(March 31, 2014 at 3:34 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(March 30, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Where you there at the Big Bang?

Haha. That all you got kid? Instead of trying to prove your claim you're going to try and have a dig at something you know nothing about?

Ok. Let's hear your understanding of the Big Bang and why you seem skeptical of it. Please show your working including a critique of any known current mathematical/theoretical paradigms.

You know, since we are today seeing light coming directly to us from the early cooling phase of the universe when atoms were formed via recombination, for all intents and purposes that counts as being there. What else does seeing something first hand mean, after all?
So, yes, I was there.

You can see the big bang?
Or you can see the cosmic background radiation?

Come on, guys... don't feed him wrong stuff.

wiki Wrote:The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation.

I can see exactly what I said I can see. It's not the "big bang" if by that you mean some kind of initial singularity, but that doesn't exist anyways - but what I can see is a state where the entire visible universe is a red-hot plasma, before any structure was formed. I would say that is good enough to shut up religiously motivated opposition to the entire big bang cosmology thing, don't you think?

Observing the big bang itself is a bit meaningless if you mean by that a moment in time, because the word itself is not really well-defined. What do you mean by it? If you mean by big bang the process of the universe expanding from a very dense hot state 13.7 billion years ago, yes we can observe it directly. If you mean any particular time or event earlier than CMB, we can't observe it using direct light, because it is shielded by the plasma. We can still observe primordial element abundances as direct messengers from an earlier time, but the "seeing the big bang" metaphor wouldn't be as straightforward.

The time has certainly come for a preachers corner on this forum to be established. The purpose of which is contain those who just want preach instead of contributing in a meaningful way to the discussions on this forum

Jesus rose from my pants. AMEN.

(March 31, 2014 at 7:30 am)truthBtold Wrote: Jesus rose from my pants. AMEN.

So the resurrection of Jesus was actually a res-erection?

(March 31, 2014 at 7:43 am)Justtristo Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 7:30 am)truthBtold Wrote: Jesus rose from my pants. AMEN.

So the resurrection of Jesus was actually a res-erection?

Hahhahaa..

(March 31, 2014 at 7:43 am)Justtristo Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 7:30 am)truthBtold Wrote: Jesus rose from my pants. AMEN.

So the resurrection of Jesus was actually a res-erection?

http://instantrimshot.com/

(March 31, 2014 at 7:46 am)truthBtold Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 7:43 am)Justtristo Wrote: So the resurrection of Jesus was actually a res-erection?

Hahhahaa..

Why resort to mocking or insults?

(March 31, 2014 at 5:43 am)Alex K Wrote: I can see exactly what I said I can see. It's not the "big bang" if by that you mean some kind of initial singularity, but that doesn't exist anyways - but what I can see is a state where the entire visible universe is a red-hot plasma, before any structure was formed. I would say that is good enough to shut up religiously motivated opposition to the entire big bang cosmology thing, don't you think?

Yes, but it's not the same as "seeing the big bang".

(March 31, 2014 at 5:43 am)Alex K Wrote: Observing the big bang itself is a bit meaningless if you mean by that a moment in time, because the word itself is not really well-defined. What do you mean by it? If you mean by big bang the process of the universe expanding from a very dense hot state 13.7 billion years ago, yes we can observe it directly. If you mean any particular time or event earlier than CMB, we can't observe it using direct light, because it is shielded by the plasma. We can still observe primordial element abundances as direct messengers from an earlier time, but the "seeing the big bang" metaphor wouldn't be as straightforward.

Well... be careful when you use that "metaphor", as it can be misinterpreted and then you'll be called on it.