Cosmos (Neil deGrasse Tyson)

[Simple Torture]

I don't doubt too many scientific theories, but I don't believe in the big bang theory.

Luckily, you don't need to believe in it for it to be true.

Neil???

[CopperTom]

I don't doubt too many scientific theories, but I don't believe in the big bang theory.

Luckily, you don't need to believe in it for it to be true.

It's not "true," it's an accepted theory. The "proof" of it seems like a stretch. Knowing or proving something that happened billions of years ago is impossible. The big bang theory only proves man's arrogance.

[Simple Torture]

I think most people who are careful about what they say are pretty much in agreement that our current measurements and evidence can only take us back so far; no one claims to know how or why the big bang happened, or what existed before. But all measurements of the expansion of the universe and the nature of particles point to it, so until some evidence points to something else, this is what we've got. That's how science works, baby!

[nyquillyn]

I don't doubt too many scientific theories, but I don't believe in the big bang theory.

Luckily, you don't need to believe in it for it to be true.

It's not "true," it's an accepted theory. The "proof" of it seems like a stretch. Knowing or proving something that happened billions of years ago is impossible. The big bang theory only proves man's arrogance.

How is trying to understand what we came from proof of man's arrogance? It's human nature to want to know and understand things.

And more and more "proof" of the Big Bang is being discovered all the time.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/inno ... nal-waves/

[CopperTom]

If someone says God created everything, people roll their eyes and dismiss it.

If someone says 1 atom created everything, they call it the big bang and (generally) accept it.

They seem equally "magical" to me.

[jwfocker]

If someone says God created everything, people roll their eyes and dismiss it.

If someone says 1 atom created everything, they call it the big bang and (generally) accept it.

They seem equally "magical" to me.

So, what's the issue here? Does it bother you that people are attempting to make logically sense of the creation of the universe or does it bother you that as time progresses more and more people dismiss the theory that a being created everything?

[Watch The Flames]

If someone says God created everything, people roll their eyes and dismiss it.

If someone says 1 atom created everything, they call it the big bang and (generally) accept it.

They seem equally "magical" to me.

The difference being that Science is more than ready and willing to change that theory if it's proven wrong. The religions who believe God created everything wouldn't change their mind if the proof was right in front of them.

[Norah]

The difference being one has a big pile of evidence to back it up.

[jwfocker]

If someone says God created everything, people roll their eyes and dismiss it.

If someone says 1 atom created everything, they call it the big bang and (generally) accept it.

They seem equally "magical" to me.

The difference being that Science is more than ready and willing to change that theory if it's proven wrong. The religions who believe God created everything wouldn't change their mind if the proof was right in front of them.

Yeah, the catholic church has proved this throughout history.

[CopperTom]

I'm not religious, or supporting that theory either.

The proof seems so loosely tied to the theory. I can't get past step 1 - infinite expansion in an infinitesimal amount of time. Doesn't that contradict physics in every way imaginable?

[Simple Torture]

I'm not religious, or supporting that theory either.

The proof seems so loosely tied to the theory. I can't get past step 1 - infinite expansion in an infinitesimal amount of time. Doesn't that contradict physics in every way imaginable?

It wasn't an infinite expansion--if it were, then the universe wouldn't still be expanding today, when, in fact, it is. And, for sure, the reason we can only go back so far is because during the plank epoch the laws of physics as we know them hadn't developed yet, so relativity doesn't work; no one really believes they know what happened back then, but they've come up with theories and are currently testing them. How is that arrogant again?

[BurtReynolds]

I'm not religious, or supporting that theory either.

The proof seems so loosely tied to the theory. I can't get past step 1 - infinite expansion in an infinitesimal amount of time. Doesn't that contradict physics in every way imaginable?

With all we know about the universe, why is this particularly unbelievable? It doesn't sound any more absurd than anything else to me. I do think some approach science in the same dogmatic way as religious people. All we can do is analyze the evidence and see where it points, then alter that view as new evidence becomes available.

[CopperTom]

I'm not religious, or supporting that theory either.

The proof seems so loosely tied to the theory. I can't get past step 1 - infinite expansion in an infinitesimal amount of time. Doesn't that contradict physics in every way imaginable?

It wasn't an infinite expansion--if it were, then the universe wouldn't still be expanding today, when, in fact, it is. And, for sure, the reason we can only go back so far is because during the plank epoch the laws of physics as we know them hadn't developed yet, so relativity doesn't work; no one really believes they know what happened back then, but they've come up with theories and are currently testing them. How is that arrogant again?

I think it did infinitely expand and it it still expanding. It's infinite - it could infinitely expand forever and still be able to infinitely expand. There is no end of space.
I find it arrogant that people try to prove this. It's the single most unprovable fact of our existence. These great minds can be spent trying to solve something more useful, no?

[BurtReynolds]

I'm not religious, or supporting that theory either.

The proof seems so loosely tied to the theory. I can't get past step 1 - infinite expansion in an infinitesimal amount of time. Doesn't that contradict physics in every way imaginable?

It wasn't an infinite expansion--if it were, then the universe wouldn't still be expanding today, when, in fact, it is. And, for sure, the reason we can only go back so far is because during the plank epoch the laws of physics as we know them hadn't developed yet, so relativity doesn't work; no one really believes they know what happened back then, but they've come up with theories and are currently testing them. How is that arrogant again?

I think it did infinitely expand and it it still expanding. It's infinite - it could infinitely expand forever and still be able to infinitely expand. There is no end of space.
I find it arrogant that people try to prove this. It's the single most unprovable fact of our existence. These great minds can be spent trying to solve something more useful, no?

To assume unprovability is somewhat arrogant, no? How do you know what is unprovable? And who better to decide what is useful than the "Great minds"?

[Alex]

go braves

[BurtReynolds]

go braves

A great mind would never root for the Braves.

[Norah]

Someone ask him the door question.

[BurtReynolds]

If you were a door, what kind of door would you be?

That one?

[darth_vedder]

If you were a door, what kind of door would you be?

[CopperTom]

go braves

A great mind would never root for the Braves.

...in October.