proud of your 73% science mark?

[Squidbit]

Oh man you're so fucking smart.

[hitman1993]

Who gives a fuck? The universe exists. We exist. Live life.

[BasedBubbus]

You can if there's a cookie in there.

you didn't say what it was empty OF.

[Suprememessage]

At 10/19/11 04:52 PM, Cordyceps wrote: Are you proud of your 73% science mark?

Mass can be turned into energy, but not energy into mass, thus the big bang is impossible. You can't make something out of nothing, if you could science would contradict itself.

[Elfer]

The Big Bang theory doesn't say that the matter in the universe came out of nothing. It says that at one point, the universe was in a highly compressed, high-temp/high-density state, and it expanded rapidly. All you've done is disprove your own misinterpretation of the theory.

[Cordyceps]

At 10/19/11 04:53 PM, Suprememessage wrote:

At 10/19/11 04:52 PM, Cordyceps wrote: Are you proud of your 73% science mark?

Mass can be turned into energy, but not energy into mass, thus the big bang is impossible. You can't make something out of nothing, if you could science would contradict itself.

Mass and energy as we know it only existed after the big bang, and therefore that correlation is invalid, aside from the fact energy can be turned into mass.

The theory suggests an entity that the universe spawned from.

[Manly-Chicken]

The big bang is not the creation of the universe, but the rearrangement of an old one.

A long time ago there was another universe where ours is now.
The planets and stars started drifting to the center of the universe.
Became infinitely dense.
BOOM!
Our universe.

It will happen to us.
It happened to the one before us.
It always happen forever.

[Gagsy]

At 10/19/11 04:55 PM, Elfer wrote: The Big Bang theory doesn't say that the matter in the universe came out of nothing. It says that at one point, the universe was in a highly compressed, high-temp/high-density state, and it expanded rapidly. All you've done is disprove your own misinterpretation of the theory.

What I don't get is HOW they know this? How can scientists discover what the universe was billions of years ago when it wasn't a universe?

[Suprememessage]

At 10/19/11 04:55 PM, Elfer wrote: The Big Bang theory doesn't say that the matter in the universe came out of nothing. It says that at one point, the universe was in a highly compressed, high-temp/high-density state, and it expanded rapidly. All you've done is disprove your own misinterpretation of the theory.

Yes, but that tight mass had to come from somewhere.

[Heretic-Anchorite]

At 10/19/11 04:55 PM, Elfer wrote: The Big Bang theory doesn't say that the matter in the universe came out of nothing. It says that at one point, the universe was in a highly compressed, high-temp/high-density state, and it expanded rapidly. All you've done is disprove your own misinterpretation of the theory.

^^^
this, also even ignoring this you can't say that some being magically poofed everything into existence.

you can't make a claim of external factors without observable proof, and the big bang theory has proof, far more then what creationist have.

[Cordyceps]

At 10/19/11 04:59 PM, Suprememessage wrote: Yes, but that tight mass had to come from somewhere.

Look into the Omniverse theory, then come back and try to disprove that.

[HomicidialFrog]

At 10/19/11 04:52 PM, hitman1993 wrote: Who gives a fuck? The universe exists. We exist. Live life.

We don't exist. So there!

Bitch.

[919CDS]

At 10/19/11 04:52 PM, hitman1993 wrote: Who gives a fuck? The universe exists. We exist. Live life.

genius

[Suprememessage]

At 10/19/11 05:00 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote:

At 10/19/11 04:55 PM, Elfer wrote: The Big Bang theory doesn't say that the matter in the universe came out of nothing. It says that at one point, the universe was in a highly compressed, high-temp/high-density state, and it expanded rapidly. All you've done is disprove your own misinterpretation of the theory.

^^^
this, also even ignoring this you can't say that some being magically poofed everything into existence.

you can't make a claim of external factors without observable proof, and the big bang theory has proof, far more then what creationist have.

I'm not saying it was created instantly, I'm saying SOME FORM of outside force HAD to have SOME influence on the TIGHT MASS THAT HAD TO HAVE BEEN CREATED SOMEHOW.

[CorpseGrinderClock]

At 10/19/11 04:55 PM, Elfer wrote: The Big Bang theory doesn't say that the matter in the universe came out of nothing. It says that at one point, the universe was in a highly compressed, high-temp/high-density state, and it expanded rapidly.

An object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force.

So what was the first movement?

[Cordyceps]

At 10/19/11 05:01 PM, Suprememessage wrote: I'm not saying it was created instantly, I'm saying SOME FORM of outside force HAD to have SOME influence on the TIGHT MASS THAT HAD TO HAVE BEEN CREATED SOMEHOW.

Even what you call nothing is something.

Give this a read.

[maxninja234]

Don't look for explanation for things that noone is prbably ever going to find out. You only have one life so don't spent it trying to dissprove an unprovable theory. Live life and kick logic out of the picture.

[Elfer]

At 10/19/11 04:58 PM, Gagsy wrote: What I don't get is HOW they know this? How can scientists discover what the universe was billions of years ago when it wasn't a universe?

Evidence for the theory is both myriad and complicated. The initial hypothesis was formed by extrapolating backward from the current expansion of the universe, but the confirmation comes from things that would be a consequence of this. Read up on cosmic background radiation and the numerous experiments done in particle accelerators for more info.

At 10/19/11 04:59 PM, Suprememessage wrote: Yes, but that tight mass had to come from somewhere.

Irrelevant. What happened prior to the big bang is outside the scope of the theory. You said you would disprove the theory, which you haven't done.

At 10/19/11 05:02 PM, CorpseGrinderClock wrote: An object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an outside force.

So what was the first movement?

Irrelevant. The big bang theory does not state that the high-temp/high-density state was at equilibrium, only that it was expanding rapidly.

[Kanon]

At 10/19/11 04:52 PM, hitman1993 wrote: Who gives a fuck? The universe exists. We exist. Live life.

I concur, you think that people would quit bitching and try to live life but it seems like the little "piss" arguements are what keep us going.

[Gagsy]

At 10/19/11 05:08 PM, Elfer wrote:

Evidence for the theory is both myriad and complicated. The initial hypothesis was formed by extrapolating backward from the current expansion of the universe, but the confirmation comes from things that would be a consequence of this. Read up on cosmic background radiation and the numerous experiments done in particle accelerators for more info.

That paragraph alone made my brain ache. I imagine long-winded documents on the very subject would make it explode. The universe is just one of those things that completely confuses me. We'll never get to the bottom of it's answers.

Thanks for the dumbed down summary though :(

[zag]

At 10/19/11 04:51 PM, Suprememessage wrote: sentence....

"You can't reach into an empty cookie jar and pull out a cookie."

Discuss

oh, how cute!
Supreme believed that he knew something that our greatest scientists didn't about one of their theories.

if someone disproves the big bang theory, it will be either another scientist or a follower of a more advanced system in the future.

[CorpseGrinderClock]

At 10/19/11 05:08 PM, Ejit wrote: I don't think you can really depend on laws when talking about the creation of the universe.

An interesting statement if you consider its implications.

Are you implying that either the laws of the universe as we understand them are wrong, or they simply are not and/or have not always been applicable?

At 10/19/11 05:08 PM, Elfer wrote: Irrelevant. The big bang theory does not state that the high-temp/high-density state was at equilibrium, only that it was expanding rapidly.

Entirely relevant, contrarily your statement is not relevant because it continues to beg the initial question.

If it was not at equilibrium, i.e. already moving, then that implies that there was already movement prior to the Big Bang. What, then, was the first movement?

[Phobotech]

That doesn't disprove shit. Try harder.

[GodOfVideoGames]

You could if that cookie flew out of a point where 2 of our 11 dimensions rubbed upon each other like Earth's tectonic plates.

[JaY11]

At 10/19/11 04:58 PM, Gagsy wrote:
What I don't get is HOW they know this? How can scientists discover what the universe was billions of years ago when it wasn't a universe?

Just by looking into space can help our understanding. When we observe things in the hundreds of millions of lightyears distance away, we are affectively looking back in time, because the light from that amount of time ago is only just reaching us. It's because of this we can only see things up to a certain point, because the light past 300 million light years away (I think) didn't even exist then. I recall reading somewhere that we can see clusters of galaxies that packed extremely closely together at such distances, which backs up the theory that the universe is expanding.

[Gagsy]

At 10/19/11 05:14 PM, ScaryPicnic wrote:

sometimes I just think 'why'

'why'

Just existence itself.
The very fact of EXISTENCE
&Y&YY&&&&&&YYYHGF%^%^ER^%R^%RRS$S$

I can't comprehend it

I don't think there is a reason. Personally I think that we're just here through a combination of evolution and space stuff (iguvhwirguhusrhg). But I don't think the majority of humans want to get their heads around that idea. Certainly if there is a reason why I don't think we will ever know.

[Razz]

When it is silent, we can hear ringing in our ears; by the otoacoustic emissions.

In terms an idiot could understand, the same can be applied to the big bang. That there is something even when there is nothing, which can cause the bang to start. There are many scientists looking at how it began or why, but widely agree on what it was.