Comments on: The Big Bang http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/ Watch stunning, eyeopening, interesting, free, streaming, full, online documentary films and movies. Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:14:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kelly Eltonhttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-170532 Kelly Elton Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:48:00 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-170532 First of, normal physics does dictate without any forces acting upon an object that it will in fact travel in a straight line if set in motion. What you're missing though, is the fact that the expansion slowed down, and particles bumped into each other. They slowed to the point where gravity could get a hold of them and slowly drag them together. Using model after model using computer simulations and standard physics, this has been shown to be true. Every bit of matter has mass, and mass attracts other mass, aka gravity. Gravity causes this 'mysterious' spinning motion that you're talking about. You also have to understand that just because something is traveling incredibly fast, doesn't mean that gravity doesn't have an effect on it, it's all relative. two particles traveling in a straight line parallel to each-other, even at incredible speeds, will fall in on each other, due to gravity. Particle A, relative to Particle B, traveling at the same speed, is stationary. This is all standard physics. "What I would like to know is that if NOTHING compressed into infinite density, how did NOTHING become hot? ". Your statement alone shows your lack on knowledge on the subject. Nothing didn't compressed into one infinitely small point, in fact, nowhere in the big bang theory does it state that all of the universe compressed into one single point. It was more like an explosion(for lack of a better analogy). Matter didn't just start expanding from nothing, the energy released from this massive explosion condensed into matter, which then in the heat condensed into atoms, and molecules.The funny part is it's still within the laws of physics for the entire universe to come into existence without any energy, or any outside forces. Using physics we can mathematically come to the conclusion that nothing could, in fact, create everything. The total net energy(matter included) of the universe is equal to 0. That's right, if you take all the positive energy, and the negative energy(matter/anti-matter) and add it all up, it equals 0. 0 energy, nothing. Fits pretty well I think with the idea of the big bang. Everything from nothing. If you think that's crazy, read into how in a vacuum, where there are literally no particles floating around, spontaneously(and this happens a lot) a proton and an anti-proton will come into existence, collide in on themselves, and negate each other(self annihilate, whatever). Again, something from nothing, and back to nothing.I mean, if you have some form of alternate theory, I'm all ears, the thing is though, science pretty much has it covered. Everything you said is explainable with our current understanding of physics.As far as apes into humans, and how lucky we are to be on this planet, in the perfect spot, spin it around and look at it from a smarter perspective. There are about 100 sextillion stars in the universe, that's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. There are more stars in the universe, then there are grains of sand on the entire planet. Almost every star we've observed in our tiny tiny tiny tiny part of the universe has had planets around it. The odds that we're the only planet with the right conditions for life, I mean you do the math. Not only that, but we weren't the only 'humans' that evolved there were like 3-4 other types, we just happened to have the evolutionary advantage of a sexier frontal lobe(and other various things). 3-4 other hominade species, on one planet, around one star, in a galaxy of billions of stars, and a universe of 100 sextillion stars. Again, you do the math. You really think we're all that special?Anyways, do some more reading and come back when you're ready to actually make a logical argument. First of, normal physics does dictate without any forces acting upon an object that it will in fact travel in a straight line if set in motion. What you’re missing though, is the fact that the expansion slowed down, and particles bumped into each other. They slowed to the point where gravity could get a hold of them and slowly drag them together.
Using model after model using computer simulations and standard physics, this has been shown to be true.
Every bit of matter has mass, and mass attracts other mass, aka gravity. Gravity causes this ‘mysterious’ spinning motion that you’re talking about.
You also have to understand that just because something is traveling incredibly fast, doesn’t mean that gravity doesn’t have an effect on it, it’s all relative. two particles traveling in a straight line parallel to each-other, even at incredible speeds, will fall in on each other, due to gravity. Particle A, relative to Particle B, traveling at the same speed, is stationary. This is all standard physics.
“What I would like to know is that if NOTHING compressed into infinite density, how did NOTHING become hot? “. Your statement alone shows your lack on knowledge on the subject. Nothing didn’t compressed into one infinitely small point, in fact, nowhere in the big bang theory does it state that all of the universe compressed into one single point. It was more like an explosion(for lack of a better analogy). Matter didn’t just start expanding from nothing, the energy released from this massive explosion condensed into matter, which then in the heat condensed into atoms, and molecules.

The funny part is it’s still within the laws of physics for the entire universe to come into existence without any energy, or any outside forces. Using physics we can mathematically come to the conclusion that nothing could, in fact, create everything. The total net energy(matter included) of the universe is equal to 0. That’s right, if you take all the positive energy, and the negative energy(matter/anti-matter) and add it all up, it equals 0. 0 energy, nothing. Fits pretty well I think with the idea of the big bang. Everything from nothing.
If you think that’s crazy, read into how in a vacuum, where there are literally no particles floating around, spontaneously(and this happens a lot) a proton and an anti-proton will come into existence, collide in on themselves, and negate each other(self annihilate, whatever). Again, something from nothing, and back to nothing.

I mean, if you have some form of alternate theory, I’m all ears, the thing is though, science pretty much has it covered. Everything you said is explainable with our current understanding of physics.

As far as apes into humans, and how lucky we are to be on this planet, in the perfect spot, spin it around and look at it from a smarter perspective. There are about 100 sextillion stars in the universe, that’s 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. There are more stars in the universe, then there are grains of sand on the entire planet. Almost every star we’ve observed in our tiny tiny tiny tiny part of the universe has had planets around it. The odds that we’re the only planet with the right conditions for life, I mean you do the math. Not only that, but we weren’t the only ‘humans’ that evolved there were like 3-4 other types, we just happened to have the evolutionary advantage of a sexier frontal lobe(and other various things). 3-4 other hominade species, on one planet, around one star, in a galaxy of billions of stars, and a universe of 100 sextillion stars. Again, you do the math. You really think we’re all that special?

Anyways, do some more reading and come back when you’re ready to actually make a logical argument.

]]> By: Kelly Eltonhttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-170528 Kelly Elton Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:04:00 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-170528 I think your conclusion is a bit misguided. Science is guided by the principle to try and disprove, rather than prove. In fact, the more you try to disprove something(that happens to be true), the more validate that it is true. That's not to say that there isn't always a bias introduced, but science as a whole implements mechanisms to try and counter act that, with things like peer review, and general competition between scientists, and ideas.In your example, the galaxys could be moving apart for another reason. Well first of all, we already understand that they are. That's scientific fact. Now to figure out why, there are theoretical physicists that sit around, postulate, use math etc to draw conclusions. These conclusions are meaningless by themselves. We wait for testable facts in order to deduce something, or the cause of something. If it can't be tested, it isn't science essentially, it's philosophy.I would love to see an example of some science that has completely dismissed evidence/contradictions. To make such a bold claim without any backing evidence, itself, is unscientific in nature and you're only trying to prove your point, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.Science: Evolution, quantum physics, gravity, speed of light. Not science: Religion(which fights to prove itself right, where science fights to prove ideas wrong), alternative medicines, ghost hunting, acupuncture, colonic treatments, the 'scientific studies' that 'prove' praying actually makes people better.All of these have been proven to be biased, and all of them refuse peer review, one of the most powerful tools used to make sure that the bias doesn't contaminate the results. Because it is true, we are human, and our naturally biased, but the scientific method, and the community, are set up in such a way to remove the bias from results, and only focus on the facts(which is opposite of what you're doing).The theories that are generally looked down upon are those that can't be tested, or those with tests that can't be properly replicated.Please, I beg of you, before you make such a ridiculous, unfounded, unproven, and biased statement again, get some facts.That is all. I think your conclusion is a bit misguided. Science is guided by the principle to try and disprove, rather than prove.
In fact, the more you try to disprove something(that happens to be true), the more validate that it is true.
That’s not to say that there isn’t always a bias introduced, but science as a whole implements mechanisms to try and counter act that, with things like peer review, and general competition between scientists, and ideas.

In your example, the galaxys could be moving apart for another reason. Well first of all, we already understand that they are. That’s scientific fact. Now to figure out why, there are theoretical physicists that sit around, postulate, use math etc to draw conclusions.
These conclusions are meaningless by themselves. We wait for testable facts in order to deduce something, or the cause of something. If it can’t be tested, it isn’t science essentially, it’s philosophy.

I would love to see an example of some science that has completely dismissed evidence/contradictions. To make such a bold claim without any backing evidence, itself, is unscientific in nature and you’re only trying to prove your point, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.

Science: Evolution, quantum physics, gravity, speed of light.
Not science: Religion(which fights to prove itself right, where science fights to prove ideas wrong), alternative medicines, ghost hunting, acupuncture, colonic treatments, the ‘scientific studies’ that ‘prove’ praying actually makes people better.

All of these have been proven to be biased, and all of them refuse peer review, one of the most powerful tools used to make sure that the bias doesn’t contaminate the results. Because it is true, we are human, and our naturally biased, but the scientific method, and the community, are set up in such a way to remove the bias from results, and only focus on the facts(which is opposite of what you’re doing).

The theories that are generally looked down upon are those that can’t be tested, or those with tests that can’t be properly replicated.

Please, I beg of you, before you make such a ridiculous, unfounded, unproven, and biased statement again, get some facts.

That is all.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-170527 Anonymous Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:58:00 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-170527 couldn't have said it any better, something had to have started and guided the whole process. i love how its such an easy description for something infinitely impossible to replicate! i wanna see someone create new energy! couldn’t have said it any better, something had to have started and guided the whole process. i love how its such an easy description for something infinitely impossible to replicate! i wanna see someone create new energy!

]]> By: Omri Henryhttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-162881 Omri Henry Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:41:00 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-162881 The thing about human beings (scientists included) is that we always work to prove what we think is correct and dismiss all other evidence or considerations. Thus our theories will always be flawed. The fact that galaxies are moving apart etc. could mean other things but we usually find out by accident once we've decided to look in only one direction. The thing about human beings (scientists included) is that we always work to prove what we think is correct and dismiss all other evidence or considerations. Thus our theories will always be flawed. The fact that galaxies are moving apart etc. could mean other things but we usually find out by accident once we’ve decided to look in only one direction.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-159882 Anonymous Mon, 05 Dec 2011 01:01:00 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-159882 Yes, that was one of the original problems of the big bang, but it wouldn't be a problem if the matter was unevenly distributed in the early universe. Quantum effects created variations in the density of matter in the early universe. This, coupled with rapid inflation, created an uneven distribution of matter. This imbalance meant that one side of large amounts of gas was feeling a greater amount of gravity than another, meaning a rotational force. As the gas collapses, this rotation speeds up (much like a dancer on ice pulling their arms in and spinning faster). From that you end up with the Universes first stars being formed. And the cosmic microwave background shows just that. The early universe was not uniform, matter was not perfectly smooth, thus explaining the observable Universe Yes, that was one of the original problems of the big bang, but it wouldn’t be a problem if the matter was unevenly distributed in the early universe. Quantum effects created variations in the density of matter in the early universe. This, coupled with rapid inflation, created an uneven distribution of matter. This imbalance meant that one side of large amounts of gas was feeling a greater amount of gravity than another, meaning a rotational force. As the gas collapses, this rotation speeds up (much like a dancer on ice pulling their arms in and spinning faster). From that you end up with the Universes first stars being formed. And the cosmic microwave background shows just that. The early universe was not uniform, matter was not perfectly smooth, thus explaining the observable Universe

]]> By: Ali WeeDMaNhttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-155459 Ali WeeDMaN Sat, 12 Nov 2011 02:47:00 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-155459 The Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. 1920's A.D ----------------- Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined ((entity)), and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? (30) And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. (47) The holy Quran 600 A.DThis is the truth if you choose to believe ... The Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. 1920′s A.D
—————–
Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined ((entity)), and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? (30)
And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. (47) The holy Quran 600 A.D

This is the truth if you choose to believe …

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-112507 Anonymous Thu, 05 May 2011 02:03:00 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-112507 After reading the description its clear that this documentary will be a waste of my time, "The remarkable idea that our universe simply began from nothing" WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG the big bang theory does NOT state the universe started with nothing. It was a singularity, all the energy (not matter) in existence compressed into a single point infinitely small EXPANDED (not exploded there is a difference) in to the space-time we know today. You may wonder what happened before that, well nothing happened, without space there is no passage of time. After reading the description its clear that this documentary will be a waste of my time, “The remarkable idea that our universe simply began from nothing” WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG the big bang theory does NOT state the universe started with nothing. It was a singularity, all the energy (not matter) in existence compressed into a single point infinitely small EXPANDED (not exploded there is a difference) in to the space-time we know today. You may wonder what happened before that, well nothing happened, without space there is no passage of time.

]]> By: Nguyen Vinhhttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-108012 Nguyen Vinh Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:21:00 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-108012 Anyone knows the version of this video?? Anyone knows the version of this video??

]]> By: uncontinuoushttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-81731 uncontinuous Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:44:35 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-81731 the red shift effect was the only thing holding up this theory,and observations have made it self evident that this theory was only an excuse to go ahead with the construction of the Hadron in Europe. What sinister deviancy are they plotting now. the red shift effect was the only thing holding up this theory,and observations have made it self evident that this theory was only an excuse to go ahead with the construction of the Hadron in Europe. What sinister deviancy are they plotting now.

]]> By: marQuesohttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-81509 marQueso Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:46:14 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-81509 im not sold on the big bang THEORY either. im not sold on the big bang THEORY either.

]]> By: Whooboyhttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-65754 Whooboy Fri, 17 Dec 2010 04:10:37 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-65754 What I would like to know is that if NOTHING compressed into infinite density, how did NOTHING become hot? Also, since it is supposed to have exploded into NOTHING since nothing existed before the BIG BANG, how did the particles transfer from a linear direction away from the center of the Bang to a circular one creating atomic structures (orbits), celestial bodies (stars and planets) and galaxy clusters when they were traveling through frictionless space? After all there were no planetary bodies to generate gravity and no atmospheres to generate friction. So what changed the direction of the particles in a frictionless void? Wouldn't they have just continued endlessly from the blast center since there was nothing to slow them down?Also since they were traveling in frictionless space, why would they change direction and start orbiting to create elements since the particles were rapidly moving away from each other?Wouldn't they just have continued moving away from each other? Getting farther apart. Not stopping and forming stable orbits which eventually produced the Chart of Elements as expressed by Mendeleev?Methinks the Big Bang sounds more like a Big Fairy Tale? Once upon a time in a far off galaxy, nothing became very dense and turned inward only upon itself with energy that came from nowhere for some strange reason. Then, nothing exploded out into an empty void and instead of moving lineraly as normal physics would dictate. Nothing began circling upon itself eventually creating all of the elements, stars, planets and celestial bodies including human beings with consciousness which evolved from apes who cannot speak, read or write.Yeah sounds about right. Duh!!! What a crock! What I would like to know is that if NOTHING compressed into infinite density, how did NOTHING become hot? Also, since it is supposed to have exploded into NOTHING since nothing existed before the BIG BANG, how did the particles transfer from a linear direction away from the center of the Bang to a circular one creating atomic structures (orbits), celestial bodies (stars and planets) and galaxy clusters when they were traveling through frictionless space? After all there were no planetary bodies to generate gravity and no atmospheres to generate friction. So what changed the direction of the particles in a frictionless void? Wouldn’t they have just continued endlessly from the blast center since there was nothing to slow them down?

Also since they were traveling in frictionless space, why would they change direction and start orbiting to create elements since the particles were rapidly moving away from each other?

Wouldn’t they just have continued moving away from each other? Getting farther apart. Not stopping and forming stable orbits which eventually produced the Chart of Elements as expressed by Mendeleev?

Methinks the Big Bang sounds more like a Big Fairy Tale? Once upon a time in a far off galaxy, nothing became very dense and turned inward only upon itself with energy that came from nowhere for some strange reason. Then, nothing exploded out into an empty void and instead of moving lineraly as normal physics would dictate. Nothing began circling upon itself eventually creating all of the elements, stars, planets and celestial bodies including human beings with consciousness which evolved from apes who cannot speak, read or write.

Yeah sounds about right. Duh!!! What a crock!

]]> By: WTC7http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-65152 WTC7 Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:49:19 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-65152 The Economist, December 4th 2010Cosmology Going round in circles In contradiction to most cosmologists’ opinions, two scientists have found evidence that the universe may have existed for ever"http://www.economist.com/node/17626874" The Economist, December 4th 2010

Cosmology
Going round in circles
In contradiction to most cosmologists’ opinions, two scientists have found evidence that the universe may have existed for ever

“http://www.economist.com/node/17626874″

]]> By: yourboycalhttp://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-big-bang/#comment-40940 yourboycal Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:49:43 +0000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/?p=4383#comment-40940 Woo hoo ! a fish in an aquarium knows only so much about himself and the fish tank around him . its limited to a certain degree ... i fear the same with humans and our fish tank (universe) our limits will only go so far . Are we just looking for the answers we want , need or fear? Woo hoo ! a fish in an aquarium knows only so much about himself and the fish tank around him . its limited to a certain degree … i fear the same with humans and our fish tank (universe) our limits will only go so far . Are we just looking for the answers we want , need or fear?

]]>