BlakeEM

http://mininova.org/get/34277/10_div...se.avi.torrent
Here is a torrent with the video that I watched, although it does jump to conclusions sometimes it does seem to make a point...
Download bittorrent if you want to see it.

here is the basics.

The big bang happened and the world basically came from one point. There are many things they say prove the big bang first of all, and then they say that the big bang proves there must have been a creator to do all the extremely delicate calculations that were needed to get an explosion to do what it did and to guide it though it. I being overly skeptical am not even totally sure of the big bang because the evidence I heard all could have almost infinite causes.

Hydrogen in space would mean it wasn’t all converted to helium so it must have started at some point because otherwise there wouldn’t be any.
I could however say that maybe there is something else that gives off hydrogen that we haven’t discovered? Maybe that dark matter or something gives it off? Really who knows?

The universe is expanding.
I could say that maybe just what we see is. Maybe something else is causing the red light shift? Maybe some dark matter or something else is causing stuff to push away? Maybe there is some anti-gravity that pushes stuff away?

Background radiation is all over the universe (or at least where we can detect it). I can say that this can really come from anything. They say it doesn’t originate from anything, but I can say if the universe is really older than we think then it’s simply trillions of years of background radiation from the trillions of universes and stars over such a long time. I could be wrong, just throwing ideas out there.

They say the big bang proves the existing of god because it blew up yet it was able to form things together after it. Explosions blow stuff apart, not clumps it together. They say a creator must have guided this explosion because the calculation is as delicate as to not blow everything so far apart or too little that everything instantly clumps back together.

Say it did happen then it doesn’t make sense that stuff could clump together unless there was extremely powerful gravitational pulls at points that would cause matter to gather. These points later became galaxies and these galaxies then formed and spread apart from each other. This is the only way I can think of for and explosion to form clumps rather than everything utterly destroyed or spread evenly all over the place.

Another thing I noticed is that the universe seems so evenly spread out, it would seem that the explosion was letting off matter over time rather than in one burst, if it was in one burst there would be a big empty spot where the explosion originated and I haven’t really seen any evidence of this.

You would think that galaxies behind us in the explosion would be moving away much slower and some possibly keeping the same pace if they were right behind us when the bang happened, yet they say all galaxies are expanding away from us and each other. If all is expanding at the same rate it would seem that we are at the center of the explosion. If some are expanding slower it would seem we are on the edge of it. I never heard anything about this in much detail though to get much more in depth on this.

What does everyone else thing about this? Anyone have any more information I’m missing?

EDIT...
The movie also says things like Einstein believed in a god creator of the universe. After research it seems that, just like Hawking, when he says god he means God is Nature. Not that god is some infinite knowledge being that created the universe. At least this is the most I could find out on this.

Vinnie

The big bang. Check.
Expansion of the universe. Check.
Big bang requires God. No check.

This is just your standard fine tuning argument. The refuations are many.

Omnipotent and omniscient creators do not waste eons of energy, space, matter and so on when they build something. Imagine an engineer designing a car the size or Mercury when all is needed is a little 2 door sedan. Wht all the wasted space. Why the sloppy design granted an uber intelligent and powerful creator?

Intelligent Atheists look at the BB and say "hey science breaks down here and we must hold on to this notion." Special pleading theist says, "hey there must be a being outside space and time (whatever that means). We'll call him God (whatever that means). And he must have performed temporal actions like creating something and he did this all outside of space and time when the act of creating something requires both these concepts. So God created space outside of space and time outside of time? Thus there was a time before time and a place before any place and I don't know what I think I mean therefore I should keep my teeth together." Theists end up with lots of problems.

Plus they can't even show that the "complexity of the universe" requires a designer. Plus biological systemes are probably the most complex things we know of and we know 100% that they evolved naturally through small changes over billions of years. Funny how the most complex and ordered things in the universe can be shown to have evolved naturally and have many design flaw....

Vinnie

RGD

Many things, actually.
Sigh. In the first place, the BB is not an explosion - it is an expansion, an entirely different thing. The actual cause of the BB is unknown, although there are some hypotheses (m-brane sex, for example). In the second place, there is no evidence whatever that the 'values' (the "fine-tuning") of the universe ever took place - in fact, it's nonsense to use the phrase "fine-tuning" at all except in a rhetorical sense.

No. What little we do know makes it clear that 'dark matter' doesn't give off hydrogen. Hydrogen simply coalesced out of the initial very hot conditions of the universe.

So far as we can tell, yes.
Scientists have thought all through this, expansion is the best explanation. And the current hypothesis of Dark Energy does postulate some force that pushes matter away.

No, actually it can't come from just anything, and it's prevalence and slight anisotropy match best with an expansion of the universe.

This, of course, is utter nonsense - we're not dealing with an explosion.

Very good. That is correct.

There is no "spot" in the universe where the BB took place: in a way, it took place everywhere at once. Imagine a balloon being blown up: there is no spot on the balloon that is the center of the expansion.

Nope. See the balloon analogy above.

A fair amount. There are some excellent articles on wikipedia on this topic.

The video is lying to you.
You are mostly correct on this point.

BlakeEM

Well the balloon idea was used in that video.

What about the galaxies inside the balloon then? If they are only on the outside then what about the big blank space inside the balloon? When stuff expands it obviously expands from somewhere and that somewhere would be empty?

That is unless everything just appeared spread out evenly then started to expand away from everything else. This would mean there was no expansion from one point.

I never got this part of it at all... why is it called the big bang also if there was no bang?

RainbowSerpent

You are essentially a 3 dimensional being trying to make sense of a 4 dimensional universe.

Where does the universe expand from and to ? Those are the wrong questions. Space is created as the unverse expands. The space wasn't empty, it wasn't even there. It has to be there before it can be empty.

Imagine that you are an ant crawling around inside a ping-pong ball. Essentially a 2 dimesion creature in a 3 dimensional space. You've got a similar problem.

Why call it a big bang. We are limited by our language. The media takes the most interesting phrase and runs with it. Th expansion fo 4 dimensional space-time doesn't have the same ring to it.

Gotta Go

show_no_mercy

The misnomer "big bang" was actually originally created to make fun of the big bang theory.

Shadowy Man

The universe is not a balloon and this is where the balloon analogy breaks down.

Think of the universe as more of an infinitely large raisin bread in the oven, where the raisins are galaxies and the bread is space. As it expands all the raisins move away from each other even though there is no center of the bread.

BlakeEM

This still has the same problem.

You go back in time and the raisins expand from a central point. That central point where all the raisins started is now empty from all of them pushing away from each other. Where is this empty central point? If something is expanding and you go back in time things will obviously get more and more close together.

I don’t see where this 4th demotion comes from, I never heard of that.

You say space is created as the universe expands? Well what about the space that was first created to make room from galaxies and that space was then made empty after they expanded away from it. Now all this expansion again had to start somewhere and that somewhere.

I guess I’ll go read up on it more.


EDIT:



"According to the Big Bang theory, the universe originated in an infinitely dense and physically paradoxical singularity. Space has expanded with the passage of time, objects being moved farther away from each other."

It started at one point (singularity) and expanded from that one point (well matter appeared between the galaxies, has the same effect), as it even shows in that drawing... there is an empty space in the middle. It should seem easy to find where the real center of the universe is... It’s the big open space that everything is moving from. I’d think anyway. That or the matter in the center of the expansion stands still.

Nice image I found
http://www.crystalinks.com/bigbang2.jpg

Gawdzila

The galaxies aren't on the inside of the balloon, they are on the surface
of the balloon. The skin of the balloon is a 2-D representation of 3-D space,
which is why it isn't a perfect analogy. The inside of the balloon doesn't
really exist as far as the universe is concerned, or if it did, it would be
analogous to some sort of 'hyperspace' that would be invisible to people living
in the 2-D balloon surface world. To be slightly more mathematically precise,
our universe is a space called a 4-D "manifold". Unlike the balloon, it doesn't
need any space to expand into, and it is spatially 3-D instead of 2-D. The
4th dimension is time, of course The raisin bread analogy that was
proposed is more apt than the balloon, actually.

That is exactly right, actually. All of space expanded at once, there was
no center of expansion. Each point in space is it's own center of expansion,
really, since no matter what point you choose on a balloon (or in a loaf of
raisin bread), everything else appears to move away from it.

It is indeed a misnomer. Some people tried to change it, but it had
already been reported by the newspapers as the Big Bang. It's catchy,
so it stuck.

mindovermyth

I am sorry learned ones but I can never grasp the balloon allegory. The stretching surface of a balloon sounds like using a 2-dimensional explanation to a 3-dimensional being who can not grasp a 4-dimensional expansion. Also, if you take the balloon example backwards in time you will have a rectracting universe toward a centre anyway. Can someone give a better allegory than the balloon or are everyone happy with this, leaving me the only stupid one around?