There was no Big Bang.

[Poonani Maker]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RPYz3iWmyLo

We live in an electric universe.

 

[Gubby]

WOA.

My mind's just recieved a software update.

 

[Deep Dish]

Uh oh. There's trouble ahead.

Without going into detail, without the real need for details, you're wrong. I'm trying to take a minimalist approach, because I want to trust you can easily accept the ideas the video proposes are demonstrably nonsense and completely without merit. Just cut your losses and accept you had a brief moment of misjudgment.

 

[Gubby]

Uh oh. There's trouble ahead.

Without going into detail, without the real need for details, you're wrong. I'm trying to take a minimalist approach, because I want to trust you can easily accept the ideas the video proposes are demonstrably nonsense and completely without merit. Just cut your losses and accept you had a brief moment of misjudgment.

That's pretty fundamentalist of you.

Did you WATCH the videos? The thing seems pretty sound to me, though I'm not a physicist.

But we should point out that these are both theories. That means it's too soon to say anyone's right or wrong, remember?

 

[Nighthawk]

Back-door Creationism apparently. Yawn.

 

[Deep Dish]

That's pretty fundamentalist of you.

Did you WATCH the videos? The thing seems pretty sound to me, though I'm not a physicist.

But we should point out that these are both theories. That means it's too soon to say anyone's right or wrong, remember?

The video presented (easily refutable) arguments against the Big Bang but made no specific arguments for an electrical universe. Despite the many minutes to make a preliminary case, the arguments were promised to be forthcoming but never arrived. In fact, the conclusion made was non-sequitur.

No, an electrical universe does not qualify as a scientific theory, as it's not a well-established evidentiary explanation that has withstood rigorous testing. Large objects tend to have a neutral electrical charge, which rather speaks greatly against the electrical hypothesis.

A favorite tactic of the fringe, the video quickly and all-too-predictably devolves to alleging persecution and conspiracies. Pahlease. An electrical universe is not taken seriously by scientists because it's simply wrong. There are two types of science: experimental and historical, and both types are equally adept at tracking causation. The Big Bang is an exceptionally well-supported and valid historical science, whereas the electrical universe is a failure in experimental science.

Nighthawk nailed the real issue. This is religion disguised as antiscience, while the Big Bang is science and not religion.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Blaspheme! When mighty Odin's spear did pierce Y'mir's flesh in the celestial war of creation and the giant's blood did gush forth in torrents thus forming the earth, there was such lightning (electricity, hello?) as to be too terrible for mortal eyes to behold! And lo did it create such a fury of thunder that all the universe echoed eternally from it's impact!

 

[Gubby]

The video presented (easily refutable) arguments against the Big Bang but made no specific arguments for an electrical universe. Despite the many minutes to make a preliminary case, the arguments were promised to be forthcoming but never arrived. In fact, the conclusion made was non-sequitur.

No, an electrical universe does not qualify as a scientific theory, as it's not a well-established evidentiary explanation that has withstood rigorous testing. Large objects tend to have a neutral electrical charge, which rather speaks greatly against the electrical hypothesis.

A favorite tactic of the fringe, the video quickly and all-too-predictably devolves to alleging persecution and conspiracies. Pahlease. An electrical universe is not taken seriously by scientists because it's simply wrong. There are two types of science: experimental and historical, and both types are equally adept at tracking causation. The Big Bang is an exceptionally well-supported and valid historical science, whereas the electrical universe is a failure in experimental science.

Nighthawk nailed the real issue. This is religion disguised as antiscience, while the Big Bang is science and not religion.

*Shrug* I'm not really qualified to argue. But The big bang certainly doesn't hold up to conservation of energy. And I personally feel more comfortable with the idea that the universe has existed for infinite time rather than trying to wrap my head around the idea of there being nothing at all, which exploded. (Now a cyclical big-bang/big-crunch/big-rebang or big-bang/universe dissipates to uniform nothingness/big-bang I can see working).

Saying there was a beginning of time begs the question, "what happened before then?" which is an obvious logical absurdity. My conclusion? The universe must be infinite in all dimensions.

 

[Deep Dish]

The Big Bang was not actually an explosion but rather the great expansion of space between matter. Lots and lots of energy was scrunched up in a cosmic traffic jam. Thus, it was not "something out of nothing" and, thus, no violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Unlike an explosion, the Big Bang did not happen in any particular location but it happened everywhere simultaneously.

The misconception of "something out of nothing" arises because our present knowledge of mathematics breaks down when time = 0, but rather than meaning there was nothing it simply means our mathematics needs refinement, and there presently is a great concerted effort to do such. This month the new Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator powers up and of one of its loftiest goals is recreating the primordial conditions of the Big Bang.

Physicists know and understand a galaxy more about physics than we mortal laymen could ever fathom, so if Big Science has no problem with the Big Bang regarding the law of conservation then neither should we.

For more information:

“Misconceptions about the Big Bang” (Scientific American)
“What happened before the Big Bang?”
“What really goes on at the Large Hadron Collider” (TED Talks)

 

[Gubby]

The misconception of "something out of nothing" arises because our present knowledge of mathematics breaks down when time = 0

What the hell does time=0 mean?

Physicists know and understand a galaxy more about physics than we mortal laymen could ever fathom, so if Big Science has no problem with the Big Bang regarding the law of conservation then neither should we.

I don't like this attitude. My father's a scientist and from my experience the cutting-edge that he works at really isn't so far out.... a stretch, but not godlike, okay. Most of the people at his lab aren't trained in the specific discipline anyway and have to read all the textbooks to catch up! (this is genetics, not physics, tho )

But anyway..... I suppose I may be wrong What I liked about this presentation is it highlights the way that cultural brainwashing seeps into everything, something I've been becoming more and more conscious of, whether the specific instance is right or not.

 

[Poonani Maker]

How do we account for planetary scarring? http://youtube.com/watch?v=fnM7v-awEm8

We live in an electric universe.

 

[Paradox]

Physicists know and understand a galaxy more about physics than we mortal laymen could ever fathom, so if Big Science has no problem with the Big Bang regarding the law of conservation then neither should we.

How about this theory....Big science knows nothing. Big science used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Big science used to believe that the world was flat. Big science used to believe that Einstein was right about everything. Big science used to believe that nothing could travel faster than light.

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

What the hell does time=0 mean?

http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biograph...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211204592&sr=8-1

This book touches on the topic.
It's a great book and everything is explained in laymans terms.

0's cause significant problems in cosmology and physics. Singularities start to happen an things just get weird.

 

[Mavrick]

Very interesting. I'll be spending time reading up on this theory.

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/

 

[ketostix]

How about this theory....Big science knows nothing. Big science used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Big science used to believe that the world was flat. Big science used to believe that Einstein was right about everything. Big science used to believe that nothing could travel faster than light.

I agree with you. I think DD puts too much faith in science and scientist. Scientific theories get challenge and are changed quite a bit.

 

[Gubby]

I agree with you. I think DD puts too much faith in science and scientist. Scientific theories get challenge and are changed quite a bit.

Right on.

 

[Gubby]

http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Biograph...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211204592&sr=8-1

This book touches on the topic.
It's a great book and everything is explained in laymans terms.

0's cause significant problems in cosmology and physics. Singularities start to happen an things just get weird.

No....

what I mean is how can you ever say that "time = 0"?

That has a presupposition that there is a start of time. If there is a start of time then we're talking about the big bang. Who the fuc'k said that there's a time=0 or even a time=50 or whatever?

 

[Nighthawk]

I think it's just as arrogant to know virtually nothing about physics and think that you know better than those who have been studying it their entire lives. Try learning a little about the subject (and it is difficult sometimes, but there are some decent layman's guides out there) before dismissing the amazing discoveries and knowledge that science has given us all.

 

[Deep Dish]

Should I write an essay? I mean, good responses always take me a lot of time and effort, between all the other things going on in my life, and there are multiple issues to address. I don't think I can resolve this short and sweet. The issue is also tinged with conspiratorial overtones and anti-establishment viewpoints, which ties into my next essay: conspiracy theories.

 

[Poonani Maker]

I've been studying this database of bolide impacts http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/ for over a month now...totally Fascinated by this stuff. You get into wikipedia into the eons, ages, plate tectonics, evolutions, 5 great mass extinctions, the Oort cloud, scattered disc, Kuiper belt objects, and all other Trans-Neptunian objects. Our history just totally fascinates me to no end.

I want to visit these 100 million + year old craters still exposed to the surface. A lot of them are in Australia, Canada, and Russia. Algeria, South Africa, and Libya have quite a few hits too.

My question is "How many of these "impacts" are just electric discharges from a large body passing by and not a comet or asteroid as speculated from the shock quartz found around the rims of these craters?"

It's difficult to discover most of the impacts that surely must have taken place on Earth because of our atmosphere - erosion. The moon and other barren planets show more evidence.