What started the Big Bang?

[Bernard]

http://youtu.be/rENyyRwxpHo

[Ginkgo]

The 'Big Bang' model that scientists use does not show a 'rapidly expanding universe'. As a matter of fact, the Universe, according to the Big Bang theory, is said to have expanded within 13.7 billion years. It cannot possibly 'rapidly expand' within that timing, especially given the complexity in the Universe.

Well, the model actually does show an incredibly rapid expansion in the early stages. This is know as the inflation period of expansion.

[Ginkgo]

This is only an upheld and accepted view of what science is. Science, I believe, can be much more broadened to bring something deeper than materialism (ie. spirituality); it's only a matter of thinking outside the box from what is merely told and upheld as science, which is mainly upheld by people and not merely by 'nature'.

Wanderinglands, we have been through all of this before.

It is upheld because science requires it. If you know a way of combining science and spirituality into a a coherent scientific/metaphysical methodology, then please let me know.

[Ginkgo]

You're only confusing 'science' with the 'scientific establishment', because that's the current view of first causes. However, I'm pretty sure that you can quite possibly connect the empirical data of science with the philosophical and metaphysical thought; you just need to have the correct data and not just have the accumulated ones.

No, I am not confusing anything. Please understand that science does not have a view of first causes. Aristotle has a view of first causes, but science doesn't.

Please also see previous post just above this one.

It's within the very nature of the Big Bang theory that gives off somewhat of a nihilistic connotation; that it was somehow 'expanding' spontaneously by some unknown force or just a 'spontaneous generation' of some kind.

Yes, science is nihilistic. That's the whole idea of science. If we want to do ethics, metaphysics, spirituality then by all means we can do so.

The "forces" in scientific terms are not always well known this is true, but science doesn't deal in some sort of spiritual forces being a reason for the expanding universe. Unless of course you are doing pseudo science.

What does 'WandingerLands' supposed to mean?

My apologies, it was a typo that came out in an unfortunate way. As you know from your own experiences with me I don't do personal insults. Once again my apologies.

[jackles]

ginkgo if the universe had to wait on your say so to start it never would.you would always be thinking it was a good idea .but

[Ginkgo]

ginkgo if the universe had to wait on your say so to start it never would.you would always be thinking it was a good idea .but

True enough jackles.

Look, I am more than happy to discuss the metaphysics of first cause with you and Wanderinglands. So long as we are of the understand that we are no longer doing science.

[uwot]

You have obviously ignored the large amounts of evidence that Halton Arp has found in that article,

It is not that I have ignored the evidence, I just don't think it supports the conclusions that you draw; it certainly doesn't show that the Big Bang theory is falsified, which the author claims. What you and the author of the article are ignoring is that even if Arp is right with respect to 'quasars' that are apparently associated with nearby galaxies, there are vastly more quasars that are not.
A phenomenon that the author claims is a quasar that appears to be in front of a galaxy would be very interesting if it could be proven that that is what it is and the red shift is incompatible with the distance. Do you have any evidence that this is the case, other than the authors say so?

and you have also apparently ignored the evidence found in the other article that I have presented entitled 'Big Bang Bung'. Those two articles (especially the first one which was on Arp), have shown experiments that have found that most redshifts aren't Dopplers and are unreliable for distance, thus disproving the Big Bang theory.

This is simply false. Even if it were true that "most redshifts aren't Dopplers", the others presumably are, thus supporting the Big Bang theory.

Let's show an excerpt from the 'Big Bang Bung' article.

Okey-dokey.

Excerpt:

In 1990, the Astrophysical Journal supplement series published "Associations between Quasi-stellar Objects and Galaxies" by G Burbidge, A Hewitt, J V Narlikar and P Das Gupta. They did the same sort of thing as Stockton, but in the intervening 12 years the sky had been considerably better surveyed for quasars and galaxies. They found many more such close pairs. They also looked at another aspect of the data that had not been examined by Stockton. That was because they believed that the big bang was wrong.

So they were looking for evidence that could be interpreted as incompatible with the Big Bang theory. In other words, they didn't have any evidence that the Big Bang was wrong before they made up their minds that it was. "Seek and ye shall find." (Matthew 7:7 apparently). What people often fail to realise is that empirical evidence can support a number of different hypotheses. I don't usually do this, because I assume that people are smart enough to appreciate some facts without them being shouted; anyway....
empirical evidence can support a number of different hypotheses.
The fact that empirical evidence supports one hypothesis does not mean it falsifies a competing hypothesis. If it were that simple, there wouldn't be two hypotheses.

In close line of sight pairs which had very different redshifts, they looked for a way to detect that the two objects really were at the same distance.

So they were looking for evidence that supports their hypothesis. Fair enough.

If quasars are actually ejected by galaxies as Halton Arp has argued, then there might be a typical distance apart that they tend to lie. That distance might be about the same as the distance of the Magellanic clouds from the Milky Way because Arp had identified many such arrangements in the sky.

If quasars are so ejected, we could expect to see that process in progress. In other words, we should expect to see 'ejections' at different distances. The likelihood that this is a process that has finished and all such ejections have reached their destination and are staying there is not in any meaningful sense greater than nil. It is a really stupid argument.

However, if the two objects are really together and not just sharing a line of sight, then if they are at a roughly constant distance, they will appear closer if the are far away and further apart if they are closer. This is simply a matter of perspective.

This is stupid with extra stupid. Does the author seriously believe that scientists are incapable of taking perspective into account?
A few anomalous phenomena do not falsify a theory for which there is overwhelming evidence. You may choose not to believe it for whatever reason pleases you, but you are going to have to do way better than this nonsense to convince anyone who hasn't got some crackpot conspiracy agenda that you are talking anything but utter cobblers.

[jackles]

what started the big bang.you did .you started the bigbang .why so could have good time being lots of diffrent moveing things.you is the nonrelative you the one sizeless you that dosnt move when you measure the speed of light.thats what started the universe.its was you and you( alone.)the one mover you are apart of.the mover what started all that moving in the big bang..

[uwot]

I can't think of any way to disprove it, jackles. You'll just have to take my word: it wasn't me.

[jackles]

the truth(or fact) is stranger than fiction uwot.

[uwot]

So they say, jackles. I particularly like the quip: 'The difference between fact and fiction is that fiction has to make sense.' Can't remeber who said it off the top of my head.

[jackles]

sounds a bit like churchill.

[uwot]

The actual quote is: 'The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.' It was Tom Clancy.
Churchill said some stuff about 'fighting them on the beaches' and 'their finest hour', but the one that counts is his come back to Lady Astor, who accused him of being drunk: 'Yes I am,' said Winston, 'and you are ugly, but in the morning, I shall be sober.'

Actually, Churchill, brilliant half American saviour of the free world and right wing nutter, is a goldmine for quotations. My favourite is:

"You have enemies? Good, that means you have stood up for something."
There is no finer measure of a person than the quality of the people who hate them.

[Bernard]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152728604336514

[WanderingLands]

It is not that I have ignored the evidence, I just don't think it supports the conclusions that you draw; it certainly doesn't show that the Big Bang theory is falsified, which the author claims. What you and the author of the article are ignoring is that even if Arp is right with respect to 'quasars' that are apparently associated with nearby galaxies, there are vastly more quasars that are not.
A phenomenon that the author claims is a quasar that appears to be in front of a galaxy would be very interesting if it could be proven that that is what it is and the red shift is incompatible with the distance. Do you have any evidence that this is the case, other than the authors say so?

Even if it were true that "most redshifts aren't Dopplers", the others presumably are, thus supporting the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory depends on all redshifts being Dopplers, so some only being Dopplers and others not actually does disprove the Big Bang theory, or at least is not one of the proof(s) of it.

So they were looking for evidence that could be interpreted as incompatible with the Big Bang theory. In other words, they didn't have any evidence that the Big Bang was wrong before they made up their minds that it was. "Seek and ye shall find." (Matthew 7:7 apparently). What people often fail to realise is that empirical evidence can support a number of different hypotheses. I don't usually do this, because I assume that people are smart enough to appreciate some facts without them being shouted; anyway....
empirical evidence can support a number of different hypotheses.
The fact that empirical evidence supports one hypothesis does not mean it falsifies a competing hypothesis. If it were that simple, there wouldn't be two hypotheses.

So they were looking for evidence that supports their hypothesis. Fair enough.

True, but then you are simply evading from the observations of scientists like Arp and the study done in 1990, which have shown observations that have contradicted the theory. Not only that, but many people have had doubts of associating redshifts with distance, such as even Edwin Hubble, who wrote 'The Problem of the Expanding Universe'. Thus, it is the Big Bang theory that does not seem to hold water to these observations shown.

If quasars are so ejected, we could expect to see that process in progress. In other words, we should expect to see 'ejections' at different distances. The likelihood that this is a process that has finished and all such ejections have reached their destination and are staying there is not in any meaningful sense greater than nil. It is a really stupid argument.

How so?

A few anomalous phenomena do not falsify a theory for which there is overwhelming evidence. You may choose not to believe it for whatever reason pleases you, but you are going to have to do way better than this nonsense to convince anyone who hasn't got some crackpot conspiracy agenda that you are talking anything but utter cobblers.

Again - still defending an already debunked theory, even given the amount of evidence contrary. By the way, this isn't simply some 'crackpot conspiracy agenda' or 'cobblers'; these actual facts that have been presented by many scientists whom have seen the outright corruption and idiocy within the scientific establishment.