Do you believe in past lives?
- Thread starter Johnnny
- Start date
From what I can gather before the "big bang" there was nothing and after the big bang there was lots of matter (mass). When I was in school (shortly after Archimedes) we learned that the amount of matter never changes. So perhaps the "big bang" is just a big pile of Bullsh*t. :lol:
Jeez, don't you watch tv, don't you know the song?
"Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!"
The photos simply confirm the expanding universe. It was also (believed at this point) not an explosion but a dense, unbelievably hot compact mass which reached an expansion point. Every part of the universe is also continuing to expand. In doing so it is all thinning out.
However, this is still theory, built from putting different clues together. You know like all the clues investigators use to support their theories of reincarnation.
Photos you'll have seen do not contain the data confirming the expansion, that requires instruments other than cameras, and you will not have seen any image purporting to be of debris from the centre of the explosion, unless you've been visiting junk science sites put up by people who don't know what they're talking about. There are certainly plenty of those.
You are confounding two different meanings of the word theory. In common usage theory is often used as a synonym for a guess or a hypothesis, which leads to a lot of muddled thinking and foolish criticism of legitimate scientific theories. The most common one is probably dismissing one as "only a theory," as creationists commonly do with evolution. A scientific theory has particular characteristics and features, it's a coherent body of observations, ideas, and analyses that serve to describe and explain a range of phenomena, and it is empirical, predictive, testable, and falsifiable. The Big Bang is such a theory, supported by converging lines of evidence and analysis from astronomy, cosmology, general relativity, and quantum theory. There is no theory of reincarnation in that sense, there is merely the unsubstantiated hypothesis and a whole lot of suggestive anecdotes.
Good thing most of the rest of the world disagrees with your view on psychology.
By the looks of it to me, you haven't a clue what psychology is.
Also, there's just as much evidence for supporting reincarnation as there is supporting your god .... none.
roflmao
If you think the Big Bang was an explosion, you haven't a clue about it. There is NO evidence supporting the idea of some magician god planning anything. You religious freaks simply leap to a conclusion and then scrounge around for anything to use as fact or fiction to support the conclusion instead of letting the facts guide you to a conclusion.
Intelligent design is a joke. Superstitious beliefs in gods and demons is a joke.
Of course, it takes more than cameras to record debris emanating from a central source. It takes mathmatics, methods of measuring distances from one chunk of debris to another over time. It takes understanding microwaves, interpretating the data, and weaving the results into a coherent whole. But understand that any change in anyone of those methods of working out a theory, changes the conclusion. At this point the expansion of the universe is the most likely hypothosis.
LOL, there have been many theories all based on current knowledge. The point is that the knowledge base changes day by day, year by year. Even Einstein and Hawkings have admitted to finding certain data that changes results that seemed to be set in stone. There are as yet, many things for scientists to learn and much that will need changing. Even then changes will occur that will alter what was "true" at one time, but are not anylonger.
Human knowledge is based on curiousity combined with an imaginative nature. Where is the line between imagining and actuality?? lt seems to me without being aware of infinite possibilities, we would still be bugs in the mud. Perhaps our reality depends on our conception of it. When ideas come into human consciousness, they frequently emerge in from different areas of our world's population within a relatively short time period.. Up to now it has been mostly about what surrounds us. I feel it is time to find out how much our inner abilities of conception shape reality.
You're still missing the point. The cosmos is not expanding out from a central location and you can not have seen photos of it doing so. It's expanding everywhere at once in a fashion that makes every observer appear to be at the centre. The microwave background is not an image of the big bang, it's the surface of last scattering when the cosmos was, if my memory is correct, around 150,000 years old, when it had expanded and cooled enough to become transparent.
the universe was created when god farted. the big bang theory.
and of course 'his' would not have stunk, right? lol
So this is like if the tree falls in the forst thing eh ...except when god farted , he created that famous tree
I'm missing the point?? Nowhere did I say microwaves were an image of the "big bang", which by the way wasn't.
In 1963, Penzias and Wilson discovered, what is now called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which convinced most astronomers that the Big Bang theory was correct. (for now). Astrophysicists began to study whether they could use its properties to study what the universe was like long ago. According to Big Bang theory, the radiation contained information on how matter was distributed over ten billion years ago, when the universe was only 500,000 years old.
When scientists understood that the universe was expanding, they realized that it would have been smaller in the past. At some point in the past, the entire universe would have been a single point. This point, later called the big bang, was the beginning of the universe as we understand it today. However, all expansion is part of that central point.
Now they are investigating whether the Universe is flat, saddle shaped, or oval, open ended or closed. It is believed that this will tell them whether the Universe is finite or infinite. Such would answer whether the philosophers and/or mystics of old were right.......the universe expands, and then collapses in on itself, only to repeat the cycle forever. This was a "theory" of Madam Blavasky, formed before modern science.
Amazing how constant change,sometimes simply confirms what some already knew.
Now, this is supposed to be a discussion on reincarnation or past lives. I merely wished to point out that sometimes as in science, the information or tools for testing, are incomplete in all fields, including universal beginnings, and that the basls our knowledge is built on is constantly changing. I imagine if we, an intelligent species of monkey, do not manage to either destroy ourselves or our environment, we will probably find a way to investigate those other 12 to 15 already known/suspected
dimensions of this universe.
Yes. The cosmos is not expanding out from a central location and you can not have seen photos of it doing so.