|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Scientific theories all are considered scientific facts. I think you need to careful making this assertion. Theories can be concidered the most accurate explanations we have for phenomena at any given time but as all science is tentative a theory is open to being over turned on reciept of new evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The distinction between changes and osmosis does not impact on the premise; its divergence.
quote: When I suggested the BBT's reliance on a singular entity at its initiation cannot produce any action, this was not contended; instead, the response was WE DON'T KNOW WHAT LAWS APPLIED THEN - OR IF LAWS WERE IN PLACE'. What this says to me is if laws did apply, I am correct - there is a fundamental glitch in accepting a singular entity can perform an action under any laws. Further, if laws do not apply, it does not mean a singualr entity can produce an action. Its a bogus response to a genuine premise not confronted.
quote: "Singular". Pristine has manofold applications. This is just more deflection.
quote: The BBT is made as the initiation premise for the universe. Pluralisung this is another deflection. Why not deal with the premise?
quote: Yes, it would exclude any God, which was never intended. I used the premise of an external impacter, namely a trigger factor, which admittedly, opens itself to an independent, precedent force. It remains a scientific premise BTW, far more so than WE DON'T KNOW.
quote: Then it is not the first or a singular entity.
quote: No sir. A finite universe cannot contain an infinite. Its a violation. You should by now see your arguement as breaking down, tho I doubt you will admit it. This can be seen with religionists too, BTW!
quote: I accept that time and space, as with energy, never existed at one time. The issue of prior to the BB was not mine; it was offered in desperation by someone else that the laws we know would not apply at that point. I merely responded if that were the case, it still does not support a singular entity performing an action.
quote: If this universe is finite, nothing it contains can be infinite.
quote: Do you infer you have encountered any evidence a singular entity can perform an action? Not so even via voodooism!
quote: If you have done or seen any research negating my premise, you have not provided this.
quote: The err is well placed; nature is not. Once there was no nature; there is no nature now.
quote: What actually is nature: tsunamies, ecosystems, volcanos, pineapples? These are works which are driven by laws, not nature. Nature is a metaphor we use instead of godidit; act of nature replaces act of God. Its a placebo so we do not get bogged down in the numerous, contradicting theologies. But there is NO such thing as nature - actually. Its also not a scientific answer.
quote: Not knowing cannot apply here: we do know that a singular entity cannot perform an action; you are saying it can in lala land where laws do not apply - how do you know that or why do you embrace this? You fail to respond to the issue what happens when laws DO apply!
quote:Not all theories are accepted as facts; many are disputed equally. Many theories have fallen away. I am not just saying goddidit; I am giving scientific reasoning why some accepted theories are wrong. Understand the difference before casting your impression on me. You have not responded or yet attended how a singular entity can perform an action. quote: Agreed. But saying I DON'T KNOW must have meaning. We cannot say we don't know that a singular entity can perform an action. This is not subject to negotiation. It is far more diabolical than godidit. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The anxst of debate against my premise is telling. It threatens to fell a cornerstone pillar, with scary implications. This occurs when science is treated by many as a religion. The godidit people bashers have become the naturedidit religionists. It is nigh impossible to dent such fire walls, and is now akin to disputing a trinity as a one, or that Moses was not a Muslim - try it sometime, so will go blue in the face before getting any coherent response! Sadly, it is a syndrome becoming a scientific affliction: why else would a science minded person dispute a singular entity cannot perform an action - did I say something stupid!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
IamJoseph writes: Then why did you use the word osmosis in the first place? I think I know the answer: you used the word osmosis to sound as if you knew a lot about the subject. When you were shown that you were incorrect, you just pretended that the word was not important. The distinction between changes and osmosis does not impact on the premise; its divergence. IamJoseph writes: Maybe it’s because your word salads were so ridiculously stupid and not understandable at all with the result that nobody even gave them a second thought. When I suggested the BBT's reliance on a singular entity at its initiation cannot produce any action, this was not contended;.. IamJoseph writes: Those words were used because, we don’t know. instead, the response was WE DON'T KNOW WHAT LAWS APPLIED THEN - OR IF LAWS WERE IN PLACE'. IamJoseph writes: Incorrect. Our laws break down when we get to the first Planck second of the Big Bang. We don’t know what happened exactly. Maybe some laws applied, maybe not. What this says to me is if laws did apply, I am correct -. IamJoseph writes: Why? Maybe it did. Maybe it didn’t. Our evidence indicate that it did. there is a fundamental glitch in accepting a singular entity can perform an action under any laws. IamJoseph writes: Why? The evidence we have indicate that the BB happened, whether laws applied or not. Maybe the scientific laws were different then. Maybe not. Maybe different laws applied. Maybe not. Who knows. Further, if laws do not apply, it does not mean a singualr entity can produce an action. IamJoseph writes: It has been answered. The fact that you just don’t want to accept it, reflects badly on you, not on the theory. Its a bogus response to a genuine premise not confronted. IamJoseph writes: No, it has been shown to you why in the previous post. The fact that you want to change the meanings of words in your word salads, reflects badly on you. Not on the Big bang. "Singular". Pristine has manofold applications. This is just more deflection. IamJoseph writes: I actually did deal with that premise. The fact that you don’t want to accept it is a bad reflection on you. Not on the Big Bang. The BBT is made as the initiation premise for the universe. Pluralisung this is another deflection. Why not deal with the premise? IamJoseph writes: Why? Some things just happen with no external impacter involved. I can refer to quantum mechanics, for example. Yes, it would exclude any God, which was never intended. I used the premise of an external impacter,.. IamJoseph writes: No, not necessarily. Look at quantum mechanics. Some things just happen. No trigger involved. No independent, precedent force involved at all. .namely a trigger factor, which admittedly, opens itself to an independent, precedent force. IamJoseph writes: No, postulating a trigger, when there’s no evidence for a trigger, is very unscientific. It remains a scientific premise BTW, far more so than WE DON'T KNOW. IamJoseph writes: Why?
Then it is not the first or a singular entity. IamJoseph writes: Why? So far it seems as if there’s at least one infinite entity in our finite universe. It’s called energy. No sir. A finite universe cannot contain an infinite. Its a violation. IamJoseph writes: My argument surely is not breaking down. You should by now see your arguement as breaking down, tho I doubt you will admit it. IamJoseph writes: Religionists don’t have arguments. They’ve got faith. What you are trying to do now, disguised as word salads. This can be seen with religionists too, BTW! IamJoseph writes: Why? It seems as if energy, for example, could be eternal. I accept that time and space, as with energy, never existed at one time. IamJoseph writes: Maybe it’s because you don’t realize that the Big bang could be a singularity only in our Universe? Nowhere else? The issue of prior to the BB was not mine; it was offered in desperation by someone else that the laws we know would not apply at that point. I merely responded if that were the case, it still does not support a singular entity performing an action. IamJoseph writes: Yes. The Big Bang is one example. Do you infer you have encountered any evidence a singular entity can perform an action? Not so even via voodooism! IamJoseph writes: The science of physics.
If you have done or seen any research negating my premise, you have not provided this. IamJoseph writes: Word salad again. Your basicargument, if you can call it that, is: because my parrott didn’t exist at a stage, it doesn’t exist now. Even if it sits on my shoulder now. The err is well placed; nature is not. Once there was no nature; there is no nature now. IamJoseph writes: All of the above. What actually is nature: tsunamies, ecosystems, volcanos, pineapples? IamJoseph writes: You still haven’t read all those posts trying to inform you of what scientific laws are, have you? Word salads won’t hide your ignorance. These are works which are driven by laws, not nature. IamJoseph writes: No, we’ve got plenty of verifiable, empirical evidence that nature exists. Not one little piece of evidence that any kind of god exists. Nature is a metaphor we use instead of godidit; act of nature replaces act of God. IamJoseph writes: We’ve got plenty of empirical, verifiable evidence that nature exists. That’s what science investigates. By definition. It’s called science. Your word salads won’t make nature, the definition of science or the scientific method disappear. Its a placebo so we do not get bogged down in the numerous, contradicting theologies. But there is such thing as nature - actually. Its also not a scientific answer. IamJoseph writes: Who said that no laws may or may not have applied? Deferring to the issue of not knowing what laws may apply, does not conclude that no laws apply. Its a runaway. IamJoseph writes: We know it can. Not knowing cannot apply here: we do know that a singular entity cannot perform an action; IamJoseph writes: Empirical evidence works very well on me. ..you are saying it can in lala land where laws do not apply - how do you know that or why do you embrace this?.... IamJoseph writes: As I said earlier: maybe you don’t understand people who don’t use word salads. You fail to respond to the issue what happens when laws DO apply! IamJoseph writes: No, all scientific theories are accepted as scientific fact, until someone can provide an alternative that not only explains everything covered in the theory, but also more. Scientific theories are regarded as scientific facts by the scientific community. Not all theories are accepted as facts; many are disputed equally. Many theories have fallen away. IamJoseph writes: Publish it in a scientific journal. You will become very famous and very rich. You can’t do it on a forum like this. I am not just saying goddidit; I am giving scientific reasoning why some accepted theories are wrong. IamJoseph writes: Lots of people have. The fact that you don’t see it, reflects on your cognitive dissonance. Not on the other posters here. Understand the difference before casting your impression on me. You have not responded or yet attended how a singular entity can perform an action. IamJoseph writes: It certainly does. It means I don’t know. Agreed. But saying I DON'T KNOW must have meaning. IamJoseph writes: Where has anybody said this? We cannot say we don't know that a singular entity can perform an action. IamJoseph writes: Easy. See if you can convince scientists who actually know more about the subject you do. Follow the scientific method. Word salads won’t work on them. Data would. That means empirical evidence for your point.
This is not subject to negotiation. It is far more diabolical than godidit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yes, you said lots of stupid things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: It has no impact how one describes a change or elevation.
quote: Laws don't break down. Better, they yet not existed [Genesis]. If you subscribe to laws breaking down, that is a huge action; then you have the issue how did it return? And remember at this point you have no environment, nature or anything else to rely on. When closely examined it makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does it impact: you still face the issue how a singular items can cause an action when the laws do impact! Your just pushing the goal post to meet the same dead end.
quote: How is that possible from any scientific premise? The universe is based on laws - its all we have which can be put on the table and be seen as science. Your answers are unsatisfactory.
quote: That is only an admission you loose this debate.
quote: If your answer had any coherence then I can be accused of that. Not by your answers.
quote: Pristine is fine. I stand by it. Move on.
quote: You have not even touched the point.
quote: Now you are coming apart. Your mainstay fulcrum reason is unacceptable: if there was quantumn mechanics at work here, then we are not talking of a pristine, singular, indivisible and irreducible entity. Now we are talking to a construct of components - exactly as I said was a minimum requirement for any action.
quote: Your are not attending the issue at all. First you denied any law can apply; now we have multiple items and still my position is denied.
quote: How can it be unscientific when its based on laws - every law and every action we know of as science? You are suggesting all laws be set aside and there is no requirement for an interaction for an action to occur. That is not science.
quote: Like, GUESS!
quote: No sir. Energy is not free or infinite, but it depends totally on interaction.
quote: You have no laws which you respect.
quote: Now your arguement rests on infinite energy which predates the universe. And this infinite energy caused the universe to happen - with nothing more than infinite energy functioning by itself for ever. Is there any residual proof of this? Don't answer that.
quote: Where is this 'nowhere else'? So it sounds you admit an action could not have occured with the BB in any other universe, yet you say it could happen in this universe? Which scientific law is that based on?
quote: But you also said there was quantumn mechanics - which works on probability factors, which requires many components to be called quantumn. So your BB is not an appropriate example.
quote: Did you not say laws were not yet existent or impacting here - they broke down? I cannot accet the response 'WE DN'T KNOW WHAT LAWS APPLIED' - because we know of no example of an action without an interaction in this universe. Even in magic spells and voodooism, one needs more than one.
quote: We have absolutely no evidence nature exists. All we have is human allocation to what is termed nature. The rest of your responses are in same vein. Defections and overturning if laws. Its called denial. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
The way you are cut-n-pasting quotes makes it look as if you are debating yourself or an alternate personality, its confusing because you are not separating your previous responses from their replies.
"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doctor Witch Junior Member (Idle past 4647 days) Posts: 27 From: Both Sides Joined: |
Whilst the Big Bang Theory is the agreed mainstream of Cosmology, do Theoretical Physicists agree?
I thought that the start of what we call our universe is postulated as something very different in M-Theory, the collision between two ten-dimensional 'universes' in the eleventh dimension which could have occurred over a considerable area rather at a single point. Coudl anybody explain or give references for the fate of that theory and how it has been expanded?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined:
|
Dr.W writes: Could anybody explain or give references for the fate of that theory and how it has been expanded? I am the last person to answer that question. I only have the most basic understanding of "string theory". Maybe Cavediver will see this and be better able to answer. AbE
quote: Read more... Here is a recent article on it, hope it helps. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given."No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doctor Witch Junior Member (Idle past 4647 days) Posts: 27 From: Both Sides Joined: |
Thank you 'fearandloathing' for the reference.
I also found the book Elegant Universe and its accompanying documentary by Brian Greene useful (http://youtu.be/ULlR_pkHjUQ). Both present this possibility of a collision of two objects in the 11th dimension which seems to contradict the Big Bang and perhaps explains anomalies such as the continued acceleration of the expansion of the universe to my tiny mind. I was wondering if there is a direct comparison to Big Bang.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Hi Dr W,
I was wondering if there is a direct comparison to Big Bang. Not a clue. Let me say welcome to EvC, lot of good people here. I am sure one of the more knowledgeable members might know if there is any comparison. I have found that weekends are hit/miss as far as some members go. Be patient and I am SURE you will get more than an earful of opinions on anything you have to say or wonder about."No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I was wondering if there is a direct comparison to Big Bang. The colliding branes of M-Theory do not contradict or replace Big Bang. It is an attempt to suggest how the Big Bang happened.
This might help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Both present this possibility of a collision of two objects in the 11th dimension which seems to contradict the Big Bang As AZPaul3 has already mentioned, this is not a contradiction of the classical Big Bang, but a possible "quantum gravity" explanation of it. It is highly theoretical and is based on the far from understood M-Theory. There are other speculative "quantum gravity" possibilities, such as eternal inflation and the Hartle Hawking No-Boundary Proposal. The classical Big Bang is extremely well evidenced, so any deeper theory must mimic the Big Bang to a very close degree, only diverging fron the classical picture very close to the singularity. The acceleration of the expansion rate is not an anomaly - it is perfectly well explained within the context of Big Bang cosmology. We just had not observed any acceleration prior to the late '90s, so naturally set the relevant parameter that drives the acceleration (or deceleration) to zero. Of course, there is the big question of what type of field is driving the acceleration (the so-called dark energy) , but that is not a mystery for Big Bang physics - it is simply a question regarding the precise field content of the Universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4191 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
The "problem" would be what caused the universe to come into existence. We now know that the universe is not eternal and uncaused but had a beginning. Before the beginning of the universe there was no time, matter, physics, energy etc. So what caused the universe to pop into existence. British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, "There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity?".
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Portillo writes:
That is a very nice Mis-Quote-Mined sentence. British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, "There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity?". Perhaps you would be willing to quote the complete paragraph from which this statement was plucked? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024