Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 96:
Line 96: − − I cannot imagine a more silly so called theroy that the concoct of the phrase Big Bang. a noise from a creation cannot be a theory!!! − Would you say the "noise in the tunnel" if there was a car accident? No, you would say the car crash in the tunnel! − So, the Creation of the Universe, is the right notion of the different processes that the Creation of the Universe naturally occured. − I will ask this? − We frankly say that a computer, a watch, a Mercedes Bentz etc. are things, devices created by very intelligent people. − How much more intelligent mustn´t the Creator of the Universe have been? And as far as I comprehend: The creation of the Universe is not completed. − − My own notion of fact in this matter is: Behind every intelligence, must be a higher intelligence, right? − − Thank you − − www.eddy.nu − − =======================================================0
Reverted edits by Londonwest (Talk); changed back to last version by Physchem
==Most atheists?==
==Most atheists?==
Does anyone have ANY reference that backs up the claim about "most atheists"? Or is it just made up off the top of people's heads?
Does anyone have ANY reference that backs up the claim about "most atheists"? Or is it just made up off the top of people's heads?
== Article Depth ==
== Article Depth ==
In all honesty, this article does not tell anyone very much about the big bang theory, evidence for it, or the reasons why it was formulated in the first place. The article basically introduces the topic with a mish mash of unrelated facts in no particular order, then the next section is "dissent letter" followed by "starlight problem". These are hardly the most relevant topics about the Big Bang theory. May I suggest that as this article is (hopefully) reworked, those doing the writing keep in mind that the Big Bang Theory is a very general class of theories that all have one thing in common - the assertion that long ago the universe "began" from a mathematical singularity and has been increasing in size ever since. Also, be wary about the throwing around the word "singularity" - contrary to popular belief and science fiction, a singularity is not a physical thing - it is an asymptotic point in a mathematical function where the function breaks down and can no longer make any predictions. Other singularities include the center of black holes, and objects traveling at the speed of light. The mathematical models for these systems break down at these values and become meaningless. Likewise, the Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about the origin of the singularity or what came "before" it. It is outside the realm of the theory, and in the opinion of some scientist (I'm not comfortable saying most or few here, as I'm basing this statement only on my personal discussions) outside the realm of science as a whole.
In all honesty, this article does not tell anyone very much about the big bang theory, evidence for it, or the reasons why it was formulated in the first place. The article basically introduces the topic with a mish mash of unrelated facts in no particular order, then the next section is "dissent letter" followed by "starlight problem". These are hardly the most relevant topics about the Big Bang theory. May I suggest that as this article is (hopefully) reworked, those doing the writing keep in mind that the Big Bang Theory is a very general class of theories that all have one thing in common - the assertion that long ago the universe "began" from a mathematical singularity and has been increasing in size ever since. Also, be wary about the throwing around the word "singularity" - contrary to popular belief and science fiction, a singularity is not a physical thing - it is an asymptotic point in a mathematical function where the function breaks down and can no longer make any predictions. Other singularities include the center of black holes, and objects traveling at the speed of light. The mathematical models for these systems break down at these values and become meaningless. Likewise, the Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about the origin of the singularity or what came "before" it. It is outside the realm of the theory, and in the opinion of some scientist (I'm not comfortable saying most or few here, as I'm basing this statement only on my personal discussions) outside the realm of science as a whole.