I'm sure if you listen to this audio file you'll agree that the Big Bang theory has fizzled.
http://www.audiosancto.org/auweb/200804 … izzles.mp3
How many academics does it take to screw in a light bulb ?
- the entire department, then they all get a sabbatical to write a paper about it.
Darn I cannot watch the video or whatever the link is because it is in quicktime. Does this have anything to do with the misnomer of there ever being a bang?
That recent theory of the Universal origin suggest that the Big Bag was not a bang at all but that all the mass in the Universe was just a bubbling primordial goo that heated up and expanded much like raisin in a loaf of bread being baked.
I wrote a hub called, Our Universe a Black Hole, over a year ago and suggested the same thing. So I am happy to hear that they retracting their theory about their ever being a singular explosion that blasted everything out into the Universe.
I might be missing some things but this is basically what the audio file says Sandra.
According to Hawking the whole universe is thought to have started from zero size, less than a proton. The speaker says the universe is expanding. He then says he is a scientist himself and says according to Hawking's projections 90% of the universe is missing.
Then he talks about the thought police of 30 prominent scientists. If a scientist does not believe in the big bang theory or doubts it he or she loses their funding.
The real world explosions are destructive but some how constructive in the big bang theory.
The scientists are trying to reconstruct history with physics and math problems. That's not what we do when looking at the history of say the battle of Gettysburg. The five books of Moses are historical. He basically calls the big bang theory the imagination of dreamers.
You have met one now Sufi. No two, the speaker is a Catholic too.
Number One: 90% isn't missing. It's there, because we know it's missing. Pretty simple. It's called dark matter.
Two: Many of the greatest scientists throughout history have been men and women of God.
Three: I dislike any stupidity from either side of the equation of science and spirituality; when you're tied to one religion, you're missing out on the big picture. If you're not willing to change your theories, you're missing out on the big picture.
By forcing people into one narrow vision, either by calling yourself a good speaker of The Word or by forcing people to go with certain theories or risk having no money (like evolution, what not have you) you're doing no one justice and only grinding the gears of truth to a halt.
Be fair, Mike is good guy. He is not forcing you to believe anything you don't. He believes what he believes as truth, as you believe what you believe as truth.
His "narrow" vision encompasses a lot of things and one of those includes spirituality. For him, the lack of the spiritual is a death in all activity.
When the spirit is the driving force behind human productivity and the lack seems to halt more then just religion.
If it does turn out to be the way he visions it to be, then what would you say then? Each side continues to search for some truth, knowledge, understanding, purpose etc... until we find truth, absolute knowledge, understanding and purpose.
I apologize if my tone seemed attacking; I wasn't attacking Mike or anyone in particular, I was highlighting my beliefs, as he has shared with us his.
And as I signed off with "grinding the gears of truth to a halt," I suppose I shall elaborate and say this conversation is but a cog in the machine of truth.
So, Mike, Mr. Make Money, I apologize to you. I am always cordial, and I never intend to start a war. I will try and temper my tongue, or learn to phrase my stuff in a more clear way.
Thanks for the slap upside the head, sandra.
Thank you very much lxxy. And you too Sandra, well said. Wow I feel privileged, I don't get an apology around here too often.
The two audio files that I posted both go along with my belief so it would be hard for me to share them in the science forum. Well not without repercussions.
Hey Mike, like I said, I'm not looking to rough anyone up. The train of truth is that of ideological tolerance, engaging each other and prodding our most inner thoughts without fear.
You can kick my butt any day, and come at me anyway, and I'll understand. I won't try and lash out, mind you, and I've always tried to keep a tempered tongue (like sandra pointed out), but we've all thresholds of static, and mine is pretty hardy, SO, if I ever make myself look like a jackhole, and I don't apologize, you have my permission to slap me too. And pour holy water, on this time traveling alien heathen.
No, really, I've better things to pick fights. And I try never to make a comment unless I think I've something useful to add. 'cause I've no ego to feed, or B.S. to seed.
We just don't know what it is. My theory, that it is the male ego, has been challenged on several fronts, so I hesitate to write it here; however, I think it has as much chance of being right as some of the other suggestions. . .
when people have nothing else to explain about universe origin...
thy usually question accepted opinions
Logical and expected.
Anyway, thats a unexplored area... time will tell.. will take ages though..
Cheers Enjoy the moment. Leave the rest.
So, because scientists haven't figured out some things about universal origins, and because a few scientists disagree with the current models, this means . . . ta da! The Bible is true! Top this off with a conspiracy theory about discrimination of scientists who disagree with the big bang and . . . PRESTO! Another propoganda piece for intelligent design.
The strange thing is that it was a Catholic Priest who first proposed the Big Bang - even Einstein credited him for that. Why the attack? The Catholic Church is perfectly happy to accept it.
Not sure what the reasoning behind the original post is - I know many Catholics, and I have yet to meet one who believes in Biblical Creationism.
Certainly, it is open to a lot of speculation and theorizing - the cutting edge of science, theology and philosophy, an interesting mix.
For me, what came before is the interesting question - I have a feeling that it will be a long time before we know the answer to that one, if ever.
the cutting edge of science, philosophy, and theology is where I like to be:)
One step ahead of the factual scientific account and one step behind the religious account is probably where the truth lies.
Science is dominant at the moment and is having its fifteen minutes of fame,just as organised religion has had its own spotlight, to be followed by another way of looking at the universe and getting insight.
The universe was there before science and will be there after science is dead and burried.
Are you serious? The Big Bang Theory is just a theory., although all observable evidence thus far points to it being the most correct one at this point.
The Universe is full of background radiation from this big bang. To truly understand how something can come from nothing, you'll need to delve into string theory.
As to what that something is? I'd like to call it Bob, though many will know it as God.
You mean you are taking the word of one scientist over another? Your mind is opening up...
I hope I don't disappoint you UW if I tell you the scientist that I am taking sides with is also a Catholic priest.
At least he makes sense.
Another audio file that fits well in this thread.
Superstition and Evolution
That's the attitude lxxy. Same goes for me, you have my permission to slap me too if I get offside. Teresa may have a point when she says dark matter may be the male ego. I'd be interested to hear Teresa's theory. I'd even get off my arse to get the nachos.
by janesix 6 years ago
The Big Bang is a religious concept, not science. It takes faith to believe that it happened. If you believe in the Big Bang, why?
by qwark 7 years ago
What was the "medium" within which the "Big Bang" happened? There are other interesting considerations.
by Csaba Krause 5 years ago
During my 10 years' career being a journalist in the heartland of real science (which is Europe), I had the fortune (misfortune as well) to meet great many renowned scientists. I interviewed a couple of them as well.Most of them have no clear idea what Big Bang really was, or how it came to be....
by keepitnatural 3 years ago
What flaws are there in the Big Bang Theory? Any better theories?
by uncorrectedvision 7 years ago
As I understand it, everything did not exist at all a nano-second before the "Big Bang" and everything, absolutely all the energy in the Universe was in existence a nano-second after the "Big Bang." From where did all of this come? How did it come to be? Is it...
by Cagsil 6 years ago
Hey Hubbers,I was digging through some of my research and since a lot of it is philosophy based(meaning it's about answering questions and reasoning), I happen to cross an interesting tidbit I figured I would share with others and see what exactly that they thought about it.It seems like a lot of...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|