BIG BANG THEORY, consists of one piece of evidence, red shift (star colour)

You're right. Didn't read far enough in wikipedia; had quoted only one article but read on to see that they do. Had read about that speed of light thing and the body in Newsweek about 2 years ago; I like my house anyway.

black holes exist. nobody has ever seen one that is true, yet they can be "seen" by their reaction with the surrounding space and space objects. the term "hole" is a very unfortunate one, they are most probably spherical objects like every star out there. the fact that nothing can escape their gravitational pull earned them that nickname. even the gravitation of these objects isn't something absolutely devastating, a planet for instance could very safely revolve around a black hole without being sucked inside as long as it maintains the right distance from it. the "wormhole" on the other hand, by which the time/space travel would be plausible, is just a pure theory

These 'black holes' exist....on paper only. None have ever been seen. People talk of time travel thru a black hole and 'folding space'. It's already been proven the human body can't travel the speed of light even in a craft that can. We're confined to this earth. That's the way it is. These 'holes' offer no hope whatsoever in space travel. Even if these guys prove how the universe was formed, what then? Who's to say how God did it? It won't dis-prove or prove anything! Big Bang is a start...only. Then they'll have to figure out what started the start. What a bunch of wasted time and crap!

if I get sucked into a black hole, I'll be pissed!

Zeus, you are wrong. This time the chinese will do it. :P

Just in case everyone should start completing the tasks of their bucketlist. :D

why couldn't God use the "big bang" to create the universe?

Science does not kill God, it discovers Him.

Don't worry slarti, its in Europe, same old, same old. Europe wrecks its own arse, and the Brits will step in and sort them all out AGAIN!! ;-)

we are fuked

That's the spirit :)

If theres an eating competition.......COUNT ME IN!!!

...That could happen, but at least they'll have a great story to tell down the pub :)

cont/ In the experiment, atomic particles will be fired in opposite directions along the 17-mile long underground ring — the length of the Circle Line on the London Underground. They will travel so fast that they make 11,245 trips around the tunnel every SECOND. From the collisions, boffins expect to discover a fundamental bit of the atom, called the Higgs boson, that is expected to exist but which has never been seen. Professor Otto Rossler, from the Eberhard Karls University of Tubingen in Germany, is one of the scientists mounting the legal challenge at the European Court of Human Rights against 20 countries which are funding the project. He said: “It is quite plausible that these little black holes will survive and will grow and eat the planet from the inside out.” A CERN spokesman said: “It will not be producing anything that does not already happen routinely in nature.”

SCIENTISTS are trying to stop the most powerful experiment ever – saying the black holes it will create could destroy the world. Dubbed by some the Doomsday test, it will be carried out next week in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), located 300ft underground near the French-Swiss border. The machine is 17 miles long and cost £4.4billion to create. When its switch is pulled on September 10, this atom-smasher will become a virtual time machine, revealing what happened when the universe came into existence 14 billion years ago. New particles of matter are expected to be discovered, new dimensions found beyond the four known, as scientists re-create conditions in the first BILLIONTHS of a second after the Big Bang. Experts even predict that millions of tiny black holes will be produced — baby brothers of the monsters gobbling up dust and stars at the heart of the galaxies. That is why boffins are now trying to stop the project with a last-ditch challenge in the courts. They fear the LHC experimenters are tinkering with the unknown and putting mankind — and our whole planet — at risk.

The group responsible for the experiment, the European Nuclear Research Centre (CERN), says that these mini black holes will vanish as quickly as they are created.

But the anti-CERN brigade accuse the scientists of playing God, warning that no one can guarantee that the black holes will not survive, rapidly growing in size to suck the Earth out of existence in an instant. But CERN, which includes several UK scientists, say their work is vital to unlock the secrets of matter that forms everything known in the universe. cont/

hey gospelmidi, nice to have another physicist aboard. As far as the Bible - 1. nowhere in the Bible does it say the Universe is 6,000 years old 2. 3K background radiation - need I say more? 3. You should know better than anyone that "In the beginning" there was no "space and matter" and therefore time clearly did not exist as we know it. ("The first day" is meaningless if compared to a 24 hour day) 4. Bible does not say HOW God created it all. Don't lose faith in Big Bang, although we know it has some serious flaws, or our knowledge of it does.

I have a B.S. in physics from Tulane and an M.S. from Georgia Tech, and I worked in applications development for IBM.

The red shift in NO WAY proves a big bang. In fact, in recent observations, the amounts of red shift have INCREASED from the amounts observed about 50 years ago. If a big bang were responsible, increasing red shifts would indicate INCREASING VELOCITIES of stars away from their origin(s). High school physics students know that, unless a force is applied to cause it, acceleration violates Newton's first law (force = mass x acceleration). Therefore, something else causes the increase in the red shift and, therefore, possibly causes the red shift itself.

The general theory of relativity says that gravity influences the dimensions of space, such that outside the extent of mass in the universe, space does not exist, and at the other extreme, where great mass is concentrated, space collapses toward an infinitesimal point, i.e. a black hole. Inside a black hole (IaBH), light has the same velocity as usual, c. But because space is collapsed to an infinitesimal point, light travels at c yet gets "nowhere", as viewed from an external reference, from which light IaBH APPEARS to travel at ZERO VELOCITY. Likewise, the frequency of light IaBH is unchanged, but because space is collapsed, frequency as viewed from an external reference APPEARS to be nil.

If a celestial object (not quite a black hole) has super-gravity, that both slows the light it radiates and reduces its frequency ONLY AS VIEWED FROM AN EXTERNAL REFERENCE. Super-gravity accounts for the red shift, and as mass collapses, it increases both gravity and the red shift.

I believe in Biblical creation and a young universe (~6000 years old) because God says that's how it happened, and He was there, with the angels. Don't build a theology from the world's theories; fit the scientifically observed facts to God's word. It CAN be done without falsifying evidence. But the converse cannot.

yes I did haya...and you will find out that the longer I remain sober the weirder I'll get you have to remember, if I have not told you yet, this is the longest I've been sober in about 4 years (no shit!) so it takes some adjusting, I believe my mind is getting adjusted to all that food (and oxycodone) i've been dropping. Truth.

you know what I think I'd like to do this weekend? I mean totally, go all out hollywood and crossdress myself so darn well, make up a fake identity and post a pic of this new "girls" on this thread and say something like " Hi guys, this is me in my cheerleading outfit, I'm a freshman in college, my name is Melissa Werstiner, go Indiana Blue Dogs!!" or something like..."me on the back porch in Key West", and wait for all you deprived pervs to flatter me with your pathetic "ooh you're cute missy.." and shit like that...and lead you on...then post another one with my skirt raised up titled "SURPRISE IT's ZOMATRA"!"...I bet I'd get at least half of you lonely boners ;-) btw...get a ruler (american measurement) and place your index finger on the seventh inch...ok..now, picture this, that's how long I am...(did I get you to think of my dick?) Fag!@

the big bang is on the aflirt posts not this one;-)

One of the frequent arguments I see arises from the use of the word theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

The everyday use of the word "theory" doesn't have the same meaning that scientists use the word for - the first two paragraphs pretty much clear this up. Now, if we were using the word hypothesis, then that's a different matter...

It is just a theory, we will never know.

That just means 10 years less I'll have to spend in a nursing home. What's wrong with sleeping anyway?

Look in the mirror. Thanx to me you are.

Here's my own <biased?> definition of the word "science" : man's feeble quest to discover and understand the works of an all-powerful, benevolant, sentient creator.

My mother really never went to school at all, came from a family of hilbillies,she learned to read and write, and do math in two different languages on her own, she married a chemist, and can out debate even HeWho. I think people with disabilities like Hawking and Jeff Healy (blind guitar player), tend to excell over others in certain things because of their drive, and they had to learn to work four times as hard to be twice as good as others.

When I was "shopping" for universities after college, the university which I chose had a brochure with a "model student" selling the place. He was handicapped. I learned later that he didn't have good grades at all (he took 6 years to finish his 3½ years baccalaureat). I'm sorry to say, but people with handicaps are bound to receive more attention when they do ANYTHING. Everyone has admiration for them, and they are often not judged on the same basis as the rest of us. That's ok with me, but you have to know it...

Oh I'm sorry your comment was ill prepared and hence used against you.

That's a matter of opinion startrooper. What you will find on Hawking in google scholar or anywhere is work done by a large, well funded team. He did propose interesting theories, but that doesn't make him a great scientist in my view. And River... you obviously know nothing of what you're talking about. Saying "in that case there should be a whole slew of famous people" was most stupid: Of course you have to be disabled and be able to do something people think you should not be able of doing to be interesting. That is Hawking's case.

Alphapix, I hate to tell you, but I am a physicist - you can believe that or not, doesn't matter to me. And I can tell you, Stephen Hawking is not famous because he is disabled, he is famous because he's a damn good physicist - not the "best", but damn good. If you don't believe that, do a Google Scholar search on Hawking. And to the poster of this thread, no, the only proof for the expanding universe is not only the red shift, there are other indicators as well. Also, no one in the field would ever claim that we know for sure much about the origin of the universe - every day we gather more and more data to make a better educated opinion.

wow, you have lost ALL credibilty. you just called Stephen Hawking average. lol

Having heard about him first hand and having read a bit about him, I really doubt he can be called a genius. I'm not saying he's incompetent, just that he's average. Did you ever read it's most famous book, "A Brief History of Time"? It's really poor popularization. I've seen much better explained works, and more accurate too. He does make good publicity for Cambridge. Anyway, my point really is you can't say something is true just besause so-and-so said it might be.

And dude, I didn't bring up Hawking in case you STILL hadn't understood that. I was answering a comment if you would be so kind as to read the comments before posting bullshit.

zbronze: "even Stephen Hawking admitted could indicate that the universe is actually eternal"

Professor Hawking is famous because he is disabled? Well in that case there should be a whole slew of famous people. Funny, I thought he was famous for holding the position Newton once held and for being a genius. Huh.

Wtf is your problem torpedoesinthewater? Ya I made a spelling mistake, so what? What I'm saying is Hawking is famous because he's handicapped, mostly. He is not that great a reference when it comes to physics. And btw, I guess you can say what you want on internet, that you're a physicist for example. But if you think I'm lying, please find better arguments than typing mistakes. I don't feel the urge of getting my diploma out and posting it sorry. If someone says he's a doctor, will you question it? Then why is it different for physics?

Look up one of the first paragraphs in the book where He says "let there be light"............BANG! BTW I dont think they had sattelites back then.

Btw, I got a pal (physicist like me) who had Stenphen Hawking as a teacher and told me about it. Sometimes he just goes crazy and it's totally like him to admit something obviously wrong for no reason at all, only to be convinced 2 minutes later that it was crap. Don't go too fast naming science superstars. They can (and often are) be very wrong.

What's circular time?

Time is a dimension much like the 3 most people are quite familiar with (and may actually include more than one dimension). Dimensions are aspects of existence, and all operate together to define the universe around us. The gravity of massive stellar objects bends space, and time as well. (gravity, in essence, is bent space) At speeds approaching the speed of light, time is significantly slowed for the traveller in comparison to slower moving objects.

Understanding all of that, it's not much more of a stretch to see that if space can be distorted on a large scale, so can time. So, in theory, much like how something passing by a sufficiently massive object can be pulled into an elliptical orbit around that object, time could potentially be distorted into a similar shape.

So, if it's distorted enough to connect the future with the past, then we could potentially be living in an everlasting universe that doesn't continue endlessly in two directions of time, but instead loops around over and over again.

Not too long ago, there were some measurements of the background radiation that even Stephen Hawking admitted could indicate that the universe is actually eternal and not derived from a Big Bang. Even if it is eternal, that still leaves the possibility of circular time.

Until you creationists can prove the existence of god, you need to shut the fuck up about the Big Bang Theory. Don't believe everything your ancestors say. They weren't that smart.

Or was that a joke?

Omg, what a good example of someone knowing nothing to subject but trying to show that he knows more than everybody. Hilbert space is a mathematical tool and has nothing to do with this subject.

I can't believe no one's discussed Hilbert space yet. What are you all? Morons? ;-)

First of all noone talks about the universe starting from "virtually nothing": we (I personnaly did a phd in astrophysics) are saying the universe was very (perhaps infinitely) condensed in the beginning. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS FOCUSED IN ONE POINT LIKE THAT PICTURE LEADS TO THINK. We rather think even then the universe was infinite: even infinity can expand. By the way, the Big Bang today is still labeled "a theory", and it always will be since it's not provable, but it's as much a certainty as the fact the earth isn't flat (or will you contest that also?).

chezz when will you evolve into someone who doesn’t live with his parents and still wet the bed? Your life depends on morons just like yourself debating a moot subject. For creationists’ sake, die and find out the truth for us all!!

Changes?

http://www.gaiaguys.net/666.htm = CRAP!

Wait Chezz, you Totally did not respond to #526. This all powerfull God we all know and love *scoff* seems to prefer the hands off approach. Why is it not possible, in your silly opinion, that he did not create the first microorganisms at let it evolve from there?

chocolate cookies

these go too far into multidimensional physics to be explained here. Google "string theory" and see what you get.