The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

Unfortunately I don't think that is a good aplication of parsimony. One superpowerful entity that betrays explanation is an entity too far. I am only positing one entity - reality. Something we know exists in some sense. Your application of the principle of parsimony fails and a simply analogy will demonstrate the error you have made (its an easy mistake to make though).The weather, the science behind it involves air pressures, sea temperatures, fluid dynamics and all sorts of variables, all of them very complicated and many deserve a branch of physics in themselves. We could just put the weather down to Wotan, Grothar, Indra, Tefnut or Enlil etc.After all, to paraphrase:

quote:

---

I think Ockham's Razor can be applied here as a scientific principle to not multiply causes beyond what's necessary to explain the effect. One being or intelligent creator is sufficient to explain how the weather changed, leading to a hurricane.

---

quote:

---

Because the universe can't come from nothing.

---

This doesn't answer the question. It is simply a restatement of your previous claim. You are simply stating that the universe must have a cause. I am asking you why you think this. Who knows -- if your reasoning is sufficiently sound you may even convince me that this must be the case. However, simply repeating that the universe must have a cause over and over again does not constitute reasoning.-

quote:

---

Can you explain how this would be possible?

---

No, I cannot. If the universe has no cause, then there would be no answer to this question. If the universe has no cause, then it simply exists. If the universe has no cause, then there simply is no process that explains how it came to exist.-

quote:

---

Can any scientific theory how the whole universe could come from nothing?

---

Perhaps it could. But then it would be explaining the cause of the universe. If the universe has no cause, then there would be no way to explain how it came to be since it would simply exist.

---

"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)

CCXC, I know much is written and said concerning the Big Bang, but allow me to give you the inside information We (as in cosmologists and theoretical physicists) do not believe the universe came from nothing. Such a thing, as you say, makes little sense and is not part of the theory, despite what is said. All that exists of natural existence is within the universe. All beginnings and ends, and their in-betweens, exist within the universe. The universe itself just is. It is the entirety of existence.The Big Bang simply represents a point in the universe where there can be no "before", just as the North Pole is the place where there can be no "further north". There may well be a "South Pole" or Big Crunch (though it looks less likely these days) which is the point where there is no "after". But before, after and in-between do not apply to the universe itself. It just is.I often use the analogy of the Earth's surface to represent the universe, with the North Pole as the Big Bang and the South Pole as the Big Crunch. Our lives run as (very short bits of) lines of longitude running south. This "Earth" universe exists; there is no time when it didn't or will not exist becasue time is simply a line of longitude on the Earth.This is the 4d picture of reality that General Relativity has taught us. To say it's bizarre, counter-intuitive, crazy, or that it runs against every ounce of common sense is completely understandable. But it has passed every test we have thrown at it, and on one test has shown itself to be the most accurate theory ever devised. Remember what Arthur C Clarke said long ago: the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine With such a picture in mind, you can see why "what caused the Big Bang?" or "what came before the Big Bang?" makes no sense. But wholly appropriate questions are "why is the universe here?" and "why is there something rather than nothing?". We are almost as far from the answers to these questions as we have ever been. The Big Bang is a description of one part of our universe, it is not the reason we are here...This message has been edited by cavediver, 03-29-2006 05:43 PM

This is where I believe the concept of a finite universe is problematic relative to the alleged BB. For it to be, there has to be no "before" regarding either space or time. So scientifically BBists can't say "before time began" and "before space existed." The problem is that what is observed in the universe is that everything that began to exist implies a "before." (abe: There is no model for it that I'm aware of, just as there's no model for a supreme god having the ability to design and create.)
To change that just to suit the BB appears to be a convenience of BBist so as to eliminate the problem of the "before."Regarding space, BBists argue that the expansion expanded but there was no space for it to expand into. Thus, as I see it they are essentially saying it expanded into itself, there being no outside of (abe:itself) for it's expansion into. If I have the above right it appears that for relativity and QM to explain this, one must reject every scintilla of common sense (abe: and logic).This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-29-2006 10:02 PMThis message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-29-2006 10:31 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

How does that work (abe: if there's no outside of)? The universe is not all that exists? My understand has always been that by definition, it is everything.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-29-2006 09:21 PMThis message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-29-2006 09:24 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Imo, not a good analogy.1. The North Pole is a visible existing furthermost physical point on the global planet designated by man as being the direction of north. This point has both a physical observable "outside of" and a calculated time "before" according to science.2. The BB, on the other hand, allegedly having neither a "before" or an "outside of" has no model and nothing existing but itself. There is no possible analogy of it for a model to observe as we have with the observable physical planet and it's poles.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Absolutely, we don't. The key phrase here is "in the universe" and of course we are not talking about anything "in the universe" when we are talking about the universe itself.Why should observations of something within the universe apply to the universe itself?Furthermore, can you actually supply an example of anything you have ever observed that "began to exist", and did not simply change form? Of course there is. We only believe any of this becasue there is a model for it. General Relativity thrust this idea upon us. We didn't just think that it was a nice idea one day! And remember that GR is the most accurately tested theory we have of any science. So why should we dismiss what it says just because it doesn't tie in with your idea of logic and common sense. Just about everything it and Special Relativity has predicted is way beyond common sense, and every prediction that has been tested has been shown to be true... We are not changing anything other than our naive preconceptions of so-called "common sense". We have the most successful theory ever, and we have man-in-the-street common sense. I know which I trust... I have a bunch of idealised points sitting in some abstract space with no concept of distance or even direction, just knowledge that these points are distinct. I than add a number asscociated with each pair of points. This number (much further down the road) will affect things like how long it takes to propegate signals between these pairs of points. Eventually, you and I will get to know these numbers as "distance". But for now, let's keep it simple.I then let these numbers increase steadily. Way down the line, some rather naive ignorant humans will think that their universe is "expanding" whatever that means. But all that is happening is that these numbers are increasing. So? What's new? To say that QM, SR and GR have revolutionised our understanding is the understatement of the century. "Common sense" has been debunked as the most unhelpful hinderance to progress in these sciences. We are not talking theoretical here; we are talking about how these sciences are proved beyond the level of any other theory we have, EVERY SINGLE DAY, at CERN, at FermiLab, at DESY, out in space with the Gravity Probes, in the design of your AMD/Intel powering your PC. Common sense tells us that none of these things should work... yet they do.When you say logic, you simply mean common sense. If you understood conventional classical physics to a enough deep level, you would realise that it is that science that is illogical. It falls down when you push it hard enough. When you start asking - what makes an atom solid? - why is the sky dark? - what makes the Sun work?Real logic has led us to GR and QM and also the Big Bang. Why do you think they are studied in Mathematics departments?This message has been edited by cavediver, 03-30-2006 08:36 AM

You have to start thinking four-dimensionally. The past, now, and future are all part of the universe. This is why I use the Earth analogy. You have to take God's view to understand this to begin with. He sees the past, now and future as one. This is what GR teaches us.This message has been edited by cavediver, 03-30-2006 06:17 AM

It's a very good analogy. You are just not putting in any effort to understand it You are still trying to interpret everything within your own understanding. That does not work.Perhaps we should take a few steps back and start with something that is almost but not quite as counterintuitive as the Big Bang?How much Special Relativity do you know and how comfortable are you that the theory is correct?

Had you said that the BB was one period in time of the universe I would see it as making sense, but it being a "part" of the universe has more to do with substance than time.

What I would prefer is that you copy and paste my statements in message 186 and address the specifics of them.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Which is why we need a chat about Special Relativity (SR). Space and time are part of the same deal, different aspects of our 4d universe. We learn this from SR. SR is both the most accurately tested theory ever (via GR) and the second most accurately tested theory ever (via QFT). It teaches us that 4d space-time is real; that what one man calls space, another man may call time, all depending upon their perspective. This is demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt.You may not believe SR. But as it is demonstrated every day at the various particle labs around the world (as in they would not even work if SR is not true owing), this would place you rather a long way below the level of the Apollo hoax believers...Just to repeat: what one observer calls space will be called time by a different observer. We are forced into a 4d view of the universe. We did not ask for it.

What? That my analogy is weak? Fine. I'm sorry, but it is tough coming up with analogies for warped four dimensional space-time that can be understood by someone without a post-grad degree in maths. Stop trying to find fault with the analogy and try to learn something.I'm trying to show you how to visualise time as a dimension and not as this temporal viewpoint we are forced into by everyday experience. It's no good saying "where's the temporal aspect?" That's the whole point! My analogy is trying to remove it so you can start seeing the bigger picture.As mentioned in my post above, you have to realise that space-time is a unified four-dimensional whole... SR has shown us this for the past century. All those lovely freaky bits of SR like time dilation demonstrate this beyond doubt.

No matter positive or neutral it creates (pun intended) problems.

I understand this analogy of expansion of space. Regarding this, I don't remember that you addressed Message 106, item 2. The problem of the properties of space is debatable. I realize my position on static space is the minority viewpoint, but until someone can address some specific problems adequately, I doubt we can accomplish much since imo, the question of the thread has a lot to do with the properties of space.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW