"Hydrogen is an element, usually in the form of a gas, that consists of one proton and one electron. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, accounting for about 75 percent of its normal matter, and was created in the Big Bang. Helium is an element, usually in the form of a gas, that consists of a nucleus of two protons and two neutrons surrounded by two electrons. Helium is the second-most abundant element in the universe, after hydrogen, and accounts for about 25 percent of the atoms in the universe. Most of the helium in the universe was created in the Big Bang, but it also is the product of hydrogen fusion in stars."
https://stardate.org/astro-guide/hydrogen-and-helium

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 18:56

(Reply to #45) #46

A.prophet

Shit man... IDIOCRACY!!!!!!!!

Shit man... IDIOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said that my words are summarized... I also said that I could explain everything in explicit detail!

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 19:17

(Reply to #46) #47

Sapporo

Mohamed: Shit man...

Mohamed: Shit man... IDIOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said that my words are summarized... I also said that I could explain everything in explicit detail!

You want to explain an expansion in explicit detail?

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 19:32

(Reply to #47) #48

A.prophet

I don't want but I can

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 18:54

(Reply to #48) #49

A.prophet

Ummm... I dinno if your being

Ummm... I dinno if your being sarcastic or serious

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 20:35

(Reply to #49) #50

arakish

Nyarlathotep: "Mohamed -

Nyarlathotep: "Mohamed - Hydrogen composes 75% of space... || Think about just that simple statement. It will make your brain hurt."

I shall help little child. Space is NOT 75% hydrogen. Hydrogen comprises 75% of the elements within space.

Now is that headache gone my young child?

rmfr

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 18:44

#51

algebe

@Mohamed: In the beginning,

@Mohamed: In the beginning, cosmologists explained that the universe began from an explosion they called "The Big Bang". The first scientific writings explained that it all began from the collision of 2 atoms at the speed of light

Without a citation, I'm not sure what "scientific writings" you're referring to. However, the first atoms didn't appear until several hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, so your theory about two atoms colliding is incorrect. So is the statement that the universe began from an explosion. The Big Bang is simply the earliest event in the universe for which we have evidence.

Here's a very simple explanation.
https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe

Have you ever seen this guy? He reminds me of you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKSKUIjBiM0

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 19:03

(Reply to #51) #52

A.prophet

A sensible person... finally!

I've been taught the Big Bang theory since kindergarten, I dunno about you. The collision part is correct, they used to say that. That is what I explained in the beginning of the article. That is why I wrote what you are quoting.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/11/big-bang-confirm...

https://phys.org/news/2010-03-atom-smasher-big-collisions.html

one of then says something about the recreation of the big bang collision. I don't remember which one. I had them saved for a book I am writing.

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 19:34

(Reply to #52) #53

LostLocke

This is the first time I've

This is the first time I've ever heard of the Big Bang referred to as a collision between two atoms.

A few problems there. There were no atoms "before" the Big Bang. There weren't even protons or electrons initially. In fact, fundamental particles and energies may have been so vastly different "before" the Big Bang that reality itself may have been completely different than what we know today.
Also, two atoms colliding don't cause all of space-time to expand, which is what is happening during the expansion.

Today, ideas behind the Big Bang are that is was basically a phase transition from one state to another, the "another" being the state it is now.

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 19:41

(Reply to #53) #54

A.prophet

I just provided video and

I just provided video and written evidence to 2 of the people arguing this topic that the Big Bang was said to be a collision and an explosion by top notch cosmologists, including CERN scientists.

I'm glad you said "Today, ideas behind the Big Bang are...". That is explained in the subject. It was a collision, then when evidence was insufficient, it was omitted. Otherwise it wouldn't be called the Big BANG. They need to change the name at least!

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 19:58

(Reply to #54) #55

LostLocke

You need to look up the

You need to look up the origin of the term "Big Bang". It's not what you think it is. It was a derogatory term used by another scientist who didn't understand what the actual theory was about. A person not unlike yourself.
It just stuck and was never dropped.

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 20:05

(Reply to #55) #56

A.prophet

I provided a video where Neil

I provided a video where Neil degrasse tyson says opposite what you say.

Why the unnecessary attack on myself?

They should drop it... saves time from B.S. people say!

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 20:54

(Reply to #56) #57

algebe

@LostLocke: It was a

@LostLocke: It was a derogatory term used by another scientist who didn't understand what the actual theory was about. A person not unlike yourself.

That was Fred Hoyle. He was a major British physicist and the first to describe the creation of heavy elements in stars through stellar nucleosynthesis. He was also a noted sci-fi author. I think he understood Big Bang cosmology but rejected it in favor of his own "steady state" theory.
He was nothing like Mohammed.

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 20:16

(Reply to #57) #58

LostLocke

And, even more....

Forbes? I don't care what they say, they're not in that industry.
And an 8 year old article from physics.org? Which by the way, the article doesn't say what you want it to say. Nothing in it says *anything* about an atomic collision causing the Big Bang.

Let's go right to the source instead, like people are supposed to:
https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 19:41

(Reply to #58) #59

Sky Pilot

Mohamed,

"A sensible person... finally!"

Most of that stuff like that in the Forbes article is pure BS. It might sound reasonable but if you stop and question it you will see that the writer is just making up lies.

For instance, he has a picture of a x-ray jet at 12.4 light years distance from Earth. Why aren't those things common? There should be countless numbers of them littering the sky. Instead they are rarer than beer from a camel. They use those things to sell their big lie.

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 19:48

(Reply to #59) #60

A.prophet

The whole thing is a lie.

The whole thing is a lie. That is what I'm claiming.

As for space. Humans haven't scratched the surface of our atmosphere. Please tell me where the American flag is on the moon so I could see it with a telescope?

My source of information is the Quran not cosmological uncertainties yet the uncertainties help in reaching a conclusion, that is why they are called Theories.
Your conclusion to what has been written is the same conclusion I reached when reading pure scientific articles.

Sat, 12/22/2018 - 19:51

(Reply to #60) #61

algebe

@Mohamed: As for space.

@Mohamed: As for space. Humans haven't scratched the surface of our atmosphere.

Do you have a GPS navigation system in your car?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages