This will be... fun.

[chambersc]

in b4 lock

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: dugweb
What is your point?! You are way too uninformed on the subject to be arguing either sides.

I know I'm uninformed, hence me trying to get a discussion on the subject going in order to advance my understanding.

Originally posted by: dugwebYou act as if science is law? Science by definition is theory! Even scientific laws have been broken through out the years. Remember? The earth is flat, right?

aha! Touche! But that is exactly my point.

Interesting point, considering science is stood behind has rock hard truth 95% of the time. "Science has provin this, and science has proven that!"

Kind of stifles creative thought a tad no?

Science is presented as the "truth" 95% of the time. We seem to forget that like everything, it has it's flaws.

Originally posted by: dugweb
You need to lay off the exclamation points, because I'm picturing you as that kid playing Halo 2 and getting pissed off after every time he gets killed.

link for those that may have missed it. It's classic

Trust me buddy, I don't take this half as serious as you or BD2003 does. But that's not what we're here to discuss.

 

whoa man, too deep for so early in the morning.

um, I would have to say a pre-universe Like, the universe is basaically 99.9% nothing anyways, so to make only .000001% of the universe shouldn't take too much. maybe the universe is on a constant expand-shrink-expand-*pop* cycle and the universe as we know it now... is just cycle # 2,039,320,108 :beer: :shocked: *passes out from too much thinking on a Sunday*

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: BD2003

You havent created anything. Youve just rearranged the matter in your food into matter into poop after your body has metabolized it.

Yea I know, I moreso said that to stimulate you into playing some more and continueing this conversation.

Originally posted by: BD2003

Your understanding of religion is as shallow as your understanding of science. Since you sound like a youngster, as Ive said before, Ill forgive your ineptitude. You get an A for effort though.

I just got hit with the "personal attacks + put youself on a high horse" combo!

You MUST know what you're talking about then! I and the rest of the forum are convinced!

Originally posted by: BD2003

The only thing youve proven is your ignorance.

Well yea, that and the fact that we will never know the origins of the universe but ok.

Originally posted by: BD2003

Your logic is based on false assumptions, and a complete lack of regard for anything but what you want the answer to be.

What am I assuming?

And as far as me lacking regard for anything but what I want the answer to be is absurd. I started this thread in order to find out what other people think, to see if I can't be shown the way to "building a better mouse trap." So that point goes out the window, considering the creation of this thread and discussion therein completely proves otherwise.

Let's get back to the subject and leave the personal attacks alone. Didn't mean to offend you with my disgusting level of stupidity! Forgive me sire!

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Universe is merely the extent of which we can See/Observe. Due to that, we can't Know if it was created from something else, as the something else lies outside of the Universe.

Ok... go on...

Originally posted by: sandorskiIt's like putting a Newborn inside of a box and and keeping it their for 18 years. During that time it has never seen anything outside the box nor has it had any contact with any person. Food and certain basic forms of entertainment( a ball, lava lamp, etc) are provided to keep it fairly sane and stimulated, but absolutely no exposure to the Real World is given.

As far as it is concerned, everything within that Box is the Universe and nothing exists outside of it. We are in a similar situation, except that our box is friggin huge and/or we a friggin microscopic in comparison.

Ok, that was friggin awesome.

Originally posted by: sandorskiFor all we know, our "Universe" could be little more than a Petri Dish in little Johnnies closet. Our Universe's existance maybe nothing more than 1 day of Little Johnny's life and by the end of the week Little Johnny's Mom will destroy the Universe in the Dishwasher. Not to worry though, by that time Humanity will have become extinct, the Sun will have gone Nova, and everyone on ATOT will have lost their virginity....oh, nevermind that last point.

hah!

Good show! Good show!

But seriously that child in the box point was fantastic! It helps to put perspective on not being able to comprehend, erm maybe not even comprehend but moreso I guess identify and acknowledge the improbability of being able to imagine the existance of anything past our current "reality."

 

[EatSpam]

Fvck if I know. There's smarter people than me thinking about that.

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: KegStand
whoa man, too deep for so early in the morning.

um, I would have to say a pre-universe Like, the universe is basaically 99.9% nothing anyways, so to make only .000001% of the universe shouldn't take too much. maybe the universe is on a constant expand-shrink-expand-*pop* cycle and the universe as we know it now... is just cycle # 2,039,320,108 :beer: :shocked: *passes out from too much thinking on a Sunday*

You're looking at it like the universe is a bowl and in this bowl there are grains of sand scattered throughout. These are planets etc. All the "physical" aspects of our universe. Rock debris, stars etc.

Now we can say there is nothing in between one grain of sand to the next.

But can't we also say that this bowl is filled with water? So it's not filled with nothing, it's actually filled with something, i.e. gasses etc. and that the universe is not just planets etc. but it is everything that encompasses everything within?

Like right now in my room, it seems as if there is nothing but me and the physical stuff in my room. But we know that my room is in fact filled with something, air, and I move through it like a fluid.

This is tough to try and think about in the morning. I started this thread last night. Throughout the day as I wake up I'll pop in and see if we can't get something sparked up.

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Fvck if I know. There's smarter people than me thinking about that.

:laugh::beer:

 

[BD2003]

Youre god damn right I'm on the high horse, and youre the stable boy. Youre like a kid who has just seen the matrix and thinks he has all the answers. You should be glad that I'm in this thread, because otherwise it would already be dead. These kinds of threads are nothing uncommon, but the reason that this one pales into comparison from the rest is because people read what youre writing, and realize its not worth arguing with an idiot. For you to incite in all out flame war, there has to actually be some sort of meaningful content to argue with, not some stupid religion or science wins, no one can prove anything so anything goes argument. The reason why I'm being a dick to you is because from the outset youve made it clear that you want nothing but a flame war, but unfortunately you lack the capacity to kindle the flames. Go out and read any of the dozens of 300+ post count flame war threads about the EXACT same thing, and learn from the masters. Youll probably find me in most of them. Then come back and try again. And next dont resort to the pansy "I'm not taking it as seriously as you ha ha" bullsh*t. Thats just a sign of weakness. If you want a flame war, and you cant stand the flames, then get the fvck out of the kitchen. If you were really serious about learning more about the questions you ask, youd go pick up a book, not come here. I could recommend some if you'd like.

 

[asm0deus]

Let us see! On his own plane of being, how does Man create? Well, first, he may create by making something out of outside materials. But this will not do, for there are no materials outside of THE ALL with which it may create. Well, then, secondly, Man pro-creates or reproduces his kind by the process of begetting, which is self-multiplication accomplished by transferring a portion of his substance to his offspring. But this will not do, because THE ALL cannot transfer or subtract a portion of itself, nor can it reproduce or multiply itself--in the first place there would be a taking away, and in the second case a multiplication or addition to THE ALL, both thoughts being an absurdity. Is there no third way in which MAN creates? Yes, there is--he CREATES MENTALLY! And in so doing he uses no outside materials, nor does he reproduce himself, and yet his Spirit pervades the Mental Creation. Following the Principle of Correspondence, we are justified in considering that THE ALL creates the Universe MENTALLY, in a manner akin to the process whereby Man creates Mental Images. And, here is where the report of Reason tallies precisely with the report of the Illumined, as shown by their teachings and writings. Such are the teachings of the Wise Men. Such was the Teaching of Hermes. THE ALL can create in no other way except mentally, without either using material (and there is none to use), or else reproducing itself (which is also impossible). There is no escape from this conclusion of the Reason, which, as we have said, agrees with the highest teachings of the Illumined. Just as you, student, may create a Universe of your own in your mentality, so does THE ALL create Universes in its own Mentality. But your Universe is the mental creation of a Finite Mind, whereas that of THE ALL is the creation of an Infinite. The two are similar in kind, but infinitely different in degree. We shall examine more closely into the process of creation and manifestation as we proceed. But this is the point to fix in your minds at this stage: THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL IT CONTAINS, IS A MENTAL CREATION OF THE ALL. Verily indeed, ALL IS MIND!

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Youre god damn right I'm on the high horse, and youre the stable boy. Youre like a kid who has just seen the matrix and thinks he has all the answers. You should be glad that I'm in this thread, because otherwise it would already be dead. These kinds of threads are nothing uncommon, but the reason that this one pales into comparison from the rest is because people read what youre writing, and realize its not worth arguing with an idiot. For you to incite in all out flame war, there has to actually be some sort of meaningful content to argue with, not some stupid religion or science wins, no one can prove anything so anything goes argument. The reason why I'm being a dick to you is because from the outset youve made it clear that you want nothing but a flame war, but unfortunately you lack the capacity to kindle the flames. Go out and read any of the dozens of 300+ post count flame war threads about the EXACT same thing, and learn from the masters. Youll probably find me in most of them. Then come back and try again. And next dont resort to the pansy "I'm not taking it as seriously as you ha ha" bullsh*t. Thats just a sign of weakness. If you want a flame war, and you cant stand the flames, then get the fvck out of the kitchen. If you were really serious about learning more about the questions you ask, youd go pick up a book, not come here. I could recommend some if you'd like.

I don't know wether to laugh or cry.

It's painfully obvious I was sincere in looking for a discussion on this topic, and making light of the the whole flaming between religion and science.

You're just the only one who didn't get it.

Don't you think that if I was trying to just start a "flame war" as you, a self proclaimed noble soldier and survivor of many geat "flames war," I would be trolling people as opposed to discussing and elaborating on their ideas with them?

It's extremely ironic that you are the only one "flaming" in this thread.

X <- That's this discussion flying over your head...

....|
.O+ "Hey, look at me! I'm a internet war hardened soldier! I have survived so many flame
\|/ wars that my bedsheets are made from the war torn garmets of dead ATOT n00bs!"
/ \

^_And that's you. (I gave you a sword.)

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: asm0deus
Let us see! On his own plane of being, how does Man create? Well, first, he may create by making something out of outside materials. But this will not do, for there are no materials outside of THE ALL with which it may create. Well, then, secondly, Man pro-creates or reproduces his kind by the process of begetting, which is self-multiplication accomplished by transferring a portion of his substance to his offspring. But this will not do, because THE ALL cannot transfer or subtract a portion of itself, nor can it reproduce or multiply itself--in the first place there would be a taking away, and in the second case a multiplication or addition to THE ALL, both thoughts being an absurdity. Is there no third way in which MAN creates? Yes, there is--he CREATES MENTALLY! And in so doing he uses no outside materials, nor does he reproduce himself, and yet his Spirit pervades the Mental Creation. Following the Principle of Correspondence, we are justified in considering that THE ALL creates the Universe MENTALLY, in a manner akin to the process whereby Man creates Mental Images. And, here is where the report of Reason tallies precisely with the report of the Illumined, as shown by their teachings and writings. Such are the teachings of the Wise Men. Such was the Teaching of Hermes. THE ALL can create in no other way except mentally, without either using material (and there is none to use), or else reproducing itself (which is also impossible). There is no escape from this conclusion of the Reason, which, as we have said, agrees with the highest teachings of the Illumined. Just as you, student, may create a Universe of your own in your mentality, so does THE ALL create Universes in its own Mentality. But your Universe is the mental creation of a Finite Mind, whereas that of THE ALL is the creation of an Infinite. The two are similar in kind, but infinitely different in degree. We shall examine more closely into the process of creation and manifestation as we proceed. But this is the point to fix in your minds at this stage: THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL IT CONTAINS, IS A MENTAL CREATION OF THE ALL. Verily indeed, ALL IS MIND!

I actually followed that.

Interesting and I have NEVER, EVER looked at anything in this light.

I wonder what C.G. Jung might say about something of this nature.

Imagine that! Everything is nothing more than... imagination!

*head explodes killing everyone who lived in the universe in my mind*

But in reality, if that was the case, the process of thought would dictate what does and does not work no?

Therefore, in this universe created by "the all" we are not actually of free will, and we must do so in accordance with the "thought" of the all. That is to say that we are entirely not self sufficient. Such as thoughts are created and disposed of by the will of one man, by this theory then we not not in control of anything at all, and are in fact nothing more than a fraction of the overall process of "reality" in which we have absolutely no control over.

Wow, I guess this theory goes even deeper than the whole "grain of sand under a fingernail" theory.

I feel tiny.

 

[Literati]

asm0deus, I swear by the power vested in BD2003's internet sword, that I WILL read The Kybalion!

[edit]

This is really intersting stuff.

It's almost creepy how the Nature of Hermatic Wisdom falls right into my inquiries.

I will also read ARS MEMORATIVA in addition to The Kybalion.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Literati
I'm not trying to start a flame war but I'm not totally opposed to them as they are generally pretty entertaining.

I'm sure we've all weathered enough to not be bothered by this same battle scene played out for the 1093i8u543825^';32,r times.

Anyways, I am genuinely interested in your opinions on this.

-

Science dictates that you cannot create something out of nothing. (AFAIK)

What was the universe created out of?

What you know is wrong. Therefore, /end thread.
Search for quantum mechanics and vacuum and "pop into existence"
You'll be surprised to find that things pop into and out of existence all the time; there is no such thing as an "empty" vacuum; at least not at the quantum level.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: blinky8225
The big bang theory doesn't state the universe was created from nothing. It says it's created from all the matter in the universe compressed in a very small area and then some chemical reaction cause it to explode and expand into what we now know as the universe.

This one shows an *INCREDIBLE* misunderstanding of The Big Bang.
or perhaps, science beyond 9th grade.
Chemical reaction, lmao!

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
What you know is wrong. Therefore, /end thread.

This thread is for discussion, not wether what I think is right or wrong.

Therefore, /yourself.

Nice try though.

Soooooo anyways...

Originally posted by: DrPizzaSearch for quantum mechanics and vacuum and "pop into existence"
You'll be surprised to find that things pop into and out of existence all the time; there is no such thing as an "empty" vacuum; at least not at the quantum level.

What "pops" in and out of existance, created from absolutely nothing, all the time? Or are you just trolling?

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: blinky8225
The big bang theory doesn't state the universe was created from nothing. It says it's created from all the matter in the universe compressed in a very small area and then some chemical reaction cause it to explode and expand into what we now know as the universe.

This one shows an *INCREDIBLE* misunderstanding of The Big Bang.
or perhaps, science beyond 9th grade.
Chemical reaction, lmao!

And you showed an incredible misunderstanding of the purpose of this thread.

Hmm blinky misunderstands a theory based on the possible mechanics of the creation of the universe, and you misunderstood a thread on ATOT.

Blinky wins!

Now stop trying to be some arrogant prick and discuss what you think you know.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Literati

Originally posted by: DrPizza
What you know is wrong. Therefore, /end thread.

This thread is for discussion, not wether what I think is right or wrong.

Therefore, /yourself.

Nice try though.

Soooooo anyways...

Originally posted by: DrPizzaSearch for quantum mechanics and vacuum and "pop into existence"
You'll be surprised to find that things pop into and out of existence all the time; there is no such thing as an "empty" vacuum; at least not at the quantum level.

What "pops" in and out of existance, created from absolutely nothing, all the time? Or are you just trolling?

*sigh* I'm just the messenger. Quantum mechanics is very well understood (by some people.) And, at the quantum level, particles and anti-particles (always a pair) pop into and out of existence all the time. While these particles are not observed directly, they do interact with particles in existence during their brief time in our universe. Their existence was suggested by the theory; later, their effects were observed. These observations coincided with theory to an incredible degree of precision.

I'd go on, but as BD2003 has observed, despite your statements, you obviously have no intention of taking this thread seriously as an opportunity to learn. Your actions continue to point to your obvious motive to merely start a flame war. However, from what you have posted already, I find that arguing with you would be akin to a calculus student arguing about integrals with a kindergartner who has just learned his numbers from 1 to 10.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Literati

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: blinky8225
The big bang theory doesn't state the universe was created from nothing. It says it's created from all the matter in the universe compressed in a very small area and then some chemical reaction cause it to explode and expand into what we now know as the universe.

This one shows an *INCREDIBLE* misunderstanding of The Big Bang.
or perhaps, science beyond 9th grade.
Chemical reaction, lmao!

And you showed an incredible misunderstanding of the purpose of this thread.

Hmm blinky misunderstands a theory based on the possible mechanics of the creation of the universe, and you misunderstood a thread on ATOT.

Blinky wins!

Now stop trying to be some arrogant prick and discuss what you think you know.

How on earth does Blinky win? Because you agree with his misconception of the big bang? I'm looking for information from you which would support his position. It shows that he understands it as little as you do. If you truly are interested in this topic, then perhaps you should do some research on it. As it is, providing information to you at this point is like bringing a firehose to your flame war. You are attempting to argue about a subject which your statements show you know almost nothing about. In fact, other than recognizing the name of the theory "The Big Bang" is apparently ALL of the correct background knowledge you would need to muster any sort of "discussion." In fact, I think that if you were miraculously plucked from your chair and teleported to a Chinese University class in the middle of a discussion (in Chinese) of great Asian authors, I don't think you'd be any less qualified to voice your opinion. Of course, the Chinese would probably do a better job ignoring you than I have thus far.

Anyway, to support my position that you and Blinky both suffer from the same misconception, I offer this:
academic source

Hints of a Fundamental Misconception in Cosmology

by Edward E. Prather
University of Arizona
Timothy F. Slater
University of Arizona
Erika G. Offerdahl
University of Arizona

The Astronomy Education Review, Issue 2, Volume 1:28-34, 2002

© 2002, Edward Prather. Copyright assigned to the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.

Download PDF version of this article
Abstract
To explore the frequency and range of student ideas regarding the Big Bang, nearly 1,000 students from middle school, secondary school, and college were surveyed and asked if they had heard of the Big Bang and, if so, to describe it. In analyzing their responses, we uncovered an unexpected result that more than half of the students who stated that they had heard of the Big Bang also provided responses that suggest they believe that the Big Bang was a phenomenon that organized pre-existing matter. To further examine this result, a second group of college students was asked specifically to describe what existed or occurred before, during, and after the Big Bang. Nearly 70% gave responses clearly stating that matter existed prior to the Big Bang. These results are interpreted as strongly suggesting that most students are answering these questions by employing an internally consistent element of knowledge or reasoning (often referred to as a phenomenological primitive, or p-prim), consistent with the idea that "you can't make something from nothing." These results inform the debate about the extent to which college students have pre-existing notions that are poised to interfere with instructional efforts about contemporary physics and astronomy topics.

Hints of a Fundamental Misconception in Cosmology

Teachers are continually amazed and frustrated by the long list of conceptual difficulties students have when learning concepts of physics and astronomy. In fact, Neil Comins has just released the results of a decade-long study revealing more than 1,600 inaccurate ideas that non-science major undergraduate students bring to the introductory astronomy course (Comins 2001). Comins's list presents a worthy challenge to astronomy teachers at all levels. Few of us would be surprised to see that students' alternative conceptions surrounding seasons, moon phases, and gravity sit atop this exhaustive list, as they have been repeatedly documented and confirmed elsewhere (Adams & Slater 2000). Unfortunately, the degree to which teachers should allocate precious class time to helping students overcome their reasoning difficulties about these topics is the subject of some debate (Pasachoff 2001; Pasachoff 2002). One side of the debate suggests that students should be exposed to more contemporary topics in astronomy rather than devoting the time required to fully teach basic concepts. In contrast, the other side suggests that it is more important for students and teachers to expend the time and mental effort needed to fully understand the most basic of topics. What is clear from both perspectives is that significant instructional time and targeted instructional strategies are required for students to develop a meaningful and deep understanding of complex ideas. We do not attempt to join this important debate here; rather, this article reports on some preliminary findings showing that, just as with basic topics such as moon phases and seasons, students also have alternative and pre-existing conceptions regarding the modern topic of cosmology.

A constructivist approach to instruction requires that teachers be aware of and design instruction around the pre-existing ideas their students bring into the classroom (Prather & Harrington 2001; Slater, Carpenter, & Safko 1996). In an effort to develop curriculum supplements from this perspective, we administered a survey to 177 introductory astronomy, non-science major university students prior to collegiate instruction on cosmology. Our survey directly asked students if they had heard of the Big Bang and, if so, to please describe it. These surveys were then analyzed inductively by organizing responses into themes, often called phenomenological categories, and looking for patterns in student responses. These results are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. If you have heard of the Big Bang Theory in Astronomy, what is it?



College
(n = 167) High School
(n = 153) Middle School
(n = 340)
Theory Describing Creation of the Universe 54 % 48% 27%
Explosion of pre-existing matter 80 % 70 % 62 %
Explosion from nothing 1 % 0 % 4 %
No explanation provided 18 % 27 % 28 %
Other 1 % 3 % 6 %
Theory Describing Creation of Planetary Systems 25 % 28 % 37 %
Solar system/planets 46 % 65 % 83 %
Earth 54 % 35 % 17 %
Other Answers (including "I've heard of it but I have no explanation") 21 % 24 % 36%

NOTE: Students were asked if they had heard of the Big Bang and if so, to please describe what it is. The data in the table above represent only students who responded that they had heard of the Big Bang. The percentages of students who answered no were: ncollege 10/177 (6%); nhigh school 24/177 (14%); nmiddle school 267/607 (44%). High school data is for males only. Additionally, the subcategory percentages listed in italics represent the percentage of the total number of students responding in that particular category.

We found that an overwhelming 94% of the initial 177 college students surveyed reported that they had heard of the Big Bang. Of these 167 students who reported having heard of the Big Bang, one-quarter gave responses suggesting that it was a theory describing the creation of stars, planetary systems, solar systems, or Earth, whereas more than half stated that it was a theory describing the creation of the universe. A full 80% of those students stating that the Big Bang is a theory describing the creation of the universe gave statements clearly indicating that the Big Bang was an explosion of some form of pre-existing matter. Much to our surprise, only two college students (1%) stated that the Big Bang was an explosion from nothing. Even if one makes an unfounded assumption that the remaining 18% of these students who did not provide any further description also believe that the Big Bang was an explosion from nothing, these results suggest that the majority of students in this population do not think of the Big Bang in a manner consistent with the contemporary cosmology model of the origin of the universe. These results are consistent with a smaller-scale pilot study conducted by Crowder and his colleagues (2001).

To explore the extent to which pre-college students might also harbor these inaccurate ideas, we also surveyed 603 twelve- and thirteen-year-old eighth-grade students and 177 male high school physics students. The results, also shown in Table 1, are overall quite similar to the collegiate data. The vast majority of these middle and high school students also have pre-existing and inaccurate beliefs about the Big Bang. It seems that many students of all ages, and likely the general public, carry with them the mistaken idea that the Big Bang was an event that organized pre-existing matter. These inaccurate ideas are well positioned to interfere with instruction designed to help students adopt a scientifically accurate view of the Big Bang.

To better inform instruction, we felt it was necessary to look deeper into what students believe was occurring during the Big Bang. We administered a second survey to a different group of 133 college non-science majors who had not yet received instruction on the Big Bang. Using the results from our initial survey that suggested that most students had heard of the Big Bang, this survey more closely targeted students' beliefs by stating and asking, "The Big Bang is a scientific description of the origin and evolution of the universe. Provide a detailed, written description of what you think existed or was occurring (i) just before, (ii) during, and (iii) just after the Big Bang." The results from the analysis of students' written responses to the first question of this second survey are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Describe What Existed or Occurred Just Before the Big Bang.



College Astronomy
Non-science Majors (n = 133)
Nothing (of matter) existed before the Big Bang 28%
Nothing without additional comments 49%
There existed region of space and/or energy but not matter 35%
A point or singularity (possibly containing energy) but not an object or location of mass 16%
Some configuration of matter existed
before the big bang 69%
A distribution of gasses, particles, atoms, or molecules floating around an otherwise empty space 47%
Single large massive object, or star or planet 18 %
Single compressed, very small, point-like and massive object 15%
A different or somehow altered version of our universe 3%
A collection of large massive objects, or planets, or Stars or Meteors 9%
An earlier state or configuration of Earth 8%
Other 3%

As with the initial survey, we found that the majority of these students (nearly 70%) provided a written response clearly indicating that matter existed in some form prior to the Big Bang. Their ideas most often include atoms, molecules, and gas particles existing within an otherwise empty space, or the existence of a massive object such as a star or planet. A less common response given by only 11% of these students suggested that a single, compressed, very small, point-like massive object existed prior to the Big Bang. This response could be considered to have at least an element of consistency with current scientific thinking. The belief that matter existed before the Big Bang is further illustrated by students in their written responses to the second question of the survey, in which students were asked to describe what they thought happened during the Big Bang. A description involving an explosion that either distributed matter throughout the universe or formed planets, stars, or galaxies was given by 49% of students. In addition, 17% of the students described a scenario in which matter combined or came together; and another 10% listed changes on Earth, such as separation of Earth's continental plates or the occurrence of mass extinctions. Overall, the results from the second survey further illustrate that students hold scientifically inaccurate ideas about the modern topic of the Big Bang when they enter the classroom.

One approach to interpret students' scientifically inaccurate ideas that has proved fruitful in the context of physics education research is to consider the framework of knowledge as discrete pieces--called phenomenological primitives, or p-prims--that students develop throughout their lives to make sense of their physical world (di Sessa 1993). For example, the p-prim often referred to as "closer means more" is useful in helping us understand that car headlights appear brighter when cars are closer than when they are farther away. However, students all too often misapply this p-prim when asked to reason about seasons and the corresponding changes in Earth's temperature. In this context, students will often state that Earth is hotter in the summertime because Earth is closer to the Sun than in the wintertime. Much to the disappointment of faculty, students will often continue to misapply this p-prim to the concept of seasons despite targeted instruction intended to help them understand otherwise.

The results of this survey suggest that a p-prim might well explain the difficulties that students have when reasoning about the Big Bang. In particular, if students have spent years verifying the context-independent idea that "you can't make something from nothing," then ideas presented by lecture in an introductory astronomy class that contradict such a p-prim will likely require a more thoughtful approach to instruction. The existence of a "you can't make something from nothing" p-prim might also account for the origin of the perpetually asked question from students about "what is the universe expanding into?" suggesting a mental picture of the Big Bang as a primordial grenade exploding into a pre-existing empty room. Furthermore, students invoking this particular p-prim might also account for the persistent (both pre-course and post-course) student difficulty concerning locations for the center of the universe. This difficulty is illustrated by student responses to a question from the Astronomy Diagnostic Test (ADT). In this question, students are asked to identify what can be said about the location of the center of the universe by selecting from the choices: (a) Earth; (b) Sun; (c) Milky Way Galaxy; (d) an unknown, distant galaxy; or (e) the universe doesn't have a center (Hufnagel et al. 2000; Hufnagel 2001; Deming 2002).

Regardless of whether a "you can't make something from nothing" p-prim does exist, an instructor who follows the tenets of constructivism will need to alter the conventional textbook-based lecture approach to instruction if he or she wishes to help students who appear to think about the topic of the Big Bang in a manner consistent with this particular p-prim. Furthermore, this work suggests that instructors who would advocate teaching more contemporary astronomy topics in an effort to circumvent the tenaciously difficult basic topics of seasons, moon phases, and gravity because of the time required to "teach it right" might still encounter a considerable challenge in helping students make significant learning gains on contemporary topics. It appears that students do harbor pre-existing and often scientifically inaccurate ideas, or alternatively they may inappropriately activate phenomenological primitives on the spot to makes sense of contemporary astronomy topics. In either case, these recurrent patterns in student thinking need to be explicitly addressed for meaningful learning to take place.
Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their appreciation to middle school teachers Donna Governor of Pensacola, Florida, Lloyd and June Magneson of Butte, Montana, and Marty Wells of Cincinnati, Ohio, who graciously surveyed their classes as part of this study. This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation awards (NSF CCLI #9952232 and NSF Geosciences Education #9907755).

 

[DrPizza]

Here's a quote I agree with:

I always hear creationists refer to the big bang as an explosion. As if there was a marble sized ball which exploded like a bomb in the middle of space; the most obvious marker of an uneducated fool. This is a common misconception, the big bang was not an explosion but rather an expansion. Go back to 9th grade science.

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
*sigh* I'm just the messenger. Quantum mechanics is very well understood (by some people.) And, at the quantum level, particles and anti-particles (always a pair) pop into and out of existence all the time. While these particles are not observed directly, they do interact with particles in existence during their brief time in our universe. Their existence was suggested by the theory; later, their effects were observed. These observations coincided with theory to an incredible degree of precision.

So what you're saying is this is proven?

Or that it is just a theory that coincides with tests, but is not actually proven?

Originally posted by: DrPizzaI'd go on, but as BD2003 has observed, despite your statements, you obviously have no intention of taking this thread seriously as an opportunity to learn.

I'm glad you and BD2003 have agreed on the level of intensity in which I will persue this subject with.

Unfortunately it seems that I am the only one taking this discussion seriously.

Originally posted by: DrPizzaYour actions continue to point to your obvious motive to merely start a flame war. However, from what you have posted already, I find that arguing with you would be akin to a calculus student arguing about integrals with a kindergartner who has just learned his numbers from 1 to 10.

Who has argued with me?

No one has argued with me on any of these theories. Nor have I argued with anyone one about any theories.

I challenge you to find any proof in this thread where I have argued with anyone about and theories.

I will paypal you 20 dollars.

The only point of contention in this thread, is the one where people like you and BD2003 try to personally attack me.

I did not stray from topic, you did.

Anyways...

Originally posted by: DrPizza Their existence was suggested by the theory; later, their effects were observed. These observations coincided with theory to an incredible degree of precision.

So from this I gather it has not been proven? I honestly don't know too much about this stuff, hence me starting this discussion (regardless of what you or anyone thinks).

 

[Literati]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
How on earth does Blinky win?

I said that based on the fact you spoke down on him because he misunderstand a theory on the creation of the universe, while you yourself misunderstood something as simple as this thread.

It was a joke.

Of course he doesn't win, and no I never said I agree with his misconception of the Big Bang.

*sigh*

I'm beginning to think this discussion might be impossible.

 

[DrPizza]

I guess, then, the problem is what constitutes "proof."
Philosophically speaking, I suppose there is no such thing as proof, or absolute certainty.

Has there ever been "proof" that the earth is round? Well, any nut case could make the argument that it hasn't been proven, and throw up alternate crackpot theory after theory. But, we know, well beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is, in fact, round.

Quantum mechanics has been tested by many many many experiments, all of which have verified the theories to an incredible degree of accuracy. I could probably use the word "proof" here.

Now, for the formation of the big bang, there are multiple competing hypotheses which explain how it first happened. One example is that it was caused by the collision of two other higher dimensional universes. (imagine you live in a 2-dimensional world - a piece of paper. Two spheres, which you cannot even conceive of, collide. The intersection of these two spheres is a circle, which, however, you would be able to observe. That's close enough to the basic idea) Others have hypothesized that our universe is like a bubble growing on the side of another universe. There are a number of various competing hypothesis. However, the physicists and mathematicians who suggest these theories go a step further... actually, a HUGE step further. They are able to run models and do tons and tons of calculations. Thus, they are able to state "if our idea is correct, then when we run this completely new experiment, results have never been seen before by man, the results will be 42." There is an experiment being designed (or perhaps it's beyond the design stage) in which 3 satellites will orbit the sun. Using lasers and a system of mirrors, these satellites will be able to (hopefully) detect gravity waves. And, more importantly, they will be able to detect gravity waves left over from the big bang.

Now, I'm going to switch to laymen's terms. Let's simply say that they are looking for waves on a lake that have never before been observed. If Bob's hypothesis is correct, then the waves will be 3 feet high and 6 feet apart. If Steve's hypothesis is correct, then the waves will be 4 feet high and 5 feet apart. Well, that leaves out a critical part of it... it allows for what may be considered coincidence. Suppose Steve says that "according to my calculations, if my hypothesis is correct, then we will see waves that are 4.022357 feet high and 5.122079 feet apart.

Now, lets suppose the experiment is run and the waves are 4.022357 feet high and 5.122079 feet apart. Scientists would conclude that Bob's hypothesis is incorrect and that Steve's hypothesis is correct.

Would you consider this "proof" or would you state that Steve just had a lucky guess? That's what part of the problem is. What constitutes proof. But, in the case of quantum mechanics, there are dozens and dozens of such experiments, all which match predictions to incredible degrees of accuracy. This includes the prediction of particles that pop into and out of existence.

Solid State electronics use the principles of particles that pop into and out of existence. I suppose, if you want, you can say "no one proved how they really work. My theory is that God did it."

If you want to make an even bigger dent in what we know, but don't know, you could say, "You electrical engineers are teh dumb. I say that there's no such thing as the square root of negative one. Therefore, you're not allowed to use it or any other imaginary numbers in your calculations. And, any electrical engineering calculations which include the square root of negative one in the calculations are therefore bogus."

The truth is, many of the "theories" in science are considered as facts. They're just called theories. Well, then again, I have a theory of intelligent falling.

 

[DrPizza]

btw, how much science have you taken?
Are you still in high school??

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Literati

Originally posted by: DrPizza
What you know is wrong. Therefore, /end thread.

This thread is for discussion, not wether what I think is right or wrong.

Therefore, /yourself.

Nice try though.

Soooooo anyways...

Originally posted by: DrPizzaSearch for quantum mechanics and vacuum and "pop into existence"
You'll be surprised to find that things pop into and out of existence all the time; there is no such thing as an "empty" vacuum; at least not at the quantum level.

What "pops" in and out of existance, created from absolutely nothing, all the time? Or are you just trolling?

*sigh* I'm just the messenger. Quantum mechanics is very well understood (by some people.) And, at the quantum level, particles and anti-particles (always a pair) pop into and out of existence all the time. While these particles are not observed directly, they do interact with particles in existence during their brief time in our universe. Their existence was suggested by the theory; later, their effects were observed. These observations coincided with theory to an incredible degree of precision.

I'd go on, but as BD2003 has observed, despite your statements, you obviously have no intention of taking this thread seriously as an opportunity to learn. Your actions continue to point to your obvious motive to merely start a flame war. However, from what you have posted already, I find that arguing with you would be akin to a calculus student arguing about integrals with a kindergartner who has just learned his numbers from 1 to 10.

Precisely. You honestly do not have the necessary background to have a meaningful discussion. Saying things like "I dont believe in the big bang", is something only the most absolutely ignorant person in the world would say. Youre like a little leaguer who thinks he can play with the big boys, and when you get laughed at, you go on crying to yourself how we're scared because youre not being taken seriously.

Instead of trying to have a debate, you should be trying to learn something. But you think you know it all already. Its not the fact that you dont know anything thats so irritating, its your arrogance. Like youre constant need to say someone has won. You can cry up and down how you dont want to to be a flame war, but every single sentence you write betrays that notion.

Since I'm arguing with a child, I might as well use the most effective method of defense that I know:

I'm rubber, and youre glue, whatever you say, bounces off of me, and sticks to you.