|
| 09 Feb 2014 07:56 PM |
If it started from an atom, where did the atom come from?
I know, I know, I'm being illogical. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
bmi9198
|
  |
| Joined: 10 Mar 2008 |
| Total Posts: 2346 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 07:57 PM |
You make sense though, it's why I don't believe in the Big Bang.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 07:59 PM |
| Notice it's still a 'Theory' |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 07:59 PM |
| lel i though you were talking bout the big bang theory show. Btw did you know penny finally kissed amy? :P i knew that was gonna happen since like the first season :/ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Pakesboy
|
  |
| Joined: 09 Nov 2011 |
| Total Posts: 3044 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 08:01 PM |
@duncan
........................................................................................................................................................................ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
JamesGalt
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 13607 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 08:03 PM |
| before the big bang, there was not nothingness, the nature of existence is to be not derivative from non-existance. There are many theories on what substance(s) were before the big bang, but the point is the universe was in a different form before that event. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 08:05 PM |
"before the big bang, there was not nothingness"
That is why nothing does not exist.
So, you're saying that the atom was just......there? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 08:06 PM |
| it is improbable that humans will know a definite answer to the origins of the universe |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 08:07 PM |
| What James is saying is that the Laws of Nature were different before the Big Bang. They broke down because of an unknown force and eventually created the Big Bang. After the Big Bang a new form was created. That form being our current model of Nature. The Laws of Nature. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
JamesGalt
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Sep 2007 |
| Total Posts: 13607 |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 08:08 PM |
| Not just an atom, every atom in the universe was condensed down to the size of a single atom. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 08:31 PM |
"Georges Lemaître first proposed what became the Big Bang theory in what he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom""
Checkmate. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 08:35 PM |
"Checkmate."
So because of something someone first proposed almost 100 years ago disproves all of science today?
Get out. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 10:09 PM |
Couldn't this be said for religion as well? Where did God come from? "he was always there" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 10:29 PM |
@Valerius >"Couldn't this be said for religion as well? Where did God come from?"
"If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"
- Carl Sagan, Cosmos |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 10:36 PM |
Anyways, I implore everyone in this thread to watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOYrlqF-IW0 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 11:17 PM |
"Except for laws, lol."
No. Laws are not higher than theories. You are completely incorrect and ignorant to what scientific theories and laws are.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2
"Also, isn't the theory basically the theory that all matter originated from one super-particle of some sort?"
Not even close! Rather than asking stupid questions, at LEAST read the Wikipedia page.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
| |
|
|
| 09 Feb 2014 11:28 PM |
"How can something which is absolute be lower than something which is debated?"
Scientific laws are not absolute. PLEASE FREAKING GO TO THE SOURCE.
I did not link you to a source because it's fun to copy and paste things. I did that so you would understand.
You seem to have this anti-knowledge barrier that refuses to learn new things. When I provide a source, GO TO IT.
"A theory may have quite a bit of proof, but it remains unproven, and can't quite be used to support an argument."
You're an idiot. GO TO THE SOURCE. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
padam11
|
  |
| Joined: 11 Feb 2013 |
| Total Posts: 15774 |
|
|
| 10 Feb 2014 12:54 AM |
Know one knows. They only know what happened after the Big Bang.
AND I'M LOVIN EVERY SECOND, MINUTE, HOUR BIGGER, BETTER, POWER. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 10 Feb 2014 02:42 AM |
Quoting it;
"Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances."
Of course we all know how accurate generalizations can be. But the earth has been proven to work this way under *insert your circumstances here* so there is truth to them. And of course under this premise laws are not absolute and as we dig further and explore more circumstances therefore being able to correctly generalize with more data laws may be changed.
I could be interpatating it wrong if so explain why as I like to be more knowledgeable on all subjects even if I don't care for them all that much. But when doing so provide a edu website as a source as unless it is CSPAN, Forbes or The Wall Street Journal I will not bother to read it.
"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive
observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
Going by this it pretty much states that theories are the end of the road and a mixture of what makes science - science. And as such they're one of the strongest points in science.
I want to point out that many theories may be correct or fact but due to lack of evidence, witnesses or whatever they have to remain theories. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 10 Feb 2014 02:42 AM |
| you might want to read a book about it or something |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|