truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: I challenge the Big Bang to a duel |
 |
|
| rodin wrote: | | http://www.contrarianthinker.com/Red%20Shift.htm |
That article which unfortunately does not allow copy and paste (and I can't be bothered typing it out) makes several assumptions which may not be true.
For instance, it says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light it and implies that because of this ‘fact,’ the Big Bang theory cannot be true.
For one thing, the theory that the speed of light is constant in all parts of the universe (let alone beyond it), is seriously in question today.
Another, that something cannot travel faster than light has also been brought into question. In fact experiments have shown that information can be sent faster than the speed of light! Then in fact everything is made of information (not just having information in it).
I’m not going to provide any links to ‘prove’ any of the above (can’t be bothered again) but anyone who knows how to use Google can do their own research. It can be found that there are indeed controversies over these theories. So who’s theory is true?
So, I will put forward my own theory, though I cannot prove any of this by the ‘scientific method’ of experiment, any more than many ‘scientific’ theories can be proved.
There was something ‘before’ space (of which space is ‘something’) came into existence. And there was something ‘before’ time (and space) ‘began.’
When I say ‘before,’ I’m referring to a ‘place’ (not a place in space) rather than a time, because time and space, being a part of the universe also came into existence when the universe ‘began.’
All things in the universe, whether time, space, matter or energy (or whatever), came into existence from ‘something’ which was/is none of these.
Then seeing as the universe is indeed expanding, it must have expanded from whatever it was that it came from – hence the Big Bang, though ‘bang’ would be the wrong word of course.
The universe came from a black hole? That again is an assumption which cannot be proved. A black hole suggests the laws of physics as we have now, not how it was at the ‘beginning’ – and if someone argues against this please start again where I began.
Does a goldfish in a bowl understand much about the outside world? No, the goldfish goes by what he has experience with in his own little world.
As clear as mud you say? Well, you must be a ‘goldfish’ then and frankly, we could also say the same about that article http://www.contrarianthinker.com/Red%20Shift.htm that makes assumptions which cannot be proved... |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
