h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What exactly can one believe if one doesn't believe in the big bang. Creationists believe it, Darwinists believe it. Who doesn't, and what do they believe?

I recently read in the German popular sciences magazine P. M. that some astrophysicians believe that the
"red light phenomenon", commonly used as proof for the Big Bang, could also be because of energy loss
of the light instead of the movement of Galaxies (which, in that theory, doesn't exist).

It was also said that the Big Bang theory became popular because it serves the Christian myths of creation
rather than the perpetual universe view of Buddhism and Hinduism.

Yep - what do you have to tell about that issue?

Add to the last statement:

I just went to your personal area and found out about the importance belief has for you... Funny I
posted that Christianity/Buddhism thing BEFORE I knew that, don't you think?

Actually, I don't believe the big bang at all. Not to be all contreversial and loudmouthed or anything, but I really don't think that the big bang theory coincides with the method that God used to create the universe (he said it and it was there. No other explaination needed. ).

Also, I didn't understand you, Jacksrevenge, when you said that the big bang theory supports the christian "myth" of creation. What did you mean by that?

I ain't tryin' to start an argument. I'm looking for the easiest, most non-argumentive way I can, but by it's nature this is a contreversial subject!

I don't believe in the Big Bang because it is contrary to Eastern religion. I believe it because:

The general theory of relativity and red shifts in stars indicate that the universe is expanding, and thus must have been extremely small at one time.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is decaying and something must be created before it decays.

The first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed indicating the universe was created by some "intelligent force" outside the restrictions of the universe.

And yes, the big bang supports the idea of a God. No other explaination exists for how the big bang could have happened, save by a superintelligent being causing it.

Sorry to correct you, Josh, but:

1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Nothing about matter in there at all.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Heat energy flows from hot to cold, and in a thermodynamic cycle there will always be an amount of heat rejected from the cycle. This leads to the definition of entropy. This doesn't actually state that the universe is decaying but it can be used to infer the concept of universal 'heat death'.

Otherwise your views are entertaining at least.

Madent

Madent, matter and energy are interchangeable. That's what we get the atom bomb. small amount of matter (uranium, I believe, the the case of atomic bombs) = large amount o' energy.

Jacksrevenge, you had read taht ""red light phenomenon", commonly used as proof for the Big Bang, could also be because of energy loss
of the light instead of the movement of Galaxies", I've never heard of that explanation. Did they also explain why then, light coming from Andromeda is blue-shifted? If that theory holds, then the light should be gaining energy coming from Andromeda, and not because the Andromeda and Milky-way galaxies are on a collision course. I'm also not sure if light /can/ loose energy, doesn't that make it move slower if it does, which isn't supposed to be able to happen no matter what your frame of reference.

just a thought anyways...

Lawn Gnome

Matter and energy are not interchangeable. Ask your science teacher, but basically nuclear energy as in an A bomb is the result of the following process.

Matter comprises small particles (molecules) made up of smaller particles (atoms) made up of smaller particles (protons, electrons, neutrons) made up of even smaller stuff and so on. Each level represents a higher degree of order than the one below it and to create order requires energy. So an atom is a collection of smaller particles held together with energy that is stored in it's structure. The larger the atom the greater the amount of energy stored.

A nuclear reaction comes about when a large amount of an unstable material such as an isotope of Uranium is compressed slightly to increase it's density. This mechanical action results in a nuclear reaction whereby particles are released from the Uranium to form a more stable isotope of another material. As these sub-atomic particles are released, the energy that was used to hold them in the original structure of the Uranium isotope is also released. This release of energy, nuclear energy, is the energy produced by a nuclear reaction. It is not free and there is no loss of matter. The emitted particles (alpha/beta radiation and neutrons) still exist, but are no longer within the structure of the material.

This is a fairly basic explanation and I must admit doesn't really explain to any degree of satisfaction why nuclear fusion also releases energy, but then I'm not a nuclear physicist.

TTFN

Madent

You guys are so exciting!!

your conversation has just caused me to soil my pants 10 times over!!

ps. BANG!!!!

Cyber Babe

I presume the nicknames "Airhead" and "Barbie" were already taken?

On the other hand, I have usually found that when people pick a moniker of the type that is supposed to conjure a particular sort of image in the minds of others, the reality is something else.

Have a happy, blinkered and non-interesting life CB.

Madent

Now Now Madent, it was only a little joke!! look, I was only being sarcastic!! Your right! The end of the World is an extremely interesting topic!!

ps. I am a media student who is destined to become one of the most important figures in the world of film critics with a high knowledge of Stanely Kubrick and other such media related subjects. I blew the minds of neighbouring university film tutors and recieved a B in a level photography (and no it wasn't pornographic) so think twice before you call me an "Airhead" "Madent" isn't exactly a very interesting name now is it, swo don't make fun of my name!! The reson I am called cyber doll is because I am an absolute babe! oh yeah and another thing "Barbie" isn't a stupid name either!! She is in fact a hard working career girl and not just a hot looking piece of plastic!!

Cyber Babe

Good luck with the studies.

(Cheeky grin)

I look forward to Film 2021, when having completed your studies and climbed the critics ladder (maybe that should be descended) you will be able to give us your thoughts on the latest batch of studio remakes and Disney rewrites of history and/or classic stories (eg Harry Potter, who will turn out to have been from Florida after all).

(Pseudo-serious)

Of course, by then Spielberg will be President of the US and Ann Widdecombe will be leader of the opposition in the local English district council of the European Community, which will of course be run from Bonn through a puppet structure in Brussels, paid for through taxation in Britain, while French farmers continue their three year strike requiring that all farm produce in Europe must originate in France.

(Wry smile - I still ought to have a go with GuideML, smileys would be easier)

"Madent" also has a reason and was I thought at least a little original. It is also descriptive but not so strightforward as Cyber Babe (although obviously I'll just have to take your word for it)!

TTFN

Madent

PS - I quite agree about Barbie. She is much maligned in some countries as unwholesome and unjustly portrayed as a symbol of capitalism.

AHH!! I see what you're doing!! You are trying to bombard me with your futuristic ideas using big words and very complex terms in the hope that I will not understand and that I will have to admit to my "AIR HEADED " ways. Well it aint gonna happen buddy!! Speilberg will not be president!! Baz Lhurman will be!! People will become infatuated with his visual on screen style and Mulin Rouge, Romeo and Juliet and Strictly Ballroom will become the cult classics of the future!! Ann Widecomb by the way is very smart and clued up but Barbie is more intelligent still!! Of course she is unwholesome that's the whole point of Barbie!! People have been doing research and they say that if she was a real person she would need a 60 inch bra!! She is not in porportion but then again neither is Jordan and I can't hear the male population complaining!!

ps. thank you for the good luck wishes it was very nice of you!! But the ladder will not have to be desended for me to climb thank you!!

Something like a 40" inside leg, I heard!

OH COME ON!! Barbie? A 40" inside leg? She is nothing like it! That would make her fat (or sorry energetically challenged)

How can a 40" inside leg make Barbie fat? It just makes her legs extremely long and her torso very short, assuming she is scaled down from 5-1/2 feet tall that is.

Concerning the topic "Myth" (also see conversation "alternative theories") in response to Lawn Gnome

Myth = Explaining encountered phenomena yet unexplainable by stories. The three main topics encountered in History are:

1. The Creation of the World
For Christians: Genesis; for the Old Greeks: Uranos & Gaea

2. The Becoming of Flora, Fauna and other Aspects of Nature
For Christians: (mostly) also Genesis; for the Old Greeks: Best to read in Ovid's "Metamorphoses"

3. Dealing With The Cruelty of Fate
Many different traditions; Some Christians, especially the Calvinists believe(d) in Predestination; Some legends refer to the Three Norns Urd, Verdandi and Skuld, Deities of Fate (which is, as term, probably a myth itself). Fate has also always been a hot topic in Philosophy (Logos or Nous with the Greeks; Schopenhauer's Will Theory is a very cruel interpretation of Fate (and sounds very dramatized, therefore also kinda reaching myth level).
This is also the section where equational stories can't be easily separated from religious beliefs or philosophical science.

Note that 1. and 2. have step by step been adopted by natural sciences, while 3. probably never fully will be absorbed by sciences like Sociology because, well, man isn't fully rational and we like it that way .

The Big Bang theory is, figuratively, very similar to the Christian Myth of Creation and therefore doesn't collide very much even with the Vatican people.

Lawn Gnome,

I am most sorry to interupt the conversation concerning the big bang!

Please feel free (if your intellectual ignorance to Barbie will let you) To join in the plastic fantastic topic!!

Oh c'mon!! She wears pink, she's adorably dumb (although still a hard working career girl) and she knows how to treat her men (Ken is a complete @#!?#@#!and needs somebody who will harshly refuse him "action")

As long as this thread deals with alternatives maybe we should mention that the Vikings believed that Odin built the world from the dead giant ymir and the stars from sparks off Muspelheim.
However one is more likely to find Barbie dolls than Vikings these days.