Why the Big Bang Couldn't Have Happened

[Ryan O'Dine]

I acknowledge there's a difference between misunderstanding a science term and using that misunderstanding as ammo in a flawed argument, which is what the OP guy seems to have been doing.

I hate it when people on the internet agree. Ruins the whole atmosphere.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That would make it the Big Wank.

Gee, sounds like a lot of the internet . . .

*sings*

The internet is for porn
The internet is for porn
. . .
DR

[Ned Flanders]The internet has been sullied by pornography?[/Ned Flanders]

 

[Orangutan]

Ok It's not nice to mock the 'public' for taking it literally, But someone who is trying to disprove a scientific theory, with a scientific explanation, yet demonstrates that he hasn't even attempted to understand the phenomena which he is trying to discredit, surly he we can mock?

 

[Mosquito]

No, he wouldn't. Because he would cling on to the word "BANG", and accuse scientists of moving the goal posts.



It isn't a question of it being able to blow up, but whether it can make a sound or not. He is right, in his own perverted sense: The Big Bang could not have made a sound - but, as you, and everyone with a critical mind, knows - that's not the point.

Only, he doesn't want to know what the point is. Big Bang? Huge Kablooie! Major Whammy! Hubba-Dubba-MothaF**kah!

Call it what you like.

But the Big Bang *could* have made a sound, and a whooping big one too... After all, in the first few hundred millennia or so (I might be off by a few orders of magnitude here, somebody should chirp in with some facts), the universe would have too much density of quarks/protons/neutrons/electrons/hydrogen/helium to be called a "vacuum", it would be more dense than air, and air seems to do just fine, transporting little bangs around.


Mosquito - Now, before the christian god started creating, there was nothing, right, and it created by *saying* "let there be X", how could he possibly do that if there was nothing to transport the sound?

 

[J. Arthur Hastur]

In space, no one can hear you sue.

 

[EGarrett]

The sad thing is, most religious, anti-scientific arguments boil down to this. Misunderstanding a concept, then claiming it doesn't work because your misunderstood idea can't work in reality. This just happens to be blatant, whereas the creationist stuff conceals itself a little better.

And if all the matter in the universe was compressed to a point, then the Bang wasn't very "Big" either.

 

[Beerina]

Wait, wait. OK, so this guy shouldn't be on the radio talking about something he knows nothing about, but why are we berating him for assuming that the Big Bang was a bang? I don't doubt that he's representing a large group and a popular misconception.

I bet if you polled the general public, most would think it means an actual bang. A bang is a noise that we all know, it's the most common definition of the word.

Did scientists come up with the name 'Big Bang', or the media? Cause if the former, then perhaps less mockery is in order and more examination of the basics of science communication? If you don't mean a bang, don't say a bang. Most people watch Star Wars and don't question the sound effects they hear in space battles. Most people are science illiterate.

So if there is confusion about what the bang in the Big Bang means, then the problem is that the concept is misnamed, not that the public have misunderstood it.

Actually, given the amount of matter involved, if you had an ear there, and it wasn't destroyed, you would have heard a very loud bang once the matter/space reached your (newly materialized) ear (I have no idea how quickly "space" outraced the matter it contained.)