Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 8 of 273 (470922)
06-13-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
06-12-2008 8:52 PM


Hi ICANT
Some slightly selective quoting in the OP....
The point I was making in the previous therad is that the empirically evidenced basis on which the BB theory was formulated remains sound and free from problems.
BB Theory
The crux of the BB position being that the universe has evolved, and continues to evolve, from a prior very hot, very small, very dense state as evidenced by -
  • Observed ongoing expansion of the universe
  • Specific measured verification of CMB
  • Abundance of light elements as required as a direct logical consequence of BB theory.
    Additionally BB theory is completely consistent with General Realativity which itself has been empirically verified.
    Now if any of the above had turned out to be wrong BB would indeed have a very large problem. None of these however have been found to be wrong. In terms of direct refutations of the theoretical or empirical basis for BB - none exist
    Inflation
    The observed 'flatness' of the universe is an issue. It was not explained by BB theory as originally proposed. This is hardly the same as a refutation however as none of the evidence on which BB is fundamenatlly originally based said anything about the rate of expansion or it's constancy.
    Factors relating to this may have been assumed in the absence of evidence. But the fact that unevidenced assumptions made in addition to the fully evidenced conclusions of BB have turned out to be wrong hardly negates the fully evidenced conclusions themslves.
    Unless of course you have some sort of irrational desire to abandon the solid conclusions of BB theory for philosophical reasons.
    Inflation is an add-on to BB theory to better explain the additional evidence we now have. However it is an add-on that has no impact on the original basis of BB theory.
    We also have ever increasing evidence for the veracity of inflation.
    I hope that clears things up.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by ICANT, posted 06-12-2008 8:52 PM ICANT has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 1:32 PM Straggler has not replied
     Message 220 by Buzsaw, posted 06-27-2008 7:27 PM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 69 of 273 (471559)
    06-17-2008 12:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
    06-17-2008 11:40 AM


    Steak Out
    The whole premise of your OP and subsequent point of view taken seems to be confusing and conflating questions with refutations.
    You say the BB theory is on it's last legs. Yet you have failed to show how any of the evidence on which the theory was formulated or is based has been demonstrated to be false. You have provided no alternative explanations, no alternate methods of predicting cosmological phenomenon and no evidence that contradicts BB theory at all.
    Instead you claim that unanswered questions currently being researched (origin of the universe and the issue of flatness that inflation was introduced to resolve) somehow refute the BB theory?
    How, in your opinion, do additional questions refute anything?
    Does your inability to definitively answer the question as to why God created and tested man somehow refute the existence of God in your mind? Why not?
    Lets not get sidetracked on that particular issue in this thread.
    The point is - If you are going to propose that unanswered questions should be considered as refutations of theories then -
    1) No theory would ever get off the starting block
    2) Would you be willing to apply this same requirement of certainty to positions that you suport or is it just theories to which you philosophically object that need to have all related questions answered in order to be valid?
    I suggest that your particular obsession with T=0 no more refutes BBT theory than my ignorance of cattle farming stops me from cooking an excellent steak
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 11:40 AM ICANT has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 70 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 1:20 PM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 71 of 273 (471569)
    06-17-2008 1:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
    06-17-2008 11:40 AM


    Re: Expanding Universe
    Since energy or mass can not be created for the universe to exist today which it does the amount of energy and mass that is in the universe had to exist in some form.
    Zero energy universe hypothesis?
    We also do not know what the laws of physics are prior to T=10^-43.
    Everything was inside the universe.
    There was no outside and no before.
    It did not exist anywhere.
    It is not expanding into anything.
    The universe just is.
    It began expanding for no reason. It just did.
    We had problems with the BBT.
    Inflation was a add on to fix the problems.
    There was no cause for inflation it just happened.
    It did not last very long.
    It stopped by itself.
    We just know it started and stopped.
    There are some suggestions that there may have been (or may be) something external to the universe. Branes, multiverse etc. etc. Highly speculative stuff.
    Or there may be truly nothing external to the universe. Other than some sort of common sense objection (which we probably all share to a greater or lesser extent) what is your point?
    Common sense regarding nature will lead you astray in meany areas of science. Any schoolboy could tell you that an atom is 99.9999999% empty space. You are made of atoms. So is the chair you are sitting on. Physically you are a collection of 99.99999% empty space supported by another collection of 99.99999% empty space.
    Does that sit well (pun intended) with your common sense?
    Do you refute atomic theory based on your common sense view that you and your chair are solid objects that could not possibly be composed of almost entirely empty space??
    The only conclusion from science that I can get is that the universe does not exist and neither do we. We just think we do.
    Er no. I think the conclusion of science is very different. This interpretation of the empirically tested conclusion of science is very much your own.
    But I just pinched myself and it hurt so I do exist. I walked outside the house and got wet it is raining.
    Feel free to keep checking your existence. It sounds like fun.........
    So the universe does exist. If it happened like I have been told here and the universe existed at T=10-43 It had to come from somewhere. The only alternative to it coming from an absence of ANY thing (energy and mass being created ex nihilo) is there was an outside force.
    Force is the wrong word I suspect but..... If you are saying the universe either came from something (multiverse? branes?) or truly nothing then I would agree that you have got all the bases covered in terms of possibilities.
    I really believe it was 3 aliens from another universe that created our universe in their universe.
    3 aliens? Why 3? Is 3 the magic number?
    Do you think we will ever have the knowledge and technology to create new universes from within our own universe?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 11:40 AM ICANT has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 73 by rueh, posted 06-17-2008 1:44 PM Straggler has not replied
     Message 75 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 2:18 PM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 72 of 273 (471578)
    06-17-2008 1:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 70 by ICANT
    06-17-2008 1:20 PM


    Re: Steak Out
    Did I miss something when I was told that a theory was so well proven that just about everyboy agreed that it was true and at that point it ceased to be a hypothesis?
    No you didn't miss anything. BBT is indeed such a theory. Yes.
    If we followed your "all questions must be answered" method of determining veracity there would be no theories and no science.
    My hypothesis is already held to higher standards at EvC.
    Really? Lets start another thread and examine your hypothesis. Lets see what standards of evidence it does meet and how these compare to BBT and any other relevant conclusions of science.
    I pity you if you can not cook a PERFECT steak. You don't know what you are missing.
    I look forward to the dinner invite...............
    Maybe a steakathon cook-off?
    Would you please explain how you can say the BBT is true when it does not match the observations without inflation?
    Because the basis on and predictions of BBT theory remain true with or without inflation.
    Additional evidence that does not contradict the foundations of a theory can cause theories to be modified. That is how allscience works.
    Can you name any major scientific theory that has remained unmodified from conception in the face of evidence or questioning?
    Your only reason for imposing this restrictions on BBT is your philosophical bias regarding this matter.
    If we pulled fully formed theories that could be subject to no modification out of our arses we would -
    A) Not need to do any research, experimentation or further investigation
    B) Call it faith not science
    If you think scientists are so determined to cling on to a dying theory no matter what, why do you think they keep doing research that (according to you) disproves that theory? Why don't they tick off that pesky question of the universe as sorted and go onto the next thing?
    Questions are not refutations.
    If you want to refute BBT you need to show how the evidence on which the theory is based and which it predicts, to be false. You are unable to do this.
    You cannot answer the question as to why God created man.
    Therefore (by your logic) the God creating man hypothesis has been refuted.
    If you are going to be consistent you would have to agree with this. Even I would not claim that God has been refuted!
    Unanswered questions are not refutations

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 70 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 1:20 PM ICANT has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 78 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 3:24 PM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 125 of 273 (471870)
    06-18-2008 7:48 PM
    Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
    06-17-2008 2:18 PM


    Re: Expanding Universe
    qs3 aliens? Why 3? Is 3 the magic number?
    That is the number I get from my source that you will not accept.[/qs]
    Ohhhh. I geddit. That source.
    I am still waiting for the first bible based scientific theory to make a single specific empirical prediction. The day that happens I will take your source more seriously as a guide to understanding the physical world.
    We have to start with a positive energy and a negative energy.
    I think that is a misunderstanding of the hypothesis. Neither form of energy exists "before" or external to the universe.
    They have to be created ex nihilo. Unless they exist somewhere.
    Ex nihilo. Or in the wider multiverse of some sort.
    Then these two guys get in a fight and create all the mass and energy in the universe while keeping the zero energy universe.
    No fight is being proposed.
    In this hypothesis both forms of energy come into existence simultaneously as part of the same mechanism and neither can exist without the other. It is analogous to the creation of a virtual particle created by means of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. Both the particle and antiparticle are necessarily created together. Each cancelling out the other.
    Hawking
    There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988)
    No doubt thinking has moved on somewhat since 1988. I'll see if I can find anything more recent.
    You still have not explained how unanswered questions invalidate all the known evidence for a theory. You seem unable to think of any other major body of scientific knowledge which has not been modifed over time. You seem unwilling to apply your 'all questions must be answered' mentality to other areas that you do not have philosophical objections to.
    Basically your inexplicable desire to somehow disprove BBT is driving you to flawed arguments, inconsistent thinking and biased selective conclusions.
    Again I suggest the book 'The Big Bang' by Simon Singh for a very accessible historical look at the development of the BBT. I wholly accept you are never going to agree with the conclusions of BBT for your own personal subjective reasons. However this book is an excellent look at how scientific theories evolve and would hopefully open your eyes as to how the theory developed over a period of time, what the historical alternatives were and why scientists now genuinely consider the BB theory to be so solidly founded.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 75 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 2:18 PM ICANT has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 127 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 9:40 PM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 126 of 273 (471873)
    06-18-2008 8:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 78 by ICANT
    06-17-2008 3:24 PM


    Re: BBT without Inflation
    Because the basis on and predictions of BBT theory remain true with or without inflation.
    Thanks for you opinion.
    Well which of the evidences in favour of the BB have been refuted?
    Thanks in advance for your opinion......
    So how do you justify your statement inflation is not needed.
    Inflation is not needed to explain or predict the observational evidence on which BB is founded.
    Additional observation and analysis that in no way contradicted the founding principles of BB indicated that inflation was also necessary.
    Why is that such a hard concept for you?
    I am a Bible thumper. The Bible is not accepted as trustworthy here. So who am I to refute the BBT?
    Good question. A familiarity with at least the founding concepts of BB, historical perspective and nature of science would be very useful in discusiing these things with you. Anyone has the right to disagree but your objections more often than not are based on ignorance, misconseption and a complete lack of comprehension regarding the scientific process as a whole.
    [q]
    You cannot answer the question as to why God created man.
    Sure I can, and have you just don't like the answer.[/qs] Whoooaah! Hold on. You know why God created man? I have heard you offer speculations before but never heard you claim to know the mind of God.
    Please do tell........................................?
    Unanswered questions are not refutations
    You are correct with that statement.
    But the problems presented by the Scientist I quoted say the BBT does not exist without Inflation.
    Really? So the scientist you quote says that BBT is wrong? Or does he say that it needs modificatio in light of new evidence but that it's foundations remain sound?
    Without a definitive answer as to exactly how and why God created the universe I assert (by means of your flawed logic) that the God hypothesis has been refuted.
    How is this position different to yours regards BBT?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 78 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 3:24 PM ICANT has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 128 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 9:56 PM Straggler has not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 135 of 273 (472108)
    06-20-2008 12:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 127 by ICANT
    06-18-2008 9:40 PM


    Rival Theories and Scientific Progress
    Hi ICANT
    Your whole premise is based on the flawed assumption that unanswered questions and modifications to scientific theories necessarily equate to refutations. This is a complete misapprehension. It displays a complete ignorance of the scientific process in general and especially the scientific process with regard to rival theories and how this relates to the succession of one theory over another.
    No major scientific area of research has been plucked out of nowhere with no research, investigation or modification necessary. BBT is no different to any other scientific theory in this respect. I will try and explain this to you.
    Let’s look at the general effects of new evidence on a scientific theory and then relate this to the subject at hand.
    NEW EVIDENCE
    New evidence relevant to a particular scientific theory can do, in simple terms, 1 of 3 things.
    1)Further verifies a theory: If new evidence is directly in accordance with the theory under consideration. Ideally verifying theoretically predicted results.
    2)Forces a theory to be modified: New phenomenon unexplained by the theory under consideration are discovered. These do not directly contradict the theory nor refute the basis or predictions on which the theory is founded. Rather such evidence raises new questions that the theory needs to subsequently address.
    3)Refutes a theory: Evidence that directly contradicts the basis of a theory or the predicted results on which it had been considered to be verified
    BIG BANG EXAMPLES
    Now let consider the above in terms of the BBT
    [1] Verification: An example of new evidence providing further verification of the Big Bang theory is the recent WMAP neutrino evidence.
    Page not found – Physics World
    The detection of such low-energy neutrinos, wrote Steven Weinberg in 1977 in his famous book The First Three Minutes, “would provide the most dramatic possible confirmation of the standard model of the early universe”
    WMAP has found evidence for this so-called "cosmic neutrino background" from the early universe.
    http://www.physorg.com/news124169694.html
    The hot and dense young universe was a nuclear reactor that produced helium. Theories based on the amount of helium seen today predict a sea of neutrinos should have been present when helium was made. The new WMAP data agree with that prediction, along with precise measurements of neutrino properties made by Earth-bound particle colliders.
    Neutrino Evidence Confirms Big Bang Predictions - Universe Today
    The discovery, made by combining data produced by the NASA WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) satellite and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, confirms the predictions of both the Big Bang theory and the Standard Model of particle physics. The research has important implications for the study of neutrinos, showing that theories of the infinitely large (cosmology) and the infinitely small (particle physics) are in agreement.
    [2] Modification: In terms of the Big Bang inflation quite obviously comes into the second category of modification. The original BBT concluded little about the rate of expansion of the universe or it’s consistency of expansion although various assumptions may have been made. The observed flatness of the universe has indeed required that the original BBT be modified to include an initial inflationary period. However this in no way contradicts any of the founding evidence for the BBT or any of the predictions on which it has been verified.
    We continue to gather evidence for inflation
    Just a moment...
    Inflation has been a convenient theory because it explained things that were already known. The essence of a really good scientific theory, however, is one that makes predictions that later turn out to be true.
    WMAP has changed the game by confirming some of inflation's boldest predictions about the afterglow of the Big Bang, the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
    [3] Refutation: Examples of things that would come into the refutation category regarding BBT include
  • Evidence demonstrating that red shifts were either not actually occurring or are not due to spatial expansion
  • Evidence that the predicted CMB does not actually exist or that it is of a value completely inconsistent with BBT
  • Evidence that the observed abundance of light elements is not typical of the universe as a whole
  • Evidence that suggested BBT to be inconsistent with General Relativity
    As should be obvious the basis of the Big Bang theory remains sound and is indeed being further verified and expanded upon even as I write. As should also be obvious, like any other major theory, the BBT has been modified in the face of new evidence (i.e. to include inflation) and will continue to undergo examination and modification as new evidence comes in.
    It should also be obvious to anyone vaguely objective on this subject that no evidence refuting the Big Bang model has been presented by ICANT or anyone else at all.
    With this in mind let’s now consider what would be required of a theory in order for it to replace the Big bang theory.
    RIVAL THEORIES
    When considering the validity of scientific theories we consider two primary things -
    1)Their explanatory power: What observed natural phenomenon are a necessary and logical consequence of the theory. Are the necessary logical consequences of the theory indeed observed and does the theory therefore explain these phenomenon more adequately than any rival theory. NOTE: By “necessary logical consequence” we mean that if found to be untrue the theory in question would be refuted and thus invalidated. We do not mean aspects of nature that could be explained by said theory but could also be the result of any other competing theory.
    2)Their predictive power: Does the theory predict new phenomenon and evidence that is previously unknown. By doing so we dramatically increase objectivity on the basis that forming theories around known facts and aspects of nature with philosophical bias may be relatively easy whilst forcing nature to adhere to our philosophical bias and prejudices is all but impossible. Hence the gold standard of scientific verification is the power of prediction.
    Thus two competing theories will be asesed in terms of these criteria.
    BBT Vs ?WHAT?
    What would a rival theory therefore need to achieve in order to oust the BBT from it's position of dominance? (as seems to be your ultimate aim)
    In order to match (i.e. not replace) the BBT with a rival scientific theory your alternative theory would need to do all of the following
  • Explain why the abundance of light elements is a necessary logical consequence of your theory
  • Explain the existence of the CMB radiation as a logical necessary consequence of your theory and provide a calculated theoretical value for this phenomenon that is in line with observation
  • Explain the apparent ongoing expansion of the universe as a necessary logical consequence of your theory
  • Be completely consistent with General Relativity OR provide an alternate theory of gravitation that equals or surpasses all of the explanatory and predictive power of GR
  • Explain the “cosmic neutrino background” as a logical consequence of your theory
    If you achieved all of this then your theory would indeed be considered a serious rival to BBT. In such a situation (and there are many examples of competing theories in the history of science) then it basically comes down to a “predict-off”
    In order to determine which theory is superior additional predictions derived from the logical consequences of the theory at hand need to be made.
    In terms of the BBT and a hypothetical rival maybe this could be the existence of a new and as yet unobserved particle, a measurable value for the cosmic neutrino background, a specific prediction as to the nature of dark matter etc. etc. etc. Basically a prediction regarding something new or as yet unobserved and/or not understood.
    Then advocates of both theories would begin a frantic search for new evidence and ultimately the predictions of one theory or the other would be deemed superior based on the empirical observed evidence.
    If the alternative to the BBT was the winner in these terms then the scientific community would eventually and ultimately embrace this new theory, Nobel prizes would be awarded and everyone would marvel at our ability to find answers to the deepest questions of all. Yes there would be some that resisted for the sake of reputation, personal prejudice, pride and various other very human failings. But ultimately the theory superior in terms of objective explanatory power and predicted results will win through. Again the history of science has shown this to be the case.
    ICANT your main problem here is that you have no alternative to BBT. Never mind one that can match or surpass the extraordinary explanatory and predictive power of BBT. How can you possibly hope to discredit the BBT in scientific terms with no understanding of scientifc progress and no alternative scientific theory?
    CONCLUSION
    Nature does not bend to our wishes, prejudice or philosophical bias. The methods of science measure our conclusions against nature and reality itself thus ensuring that our conclusions remain as free from prejudice and bias as is possible.
    Scientific progress will be gained through the objective analysis of predicted evidence with regard to competing rival theories and the modification of existing theories in light of new evidence.
    ICANT your objections to BBT are obviously and indisputably not objective. Nature will not bend to your will. The evidence is in and it is against your particular beliefs. Whilst nature may or may not bend to the will of an omnipotent being of some sort there can be little doubt that the universe evolved to its present state from a very small, very hot, very dense state. Based on the evidence the Big bang theory is all but indisputable.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 127 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 9:40 PM ICANT has not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 152 of 273 (472237)
    06-21-2008 10:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 150 by IamJoseph
    06-21-2008 9:40 AM


    Re: Finite universe (again)
    The definition of infinite = no changes
    Does it? Where do you get that from?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 150 by IamJoseph, posted 06-21-2008 9:40 AM IamJoseph has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 153 by IamJoseph, posted 06-21-2008 10:35 AM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 154 of 273 (472239)
    06-21-2008 11:03 AM
    Reply to: Message 153 by IamJoseph
    06-21-2008 10:35 AM


    Re: Finite universe (again)
    The definition of infinite = no changes
    Does it? Where do you get that from?
    The source which first declared the universe as finite. But seriously, it is also correct, when examined. When one thing changes another - the changer has greater power than the changee. It is also the only factor which cannot be seen in the finite realm.
    That makes no sense whatsoever.
    The source which first declared the universe as finite.
    What? Who declared it as finite and where did they say this equated to no change?
    When one thing changes another - the changer has greater power than the changee
    What? The bacon sandwich I just ate changed the state of my appetite from hungry to nicely satisfied. Is a bacon sandwich more powerful than me? What do you even mean 'more powerful'?
    This whole infinte = static and unchanging concept of your seems completely unfounded.
    Talk of power or whatever has got nothing to do with anything......
    If there is an infinite set of numbers we can arrange them in an infinite number of ways. We can change the ordering of the numbers.
    So how do you conclude infinite = unchanging?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 153 by IamJoseph, posted 06-21-2008 10:35 AM IamJoseph has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 157 by IamJoseph, posted 06-21-2008 9:32 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 164 by bluegenes, posted 06-21-2008 11:10 PM Straggler has not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 170 of 273 (472418)
    06-22-2008 9:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 157 by IamJoseph
    06-21-2008 9:32 PM


    Re: Finite universe (again)
    Waky, waky.
    "IN THE BEGINNING THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH WAS CREATED"
    "I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED"
    These verses are deceptively simple, but are made in a mode suitable for all generations of mankind. Today, we see the blatant, deep science embedded therein: they become 100% science when read scientifically. Do you think these were meaningless, superfluous verses - when they are couched in the same context of the universe origin?
    IAJ it is you who needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
    The reason we know anything about the physical nature of the universe is by means of scientific investigation.
    Things like -
    "IN THE BEGINNING THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH WAS CREATED"
    "I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED"
    Can frankly mean almost whatever you want them to mean.
    I could take this to mean that God has not changed his clothes recently if I were going to be pedantic and facetious.
    How on Earth do you conclude from these verses that infinite = unchanging?
    Even if, for arguments sake, we accept that God is infinite (what would that actually mean?) and has declared himself to be unchanging it does not necessarily follow that anything infinite must therefore be unchanging as you are asserting.
    Your assertion that infinite = unchanging remains unfounded even on your own rather silly terms.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 157 by IamJoseph, posted 06-21-2008 9:32 PM IamJoseph has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 174 by IamJoseph, posted 06-22-2008 10:00 PM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 176 of 273 (472537)
    06-23-2008 3:00 AM
    Reply to: Message 174 by IamJoseph
    06-22-2008 10:00 PM


    Re: Finite universe (again)
    IAJ you are making this up as you go along.
    Where, other than in your head, does infinite = unchanging?
    If you have some incredible new angle on infinity that mathematicians, scientists, philosophers and everybody else has missed up until now you are going to have to do more than simply assert this as a fact.
    If you are referencing some sort of little known but previously analysed theory of infinity then tell us your sources.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 174 by IamJoseph, posted 06-22-2008 10:00 PM IamJoseph has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 177 by IamJoseph, posted 06-23-2008 5:01 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 178 by IamJoseph, posted 06-23-2008 5:02 AM Straggler has not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 179 of 273 (472554)
    06-23-2008 9:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 177 by IamJoseph
    06-23-2008 5:01 AM


    Re: Finite universe (again)
    I gave a definition of what constitutes infinity: why don't you do the same?
    I have no real objection to your definition.
    Infinity
    The terms infinity and infinite have a variety of related meanings in mathematics. The adjective finite means “having an end,” so infinity may be used to refer to something having no end.
    'End' = a change.
    All ends may be changes but not all changes are necessarily ends. Your logic is flawed.
    Again how do you justify infinite = unchanging?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 177 by IamJoseph, posted 06-23-2008 5:01 AM IamJoseph has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 180 by IamJoseph, posted 06-23-2008 10:28 AM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 181 of 273 (472567)
    06-23-2008 10:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 180 by IamJoseph
    06-23-2008 10:28 AM


    Re: Finite universe (again)
    Forget the universe for one moment. Lets concentrate on your assertion that infinite = unchanging.
    So you concede an end is a change, but not that a change is an end
    An end is always a change but not all changes are ends.
    This is the same format as the statement -
    All trees are plants. However not all plants are trees.
    Which is obviously true.
    Think about it.
    Your logic regarding infinite = unchanging is obviously wrong.
    There are other forms of change than ends. Therefore the mere fact that something is unending does not necessarily equate to it being unchanging.
    Does it?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 180 by IamJoseph, posted 06-23-2008 10:28 AM IamJoseph has not replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 185 of 273 (472691)
    06-24-2008 6:45 AM
    Reply to: Message 183 by IamJoseph
    06-23-2008 9:17 PM


    Change
    The moon and the sun incur changes, in temperatures and in their life spans - these are not and never be infinite - because they are interacting with other changing products. Now consider that the moon and the sun cannot be effected by temperatures or death: this is infinite - because a finite cannot change the infinite.
    What you seem to be talking about here is increasing entropy.
    A source of useful energy will indeed 'change' such that equilibrium of the entire system is reached in time.
    However even at thermodynamic equilibrium a system is not static and 'unchanging' in other respects. Particles continue to move etc. etc.
    Your assertion that infinite = unchanging remains unfounded.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 183 by IamJoseph, posted 06-23-2008 9:17 PM IamJoseph has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 186 by IamJoseph, posted 06-24-2008 7:56 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 189 by onifre, posted 06-24-2008 10:30 AM Straggler has replied

    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 190 of 273 (472710)
    06-24-2008 11:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 189 by onifre
    06-24-2008 10:30 AM


    Re: Change
    I think we are all conceptualizing it differently.
    I believe IAJ means, and if im wrong please correct me IAJ, simply that a car can be infinte but, if you scrap the metal, melt it all down and turn it into a thin piece of metal, even though the material remains, you no longer have an infinite car, you still have the metal though. Which is where I would place my understanding of it, perhaps like you Straggler, in saying that if the material remains then some aspect of it is infinite.
    Frankly, as usual, I have no real idea what IAJ is on about at root. I just think his base assertion is flawed.
    He has repeatedly asserted that infinite = unchanging.
    He seems to have derived this view from some fairly unique interpretations of random bits of biblical script. Based on this he also seems to think that the concept of an infinite universe is somehow an anti God derived philosophical position on the part of science.
    All I am saying is that the concepts of infinite and unchanging do not necessarily always go together in the way that he is asserting based on his biblical cherry picking.
    If you can work out IAJ's overall meaning you are a better man than I. My advice, if you are going to debate IAJ, is to closely examine the basis of his arguments as he makes massive extrapolations from seemingly innocent and minor assertions.
    He also has a very unique take on things and it is easy to get lost in the world of IAJ......(see the thread spherical issues where IAJ argued for 300 posts that the surface of a sphere has a centre!!!)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 189 by onifre, posted 06-24-2008 10:30 AM onifre has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 191 by onifre, posted 06-24-2008 12:27 PM Straggler has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024