Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang is NOT Scientific
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 286 of 301 (302281)
04-08-2006 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Buzsaw
04-07-2006 8:39 PM


Re: off-topic for a moment -- sorry
heh, heh why did I know you were going to pick up on that...
Don't worry, Weinberg believes in the Big Bang more than I do. The disagreement is at a very deep level, and is so far unresolved. Our differing opinions at this point are a matter of belief.
The point is Buzz, that Weinberg makes interesting and valid points. The moment you do, I will acknowlege them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Buzsaw, posted 04-07-2006 8:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 287 of 301 (302286)
04-08-2006 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Buzsaw
04-07-2006 8:22 PM


Re: Time To Watch
You know full well that I regard logic as useful in arriving at conclusions in science. This is not to say that I think all one needs is logic, but that logic must take a greater role than what you consider as tolerable
Oh Buzz, logic is at the very heart of all of this. It is just not your logic, which is not logic at all but merely a presupposing of how things should be based on your limited experience of reality.
Quick question: if I rotate an object, through how many degrees must I turn it to be sure it is back to where it started?
You have already been told that I don't necessarily subscribe to there being a beginning to the universe. I consider all options and fortunately have the understanding to reason amongst them. If you offered some critique with some merit, I would joyfully enter discussion with you. But you don't. You say - it makes no sense to me and therefore it is wrong - what am I supposed to do with that? OMG Buzz doesn't understand GR and thinks it is illogical therefore it must all be wrong!!!!
Come to me with some interesting thoughts, such as: how does QM time evolution gel with GRs static time? how can we be sure that QCD will be dominated by GR at planck scale? How deep does the manifold picture stay vaild? How critical is the "fact" of four dimensions? Is it possible that 4d space-time is a high-level artifact and deeper down they will separate out again as different concepts? These all challenge evrything we think of in conventional GR.
But you don't. You say - it is just illogical. How crap an argument is that? Go away, learn something about the subject (may take a few years) and come back with some real problems. Same for all your whining "scientists" you've read on the web. Go get some real arguments, and we can have some fun. Till then, this is just tedious...
The BB is scientific because it is a prediction of the most accurately empiracally tested theory in existence. That is why it is scientific. End of story

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Buzsaw, posted 04-07-2006 8:22 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Admin, posted 04-08-2006 8:27 AM cavediver has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 288 of 301 (302308)
04-08-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Buzsaw
04-07-2006 8:22 PM


Re: Time To Watch
buzsaw writes:
Having said the above, I invite Admin to critique the above. If Admin thinks it's time for buz to buz off this thread, I'll do so with no animosity.
I think if you just address yourself to the topic that everything is fine. There's only a few more messages left until closing time anyway.
I'm not going to review the thread, that would take too long, but I have followed it as it progressed, and if memory serves me correctly, the topic of this thread was never seriously addressed. The topic isn't creationist views of the Big Bang, and it isn't the fabric of space/time, but whether mainstream science's view of the Big Bang has a legitimate scientific foundation. Diversions into these and other related topics are certainly okay as long as they are pursued with the main topic in mind, but somehow or other that didn't happen here.
You might want to propose a topic discussing your view of the nature of space/time.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Buzsaw, posted 04-07-2006 8:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Buzsaw, posted 04-08-2006 9:14 AM Admin has replied
 Message 293 by Buzsaw, posted 04-08-2006 8:17 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 289 of 301 (302310)
04-08-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by cavediver
04-08-2006 4:27 AM


Re: Time To Watch
cavediver writes:
The BB is scientific because it is a prediction of the most accurately empiracally tested theory in existence. That is why it is scientific. End of story
A short summary of the evidence that accumulated in support of the Big Bang and the successful predictions that were made along the way would be a fitting way for this thread to end.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by cavediver, posted 04-08-2006 4:27 AM cavediver has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 301 (302314)
04-08-2006 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Admin
04-08-2006 8:23 AM


Re: Time To Watch
Admin writes:
You might want to propose a topic discussing your view of the nature of space/time.
To sum up my role in this thread, BB science's space/time conclusions have been my greatest objections. It is my contention that BBists have not conclusively and emphatically shown that the properties of either space or time include energetic elements. My argument is that what they are including in spacetime such as particles, et al is energetic and therefore are inclusive in things occupying boundless static space/void and not in fact part and parcel, i.e. properties of space perse by definition.
BBist science concept of space properties which includes energy allows for space to expand for them to accomodate their science. The BB stands or falls on the ability of space to expand. My hypothesis of static boundless space does not. This has nothing to do with religion. My arguments have not included religion, though rejection of BB always implies some other explanation of what is observed, though not necessarily IDism. How I interpret observed expansion is that things occupying space are what are expanding in distance from one another and not space itself.
Perhaps a thread on space/time would be a good sequence to this thread.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Admin, posted 04-08-2006 8:23 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Admin, posted 04-08-2006 9:34 AM Buzsaw has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 291 of 301 (302318)
04-08-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Buzsaw
04-08-2006 9:14 AM


Re: Time To Watch
Hi Buzsaw,
The suggestion to propose a topic to discuss your ideas about space/time was not intended as an invitation to post a possible OP for that topic here.
buzsaw writes:
Perhaps a thread on space/time would be a good sequence to this thread.
You mean sequel? Gee, why didn't I think of that!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Buzsaw, posted 04-08-2006 9:14 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Buzsaw, posted 04-08-2006 10:19 PM Admin has not replied

Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 301 (302393)
04-08-2006 12:28 PM


Why the Big Bang stands.
Not only does the Big Bang still stand up to experimental evidence, but extensions of that until recently were speculative are starting to be confirmed.
(And the expansion of spacetime is one of the more mundane predictions confirmed quite a while ago.)

WMAP study

This study is the most extensive set of cosmological tests ever carried out.
Regardless of what you conceive spacetime being like, based on your own intuition, I can almost guarantee that your intuitive "common sense" idea of it won't match these results.

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 301 (302535)
04-08-2006 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Admin
04-08-2006 8:23 AM


Re: Time To Watch
Admin writes:
and if memory serves me correctly, the topic of this thread was never seriously addressed. The topic isn't creationist views of the Big Bang, and it isn't the fabric of space/time, but whether mainstream science's view of the Big Bang has a legitimate scientific foundation.
My message 290 was intended to restate my earlier contention that the science credibility of the BB really hangs on the property/s of space as to whether it has properties capable of expansion including energetic particles. Thus, the need, imo, to discuss those properties for my arguments pertaining to this topic. Without that my debating hands on this topic are tied behind me, so to speak.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Admin, posted 04-08-2006 8:23 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Chiroptera, posted 04-08-2006 8:23 PM Buzsaw has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 301 (302537)
04-08-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Buzsaw
04-08-2006 8:17 PM


Re: Time To Watch
quote:
...the science credibility of the BB really hangs on....
The credibility to whom?

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Buzsaw, posted 04-08-2006 8:17 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Buzsaw, posted 04-08-2006 8:48 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 301 (302543)
04-08-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Chiroptera
04-08-2006 8:23 PM


Re: Time To Watch
To all until the properties of space are so conclusively and empirically established that one argument stands unchallenged.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Chiroptera, posted 04-08-2006 8:23 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 301 (302556)
04-08-2006 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Admin
04-08-2006 9:34 AM


Re: Sequel, Yes
Admin writes:
You mean sequel? Gee, why didn't I think of that!
Sequel, yes. That's what I meant. Having reread my message (abe: 290), it looks to me like a good opener in the forum, "Is It Science." The topic could be something like, "Do the properties of space include anything energetic?" What do you think?
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-08-2006 10:20 PM

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Admin, posted 04-08-2006 9:34 AM Admin has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 301 (302561)
04-08-2006 11:14 PM


Other Problems Cited
I found this cite which promotes an HD hyperdimensional three dimensional time as opposed to SD single time dimension. It presents an alternative to the BB. I don't know enough about this in a single reading to know how much of it I might come to agree with, but it does cite some science problems with the BB as per this topic for what it's worth to those who may wish to check it out. There will not be enough left of this thread to address it, but perhaps someone able to refute it may want to tackle it in a thread of their own.
Specularium - Peter J. Carroll

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

skylar
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 301 (304687)
04-17-2006 3:59 AM


A diffident first post.
Three brief general observations:
(1) Having come here from a site which hosts a (much) more boistrous debate about creationism, I find the overall decorum of this site quite refreshing.
(2) Nevertheless I find here the same distressing tendency in some participants to argue obsessively about topics they evidently know little about. (The initial post is a case in point.) Aside from its value as burlesque this practice leads to some tedious exchanges.
(3) I find it hard to join a thread that's been in progress for so long - at least hard to do so constructively. Nevertheless, I'll try with apologies in advance if my comments are reduntant or trivial.
Two specific comments:
(1) Regarding evidence for the Big Bang, the observations that support this theory are among the most dramatic ever made in the history of science. I saw two of them mentioned: the expansion of the Universe and the related CMBR. I didn't see (but may have missed) a third powerful confirmation: the relative abundances of H and He, which the BBT (and not much else) predicts very nicely.
(2) Creationists find it irresistable to claim (without proof!) that something can't come from nothing. I've seen the remark at least once on this thread. However, as I understand it, one of the many beautiful aspects of inflation theory is that it allows the (negative) gravitational potential of the Universe to exactly counter-balance its (positive) mass-energy, producing a Universe with zero total energy. (Viola: nothing from nothing!)
Finally, to the many subscribers on this thread who know more about these subjects than I do, I'm more than happy to learn!
This message has been edited by skylar, 04-17-2006 04:02 AM

"When cherished ideas lie in ruins at your feet, Nature is challenging you to look at the world anew."
Bruce Balick & Adam Frank - SciAm, July, 2004

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Spagetti_Monster, posted 04-17-2006 6:33 AM skylar has not replied

Spagetti_Monster
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 301 (304690)
04-17-2006 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by skylar
04-17-2006 3:59 AM


Re: Another diffident first post.
Hello Skylar and everyone,my first post.
Skylar you mentioned 3 general observations,im afraid my list of observations would exceed many thousands,ill shall refrain from braking the world record for longest post and limit my own observations to the most obvious.
1.Observable "early "stars.The first stars formed, appear to be composed almost purely of hydrogen/helium,that is,they are virtually absent of heavier elements due to the fact that these heavier elements are only produced by dying stars.
2.Latest obervations of galaxies show a supermassive black hole at the centre,where a mass has been measured,it is directly proportional to the mass of the galaxy.The latest explanation centres around early gas clumping predicted by BBT,the centres of which collapsed under huge gravational forces forming these black holes.Galaxy formation is still very much research in progress,but is seems like these supermassive black holes played an essential role in forming every galaxy and may have played a role in the intial "igniting or excitation"of gas around it to start star formation.
I will add more points if this tread continues.I want to stop at this point to guage the response if any.
I would just like to add that i have a great deal of points regarding this CVE argument to make that i dont think anyone on this forum or any other has really considered,particularly relating to the creational issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by skylar, posted 04-17-2006 3:59 AM skylar has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 300 of 301 (304699)
04-17-2006 7:44 AM


Summing Up
This thread began as a critique on the science of the Big Bang based upon the presumptions concerning space, time and matter.
lost-apathy writes:
There are certain points of the big bang theory that i believe and certain points that i think are completely bogus.
The theory that space and time were created with the big bang does not make sense at all.
Fortunately science does not progress based upon what is perceived to be "bogus" or "sensible".
This argument was revived by Buzzsaw with perhaps a little more detail:
Buzzsaw writes:
the science credibility of the BB really hangs on the property/s of space as to whether it has properties capable of expansion including energetic particles.
The facts are as follows:
We have a theory of space, time and matter: it is Einstein's legacy and is known as General Relativity. It is probably the most successful theory ever devised in terms of its predictive power and in the way it is revolutionised our understanding of the universe and space-time in general. It is the most accurately tested theory ever. Every single one of its predictions that we have managed to test has been born out precisely.
It is GR that suggests that space and time may have begun with the Big Bang, it is GR that predicts that what we call space manifests properties such curavture, expansion and contraction. To argue against these is to argue against GR, possibly the greatest achievement of 20th century physics... good luck!
So the Big Bang is rooted in theory. What about evidence? As mentioned by our newest contributor, Spaghetti Monster (welcome!), the number of individual pieces of astronomical/cosmological evidence for the Big Bang is astounding.
However, it should be cautioned that all of the evidence points to an "early universe" of the form expected from the Big Bang. It does not form conclusive support for the Big Bang idea that at t=0, we have a boundary to existence at which there is no "before". It is quite possible that the necessary quantum gravitational processes at this point change the picture described by classical General Relativity (e.g. bubble nucleation of universes a la Linde). Then again, they may affirm the classical picture (Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Proposal). Either way, this does not invalidate any of the cosmological theory of the Big Bang.
To claim that the Big Bang is unscientific is simply to claim "I do not understand Einstein."
There can be no shame in that...
This message has been edited by cavediver, 04-17-2006 07:46 AM

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024