Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Big Bang.

  • 10-11-2005 12:29am
    #1
    Son Goku
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭


    I'm continuing the arguement over the validity of the Big Bang here.
    The arguement started on this thread:
    Here

    Anybody who wishes to discuss it, do so.
    Please remember that I was ONLY talking about the achievement of useful critical amino acid SEQUENCES using undirected processes – and therefore Bernoulli probability does apply.
    No it doesn't, but this isn't going anywhere.
    J C wrote:
    You NOW tell me that these concepts actually describe what a DAY is.

    No, a day wouldn't make sense without them, but they don't describe what a day is.
    Only the second concept though, not both.
    However, could I gently point out that the above obtuse concepts were first ‘rolled out’ by you to describe the Big Bang – and I cannot see ANY link between The Big Bang and a DAY.
    No, they were first "rolled out" by Hermann Minkowski and the Relativists of the early 1910s.
    And you can't see any link between the big bang and a day, because there isn't any.
    And words like "obtuse", will get you you no where.
    Believe it or not General Relativity requires more than a few websites and a Pop Science book to understand.
    The terms are obtuse because the deal with objects that aren't everyday.
    which he described as “the deceptively simple idea that first there was nothing and then it blew up”.

    I agree that the Big Bang is both deceptive and simple, at least until Son Goku tried to needlessly complicate it with jargon.
    As for complicating it with jargon, grow up man, the statement "First there was nothing and then it blew up", is not what the theory of the Big Bang says, in fact it bears no relation to what it says.
    The Big Bang isn't that simple, it comes straight from General Relativity, the second most mathematically intricate theory in physics.
    You need to use "jargon" to talk about it.
    It isn't an idea that translates well into Pop-science.
    If you attack the statement:
    "First there was nothing and then it blew up"
    You aren't attacking the Big Bang.


Advertisement