Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2018 2:17 AM
253 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 252 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,790 Year: 13,613/29,783 Month: 1,059/1,576 Week: 0/271 Day: 0/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Author Topic:   Universe Race
Admin
Director
Posts: 12557
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 391 of 410 (459853)
03-10-2008 10:27 AM


Summation Time
Even though this thread is way past 300 messages, I was inclined to leave it open because it was stimulating the presentation of a lot of useful information. What seemed especially useful was that the same information was presented repeatedly, but by different people at different levels of sophistication and using different analogies.

But this thread is beginning to increasingly focus on the difficulty some participants are having in grasping the concepts, and so this is probably a good time to bring this thread to a close.

So please begin posting your summations, and here are the rules:

  1. Do not reply to any post, including other people's summations. Use the general reply button that appears at the top and bottom of the page.

  2. Make the subject something like "My Summation" or "What I thought of this thread" or anything along those lines.

  3. Post only one summation.

  4. In your summation do not refer to or address the contents of any prior summation from someone else. Address only what they've said in the main body of the thread.

  5. No one should post more than one message after this point, and that message should be a summation.

  6. If you do accidentally reply to someone or post more than one summation, just edit your message and delete the contents before I see it.

  7. Please let moderators handle violations of these conditions, do not attempt to deal with them yourself.

  8. Violation of any of these conditions will result in a 24 hours suspension.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1083 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 392 of 410 (459866)
03-10-2008 11:43 AM


In summation...
In Summation...

The expansion of the Universe does not resemble the model in the OP in any way. While galaxies do move, that is not what is spoken of when referring to the expansion of the Universe. This makes the topic extremely difficult for many people to grasp - at the scale in which we live, such expansion is compeltely counterintuitive, and only Newtonian physics make instinctual sense to us.

But that doesn't mean it isn't happening. There is a mountain of evidence suggesting the Universe is expanding, from the redshift of galaxies to the cosmic microwave background. Every model that we run of the observed processes of the cosmos predicts that the Universe is expanding from a much hotter, much denser state. When we run models that start from such a state, we are able to make predictions that are then testable and verifiable - like the cosmic microwave background. The expansion fo the Universe from a much smaller, much more dense, much hotter state in the past is considered to be as rock-solid as the Theory of Gravity or other such virtually-proven models because of the shear weight of supporting evidence and verified predictions from the model.

Where we run into problems here is in the explanations to laypeople, particularly laypeople with no physics training whatsoever, and most especially with laypeople who have no physics education and have a predetermined cosmological view based on their religion.

The real meat of the Big Bang model can only be conveyed with mathematics - which would not be understood by any layperson (including me - it makes me want to go back to school again). We are left instead with using very imperfect analogies tro try to explain a very, very counterintuitive model to a layperson without the use of math - difficult even for a receptive student, and nearly impossible for someone who, at the core, wants to squeeze theology into the discussion.

The best analogy we were able to come up with is the globe analogy - the Universe simply exists (there isn't much of a "why" to science - until such time as we can examine the mechanism, if any, that resulted in the Universe existing, science will remain mute on the actual origin) and it posesses a particular 4-dimensional shape. We only really see three dimentions, because we perceive time only in a single direction (which is the real reason all of this is so counterintuitive).

Looking at the Universe from the outisde as a single 4-dimensional entity, you could say that it looks like the top half of a globe, with the dimension Time being represented by the North-South axis, and the three spacial dimensions being represented by the surface of the globe. T=0 would be the North Pole, and the surface "expands" as you move farther South. If you model matter in the Universe by pouring water over the globe, then as the water moves from T=0, the drops will move farther and farther apart as they move South - but this is not due to "real" motion with inertia and force the way objects react at smaller, in-Universe scales. Instead, the actual space between the matter (not the distance, but the space itself) is expanding, like the surface of a balloon. There isn't a "cause" for this expansion per se - the Universe simply has a certain shape, and our perception of that shape is dictated by our experience of time as a sequence of events in a single direction instead of being able to look from the outside. In this analogy, nothing needs to "start" the expansion - the universe only exists in a certain shape. Our experience of time is what gives us the concept of causality, and that's virtually thown aside when looking at time as just another dimension like length and width.

We know next to nothing about the exact moment where T=0. The mathematical models we currently use break down into a singularity at that point. Note that a singularity is not a physical object, nor is it a state of the Universe. The word "singularity" is used to denote a special case where our current mathematics simply don't work - that's all. It has nothing to do with "singular energy" liek what another poster keeps insisting, and neither is it necessary to "prove" that the Universe has a singularity at T=0. Such a statement wouldn't even make sense - by saying there is a singularty at T=0, all we are saying is that none of our math right now can tell us anything about T=0. All we know is that the spacial dimentions get smaller, the Universe becomes more dense, and it becomes hotter as you approach T=0 until the dimensions are so small, the Universe is so dense, and it is so hot that we no longer know how to model the conditions of the Universe, and we call this moment of uncertainty a singularity. It's just like a black hole - unlike what Star Trek would have you believe, there is no physical objectcalled a singularity in the center. Conditions inside of a black hole are so different from the rest of the Universe, and gravity becomes so incredibly strong, that our mathematical models stop working, and we call that uncertainty a singularity. A singularity is just a special case where we can't use any of our current models. Someday, hopefully, with additional research and new technologies, we'll be able to come up with a model that doesn't break down and that can give us additional information. Until that time, T=0 is a great unknown beyond the basic "it was really dense, it was really hot, and the spacial dimentions were tiny compared to today, or even compared to the size of a pea."

Some posters have latched onto the "pea sized Universe" and started syaing nonsense like "you say this pea sized universe existed and that it caused the universe we see today." Such statemnets show that they are missing the point - the pea-sized Unvierse is this Universe, simply at an earlier location in time. Such statements are like saying that "ice causes water." Ice is water, simply in a different state.

The expansion of the Universe is a fact. We can observe it in the redshift of galaxies, and every model we use featuring that expansion results in a Universe that looks just like ours. Extrapolating that expansion backwards through the process of logical inference, we predict that the Universe used to be smaller as you go backwards in time. Some will say that this is "not objective, empirical evidence," but the evidence it is based on IS. Logical inference is a perfectly rational method - it's what helps the police catch criminals from the evidence left at the crime scene, it's even what tells you that I exist even though you have never directly observed me. Logical inference told us there were additional planets in our Solar System - and when we looked where our models suggested we should look, we found exactly what the models predicted. So too with Big Bang cosmology - it makes a series of predictions, and we have observed many of the things predicted by that model (like the cosmic microwave background). We have never observed anything that contradicts the model.

So the problem in this thread has not been the science. It's been the silly insistence by some posters on trying to prove that science is based on faith just as much as religion, and so their religious beliefs should be just as valid as the scientific model. While they are welcome to their opinions, in reality they amount to complete and utter bullshit. Science takes exactly one thing on faith: that what we observe is actually what is happening. We take on faith that, when we look at the moon at night, we're actually looking at the moon and not trapped inside of the Matrix.

If this thread has shown us one thing, it's that scientific principles are extremely difficult, and maybe even impossible to learn if an individual insists on maintaining a pre-existing belief or tries while learning to prove that science is based on something just as flimsy as their own faith. The strength of science, the very reason if continues to give us ever more accurate models of the Universe and produce real-world applications like computers, medicine, and everything else we use every day is that sciencits are not tied to a specific belief, and they are not personally invested in any particular model. They are concerned only with the evidence and the greatest degree of accuracy possible, which allows models to be changed or even thrown out altogether to incorporate new evidence.

The Big Bang model has shown through observable, testable evidence to be extremely accurate. That many people cannot understand this evidence is irrelevant.

PS - thank you very much, cavediver and Son Goku, for all of your contributions. I learned quite a bit from both of you, even if some people didn't learn anything at all.


Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Rob, posted 03-11-2008 9:51 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1188 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 393 of 410 (459878)
03-10-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by ICANT
03-10-2008 10:01 AM


In summation...
ICANT writes:

Taz I tell you there is a God. You say prove it. I say you have to believe it by faith. You say yea more fairy tales.


For the record, I never said that. You believe your god and I believe mine. My God gave mankind everything from fire to mathematics to technology to art. My God is the one true light of the world and is my personal savior. HE is Prometheus.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by ICANT, posted 03-10-2008 10:01 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6505
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 394 of 410 (459879)
03-10-2008 1:35 PM


Short summary.
It is clear from the evidence that the universe was once very hot and very dense, and expanded to what we see today. We understand the laws of physics enough that when we start with the universe in a very hot and dense state, and then allow it to expand (as General Relativity tells us), then the theory predicts phenomena that we actually do observe. The Big Bang theory has been confirmed and is not in any serious doubt by anyone who can post an intelligible message on an internet forum.

As we "run the clock backwards" on our model and observe that the universe was hotter and denser at earlier times, we eventually get to a point where the energies are so great and the radius of the universe so small that our current understanding of the laws of physics are inadequate. We basically have no understanding of any earlier time. There are some theories being developed that may eventually give us insight as to what the universe was like before this time, but they are still in development.

So, the current state of our knowledge is that the universe was at one time very hot (the temperature was large but finite), it was very dense (the density was large but finite), and it was in a state of expansion. From this time on, we have a pretty good idea of what was happening. Before this we do not.


...Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. -- Matt Taibbi
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2612 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 395 of 410 (459899)
03-10-2008 5:00 PM


When All Else is Said and Done.
When we see a mangled automobile laying up next to a telephone pole we assume that it was not designed that way in Michigan. Crash investigators would theoretically be able to break down the train of events that led up to the given observation second by second if need be. Some errors might be made, but set a thousand competing teams of crash investigators out there and those errors will be corrected. [sarcasm]But truth be told, some guy who, seeing a halftone photo in his local paper, would have a better explanation because his sister owns a car just like it.[/sarcasm]

Edited by lyx2no, : To increase the smarmy quotient.


Kindly

******

Fractally irrelevant


AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3456
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 396 of 410 (459900)
03-10-2008 5:43 PM


Sorry Percy, please forgive me for not being on topic or in summary.

Rahvin, I think you may have just authored the Post of the Month.

Thank you.


tesla
Member (Idle past 1954 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 397 of 410 (459910)
03-10-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by lyx2no
03-09-2008 11:30 PM


?
I could understand how increased mass could condense.” Is a meaningless sentence.

If there was a merge of two planets, and one was gaseous, the other was rocky; The gaseous planet may become smaller after the introduction due to interactions within the masses. How is that a difficult concept to understand as potential?

You keep saying the maths this and the maths that , but exhibit no apparent understanding of even the simplest concepts. You keep saying new variables are being ignored without mentioning a single new idea to consider.

Ok. Let me try to see how this works.

Observation: A star being observed that is 3 million light years old, means that the star we are viewing is where it was 3 million years ago. In its form 3 million years ago. And we take math, and apply it to its position relative to us by its movements by where we are at today, not three million years ago.

We throw a satellite in space, put it in harmony where it appears "still" to take pictures to be more accurate to understanding speeds and movements of stars. Without perfect math to determine the movement of our galaxy's rotation, its speed, our star clusters rotation and speed, and perhaps cluster variations within our galaxy that the cluster is also being affected by. But can still deduce the expansion of our universe, its speed and position relative to other galaxies. which are a billion light years away. Which means, we only see what they looked like and where they were at 1 billion years ago. And compare it to a star cluster star or galaxy 3 million years ago. By its relative movements to us, and our galaxy, when we cant even be sure of our own movements.

So i ask you; What is the truth?

The correct answer: We dont know. But we are doing all we can to find out.

So i said: Well lets check what is definite, and understand in simplicity, so we can then attempt to understand it in its complexity.

And many say; Hey! Don't you get it ? We already know as much as can be known right now! And some high school 9th grade drop-out like you sure as hell ain't gonna be the one to figure anything out!

So i say: Ok I'm the idiot. Prove it.

Tell me: When a TV station broadcasts live, Is there not a delay in the speech and viewing?

Has science been able to deduce what and where and how fast this galaxy and solar system and star clusters were and looked like 3 million years ago? 1 billion? Because until we can model that; Were only comparing where our galaxy appears to be now in relation to where a galaxy was millions of years ago.

Edited by tesla, : are=our


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by lyx2no, posted 03-09-2008 11:30 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Admin, posted 03-11-2008 10:43 AM tesla has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3745 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 398 of 410 (459946)
03-11-2008 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Rahvin
03-10-2008 11:43 AM


Re: In summation...
Rahvin:
Science takes exactly one thing on faith: that what we observe is actually what is happening. We take on faith that, when we look at the moon at night, we're actually looking at the moon and not trapped inside of the Matrix.

I think you need to be more specific. Since mathematics is the tool used for understanding this stuff, can we not agree that science is faith in logic, and that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way?

Rahvin:

Where we run into problems here is in the explanations to laypeople, particularly laypeople with no physics training whatsoever, and most especially with laypeople who have no physics education and have a predetermined cosmological view based on their religion.

Furthermore, what is your theistic position? I ask, because the model you refer to, is based upon a philosophy of materialism, that has certain theistic implications and not others.

Allow me to explain:

Scientific Reasoning vs. Religious Reasoning?

The conflict between science and religion is not over the existence of God because the terms God and reality are synonymous. God / 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

Reality is absolute, ultimate, and sovereign. The question is really one of God’s (or reality's) characteristics or nature.

Is reality a living being, or merely an impersonal material force?

Whatever or whoever reality is; reality is God by definition. It is what it is or I am who I am.

The only difference between the philosophies of naturalism and monotheism is the nature of God. All reasoning is philosophical. Whether we use inductive or deductive reasoning (and we rely almost exclusively on deduction) contradiction and coherence are what we seek in order to verify or refute premises and conclusions.

It matters not whether our philosophy is monotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, etc. The deist philosophizes that Theo (God) has left the building. All philosophy is theistic. Even the agnostic is in the same boat, since his philosophy purposely excludes deciding the question of Theo. To put it plainly, without theism, there is no such thing as an agnostic. The absolute character of reality (irrespective of its/his other qualities) does not give us the option of excluding ourselves from philosophizing about Theo.

So Rahvin, my point is not to challenge the logic of your view. It is logical. My point (and the point of many others) is that all of us smuggle in a theological view that is not directly observable by way of empirical observation.

You don't have the authority to exalt a 'materialistic worldview' of reality as objective and unbiased.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2008 11:43 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Admin, posted 03-11-2008 10:43 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12557
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 399 of 410 (459950)
03-11-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by tesla
03-10-2008 8:31 PM


Re: ?
Please read Message 391 then take the appropriate action. I'll check back around mid-afternoon eastern time.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by tesla, posted 03-10-2008 8:31 PM tesla has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12557
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 400 of 410 (459951)
03-11-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Rob
03-11-2008 9:51 AM


Re: In summation...
Please read Message 391 then take the appropriate action. I'll check back around mid-afternoon eastern time.

Edited by Admin, : No reason given.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Rob, posted 03-11-2008 9:51 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12557
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 401 of 410 (459983)
03-11-2008 7:58 PM


To Tesla and Rob,

You're probably reading this because you're wondering why you were suspended for 24 hours. Please read the above two messages and also Message 391. I regret having to suspend you, but I gave you every opportunity to correct your mistakes.

Hopefully this will be a lesson to you both. What we see is that all the evolutionists who posted summations were able to follow instructions and none of the creationists. Whether from sloppiness, stupidity or sheer orneriness I don't know, but you two are certainly consistent, and hopefully you'll both take this as an indication that you could do better, not just in posting summations but in your contributions in all threads.

Science isn't something you can just make up as you go along. It takes a large investment in time and effort before the interconnectedness of many facts and observations begin to take shape within your mind, enabling you to see the reasonable and possible implications.

As always, please, no replies to this message. See you tomorrow night.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17656
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 402 of 410 (460033)
03-12-2008 9:11 AM


Closing Remarks
This thread saw two different objections to current scientific views on cosmological origins:

  1. That the Big Bang was actually an explosion into space rather than an expansion of space.

  2. That our lack of knowledge of what happened at and very shortly after T=0 indicates that the rest of what we know about cosmological origins is wrong.

The first objection is very reasonable from a lay perspective, and it must be answered by explaining how current scientific views derive from the evidence. I thought the science side did a fair job of this. It was actually absolutely excellent in those posts that took a "here's the information you seek" approach, but I say fair because it was all spread out over 400 messages, and in many messages the science side allowed themselves to be distracted by taunts and such, such as this from CTD way back in Message 22:

CTD in Message 22 writes:

These are the versions perpetuated in schoolbooks and pop science to keep the actual current big bang safe from being laughed out of the schoolhouse by the students. As silly as those versions were/are, they ain't nothin' compared to the real deal.

In my opinion the science side is better off just ignoring these kinds of responses and only paying attention to actual issues.

I can't recall now if anyone mentioned the accelerating expansion of the universe, but in case not, I'll just add that this is another piece of evidence that the Big Bang was not an explosion into existing space, since of course explosions don't continue accelerating after the initial explosion. It's even weirder than that, since the evidence tells us that the expansion slowed for a while, then began accelerating.

The second objection based upon our lack of knowledge at and shortly after T=0 is just addlepated. Human beings will never know even the tiniest percentage of everything, and if what we don't know could actually invalidate what we do then it would be impossible to ever know anything.

This particular objection also saw the most determined effort of misunderstanding and misinterpreting that I've ever witnessed. It was like he was saying over and over and over again, "I don't care how idiotic I'm going to appear, I'm going to find a way to misinterpret this. God Bless!"

--Percy


  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 403 of 410 (460057)
03-12-2008 1:20 PM


quote:
In Summation...
The expansion of the Universe does not resemble the model in the OP in any way. While galaxies do move, that is not what is spoken of when referring to the expansion of the Universe. This makes the topic extremely difficult for many people to grasp - at the scale in which we live, such expansion is compeltely counterintuitive, and only Newtonian physics make instinctual sense to us.

But that doesn't mean it isn't happening. There is a mountain of evidence suggesting the Universe is expanding, from the redshift of galaxies to the cosmic microwave background. Every model that we run of the observed processes of the cosmos predicts that the Universe is expanding from a much hotter, much denser state. When we run models that start from such a state, we are able to make predictions that are then testable and verifiable - like the cosmic microwave background. The expansion fo the Universe from a much smaller, much more dense, much hotter state in the past is considered to be as rock-solid as the Theory of Gravity or other such virtually-proven models because of the shear weight of supporting evidence and verified predictions from the model.

Where we run into problems here is in the explanations to laypeople, particularly laypeople with no physics training whatsoever, and most especially with laypeople who have no physics education and have a predetermined cosmological view based on their religion.

The real meat of the Big Bang model can only be conveyed with mathematics - which would not be understood by any layperson (including me - it makes me want to go back to school again). We are left instead with using very imperfect analogies tro try to explain a very, very counterintuitive model to a layperson without the use of math - difficult even for a receptive student, and nearly impossible for someone who, at the core, wants to squeeze theology into the discussion.

The best analogy we were able to come up with is the globe analogy - the Universe simply exists (there isn't much of a "why" to science - until such time as we can examine the mechanism, if any, that resulted in the Universe existing, science will remain mute on the actual origin) and it posesses a particular 4-dimensional shape. We only really see three dimentions, because we perceive time only in a single direction (which is the real reason all of this is so counterintuitive).

Looking at the Universe from the outisde as a single 4-dimensional entity, you could say that it looks like the top half of a globe, with the dimension Time being represented by the North-South axis, and the three spacial dimensions being represented by the surface of the globe. T=0 would be the North Pole, and the surface "expands" as you move farther South. If you model matter in the Universe by pouring water over the globe, then as the water moves from T=0, the drops will move farther and farther apart as they move South - but this is not due to "real" motion with inertia and force the way objects react at smaller, in-Universe scales. Instead, the actual space between the matter (not the distance, but the space itself) is expanding, like the surface of a balloon. There isn't a "cause" for this expansion per se - the Universe simply has a certain shape, and our perception of that shape is dictated by our experience of time as a sequence of events in a single direction instead of being able to look from the outside. In this analogy, nothing needs to "start" the expansion - the universe only exists in a certain shape. Our experience of time is what gives us the concept of causality, and that's virtually thown aside when looking at time as just another dimension like length and width.

We know next to nothing about the exact moment where T=0. The mathematical models we currently use break down into a singularity at that point. Note that a singularity is not a physical object, nor is it a state of the Universe. The word "singularity" is used to denote a special case where our current mathematics simply don't work - that's all. It has nothing to do with "singular energy" liek what another poster keeps insisting, and neither is it necessary to "prove" that the Universe has a singularity at T=0. Such a statement wouldn't even make sense - by saying there is a singularty at T=0, all we are saying is that none of our math right now can tell us anything about T=0. All we know is that the spacial dimentions get smaller, the Universe becomes more dense, and it becomes hotter as you approach T=0 until the dimensions are so small, the Universe is so dense, and it is so hot that we no longer know how to model the conditions of the Universe, and we call this moment of uncertainty a singularity. It's just like a black hole - unlike what Star Trek would have you believe, there is no physical objectcalled a singularity in the center. Conditions inside of a black hole are so different from the rest of the Universe, and gravity becomes so incredibly strong, that our mathematical models stop working, and we call that uncertainty a singularity. A singularity is just a special case where we can't use any of our current models. Someday, hopefully, with additional research and new technologies, we'll be able to come up with a model that doesn't break down and that can give us additional information. Until that time, T=0 is a great unknown beyond the basic "it was really dense, it was really hot, and the spacial dimentions were tiny compared to today, or even compared to the size of a pea."

Some posters have latched onto the "pea sized Universe" and started syaing nonsense like "you say this pea sized universe existed and that it caused the universe we see today." Such statemnets show that they are missing the point - the pea-sized Unvierse is this Universe, simply at an earlier location in time. Such statements are like saying that "ice causes water." Ice is water, simply in a different state.

The expansion of the Universe is a fact. We can observe it in the redshift of galaxies, and every model we use featuring that expansion results in a Universe that looks just like ours. Extrapolating that expansion backwards through the process of logical inference, we predict that the Universe used to be smaller as you go backwards in time. Some will say that this is "not objective, empirical evidence," but the evidence it is based on IS. Logical inference is a perfectly rational method - it's what helps the police catch criminals from the evidence left at the crime scene, it's even what tells you that I exist even though you have never directly observed me. Logical inference told us there were additional planets in our Solar System - and when we looked where our models suggested we should look, we found exactly what the models predicted. So too with Big Bang cosmology - it makes a series of predictions, and we have observed many of the things predicted by that model (like the cosmic microwave background). We have never observed anything that contradicts the model.

So the problem in this thread has not been the science. It's been the silly insistence by some posters on trying to prove that science is based on faith just as much as religion, and so their religious beliefs should be just as valid as the scientific model. While they are welcome to their opinions, in reality they amount to complete and utter bullshit. Science takes exactly one thing on faith: that what we observe is actually what is happening. We take on faith that, when we look at the moon at night, we're actually looking at the moon and not trapped inside of the Matrix.

If this thread has shown us one thing, it's that scientific principles are extremely difficult, and maybe even impossible to learn if an individual insists on maintaining a pre-existing belief or tries while learning to prove that science is based on something just as flimsy as their own faith. The strength of science, the very reason if continues to give us ever more accurate models of the Universe and produce real-world applications like computers, medicine, and everything else we use every day is that sciencits are not tied to a specific belief, and they are not personally invested in any particular model. They are concerned only with the evidence and the greatest degree of accuracy possible, which allows models to be changed or even thrown out altogether to incorporate new evidence.

The Big Bang model has shown through observable, testable evidence to be extremely accurate. That many people cannot understand this evidence is irrelevant.

PS - thank you very much, cavediver and Son Goku, for all of your contributions. I learned quite a bit from both of you, even if some people didn't learn anything at all.


Brilliant wording and brilliant summation of what human race seems to have proven beyond reasonable doubt so far. My hat goes off to you Rahvin(may God bless you - kidding, kidding - HEHE:) ).

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 404 of 410 (460067)
03-12-2008 2:16 PM


Re-Summation
In Summation,

I would like to express my appreciation of the summation Rahvin did as he did a marvelous job of presenting his beliefs.

I had many questions at the beginning of the thread and I now have more questions than before. But since I am a Bible thumper I suppose that goes with the territory.

I realize there were those who put forth their best effort during the thread to convince me that I was wrong in believing there is something wrong with the Big Bang Theory as presented here.

But Gentlemen as a man that preaches doctrine at least 45 minutes a week I do recognize the doctrine of the BBT as taught on EcC. I just am not convinced of its authenticy.

Especially when there are so many assumptions I would have to make before I could even start as I pointed out in several messages and one in particular Message 375.

Is it possible that at a point in the past there was a universe that was much smaller than it is today, it was very hot, and that it began to expand. All the galaxies, stars, empty voids and everything we see today was produced over the past 13.7 billion years as has been presented in this thread?

Sure it is possible. But it has not been established as fact and is not the best possible conclusion to be drawn as far as I am concerned.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by lyx2no, posted 03-12-2008 2:54 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 405 of 410 (460069)
03-12-2008 2:31 PM


*Message erased

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Admin, posted 03-12-2008 3:32 PM Agobot has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018