(March 5, 2014 at 8:44 am)Aractus Wrote: The problems with the Big Bang Cosmology is that it still requires "empty space" to exist (and as we know empty space doesn't exist, thus it requires something to exist as the starting conditions and not nothing), and that the mechanism for the imbalance between matter and antimatter has yet to be theorized let alone observed (theoretically you need some kind of subatomic particle that buzzes around and prevents antimatter from forming or if there's some fundamental difference between the two states of matter). It also requires a single state of matter, a concept incompatible with general relativity as we know it, and also theoretically incompatible with QM.

That thinking is so 20th Century. There are several large voids in visible space. Some are nearly a billion light years in diameter. They are completely empty of visible material. If you could live long enough you would see those voids create hydrogen and then stars.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12...xf7M0p-_-s

The Big Bang is simply a Catholic theory of creation. It's silly.

(March 6, 2014 at 12:39 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: That thinking is so 20th Century.

I didn't say it's wrong, I said those are the problems.

Quote:There are several large voids in visible space. Some are nearly a billion light years in diameter. They are completely empty of visible material.

Um, what part of my reply didn't you understand? There's no such thing as completely empty space, the space you're talking about is in fact less empty than the artificial vacuum’s that we've created here on earth, for instance the LHC is emptier than empty space, but no space is ever completely empty.

(March 6, 2014 at 2:09 am)Aractus Wrote:

---

(March 6, 2014 at 12:39 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: That thinking is so 20th Century.

I didn't say it's wrong, I said those are the problems.

Quote:There are several large voids in visible space. Some are nearly a billion light years in diameter. They are completely empty of visible material.

---

Um, what part of my reply didn't you understand? There's no such thing as completely empty space, the space you're talking about is in fact less empty than the artificial vacuum’s that we've created here on earth, for instance the LHC is emptier than empty space, but no space is ever completely empty.

Technically you may be right about no area of outer space being completely empty since there are strings and quantum foam and other particles being created there. But for purposes of our discussion we can state that those giant voids are empty because we can't detect any discernible material in them. Eventually hydrogen will form and then it will become detectable. But who knows when that will happen?

(March 5, 2014 at 8:44 am)Aractus Wrote: The problems with the Big Bang Cosmology is that it still requires "empty space" to exist (and as we know empty space doesn't exist, thus it requires something to exist as the starting conditions and not nothing), and that the mechanism for the imbalance between matter and antimatter has yet to be theorized let alone observed (theoretically you need some kind of subatomic particle that buzzes around and prevents antimatter from forming or if there's some fundamental difference between the two states of matter). It also requires a single state of matter, a concept incompatible with general relativity as we know it, and also theoretically incompatible with QM.

1. Not as far as I'm aware
2. CP violation

Whether the Big Bang model remains an accurate reflection of reality in light of more recent theories, interesting though it may be, let's not lose sight of the fact that I posted what I did by way of clarifcation to the OP's apparent confusion and certain mischaracterising of what constitutes observations in science. We can discuss the relevance of Big Bang Theory in as much depth as you like, however I'd hate to see anyone get distracted by herrings, red or otherwise, without the fact being labelled as such.

(March 6, 2014 at 4:55 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Technically you may be right about no area of outer space being completely empty since there are strings and quantum foam and other particles being created there. But for purposes of our discussion we can state that those giant voids are empty because we can't detect any discernible material in them. Eventually hydrogen will form and then it will become detectable. But who knows when that will happen?

Incorrect. Our artificial vacuums on Earth, as I mentioned, are more empty than space - and that's because not only do you have the matter/antimatter that pops in and out of existence, but you have photons and other material shooting through what you're claiming is "empty space" as well.

Also, an atom itself is 99.9999999999999% empty, and that we typically regard as being physical matter, which is just very slightly less empty than what you are claiming is completely empty space. You can't have it both ways, by your definition the entire Earth is really just empty space.

For more on the big bang, see:

Talk.Origins: Evidence for the Big Bang
I Was a Big Bang Skeptic by Richard Carrier

(March 4, 2014 at 7:46 am)FreeTony Wrote: The big bang is an explosion that is still ongoing

Sorry to be technical, but it isn't an explosion. At least not in the conventional sense. Your pics of those exploding bombs aren't really comparable.

Quote:In terms of physics the big bang was not an explosion it was the expansion of space time. In terms of the rules of the English language the closest metaphor for the event is to call it an "explosion of space". Just don't confuse that for the physics.

http://www.science20.com/quantum_gravity..._was-78575

(March 12, 2014 at 10:34 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(March 6, 2014 at 4:55 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Technically you may be right about no area of outer space being completely empty since there are strings and quantum foam and other particles being created there. But for purposes of our discussion we can state that those giant voids are empty because we can't detect any discernible material in them. Eventually hydrogen will form and then it will become detectable. But who knows when that will happen?

Incorrect. Our artificial vacuums on Earth, as I mentioned, are more empty than space - and that's because not only do you have the matter/antimatter that pops in and out of existence, but you have photons and other material shooting through what you're claiming is "empty space" as well.

Also, an atom itself is 99.9999999999999% empty, and that we typically regard as being physical matter, which is just very slightly less empty than what you are claiming is completely empty space. You can't have it both ways, by your definition the entire Earth is really just empty space.

That's too funny. If anything there will photons and other material shooting through the artificial vacuums on Earth. Therefore they wouldn't be empty. However, there might be areas of Nothing that are completely empty of detectable matter. We haven't found those areas yet because we lack the capability to do so. But we do have the capability to detect particles in all artificial vacuums on Earth.