The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

nwr writes:That's probably a misunderstanding of what Son Gokum, cavediver, and others are saying.

buzsaw interpretation of SG. writes:1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng.

buz writes:Yet mainline science insists there's no "before," as if they're positive about their claims

CD writes:No, I'm claiming there is no before in the Big Bang model. As I have mentioned to you before, there are other possibilities. I am trying to show you why your "problems" with the Big Bang are not valid. That does not imply that I think the the Big Bang actually happened...

buz writes:I'm afraid that's not the attitude of BB advocates here in the science foum debates

CD writes:Which BB advocates? What attitude?

CD writes:So all of the cosmology and relativity departments around the world are just engaged in psuedoscience? Perhaps you should write to them before they waste any more time?

Buz interpretation writes:1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng.

nwr writes:Chomsky came up with a wonderful sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
Your statement means about the same thing.

CD writes:But please please explain to me the meaning ofBuzzsaw writes:
the immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past

buz-message206 writes:Hi Son Goku: So as I read and understand your statements, we can conclude from it the following to be what you are saying:
1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng.
2. So there was no "before." the universe.
3. Regarding the universe, there is no past and there is no future. There is only the immeasurable present.

sidelined writes:If the universe had no beginning is this not the same as saying that it never began?

nwr writes:the problem is with the question.

nwr writes:This is what Son Goku actually said:Son Goku writes:
All we're saying is that words like "before" and "after" don't apply to the universe. There is no universal past and future.
Our discussion are about the extreme relativity of time.
The Big Bang is often viewed as a high energy environment, but nobody claims it is the origin of the universe.(NWR) To be clear, no I don't agree with your interpretation.

cavediver writes:So why is the Big Bang merely speculative?The maths of the Big Bang is unbelievably simple compared to real complexities like turbulent viscous flow, vital for aircraft and watercraft design. The wonder is that the maths is so simple... so what's the problem?

thread quotes writes: 242 SG Of course the universe mightn't actually be a 4-manifold, that is more a non-speculative way of refering to the fact that we have the "base space" first and then a metric field is added to induce clocks and rulers.
Whether the base space is actually a 4-manifold or not I don't know, but we at least know it is excellently approximated by one which is why I used it.Chiro 243 If you mean that time and distance are very well modelled as fields and this probably will not change, then I will agree with you. Whether time and space are fields I'm not so sure about -- perhaps Kant is correct and time and space do not even exist except as mental constructions to organize the perceptions that we experience.SG 244 In essence:
We have thing and we know dudes look at it and look at it differently, but the looking isn't part of the thing.
(I hope this made even an iota of sense.)1,61803 222There seems to be a some confusion as to what constitutes a "beginning" and what the word: "orgin" means in this discussion. If there was no space prior to T=0 then there was no time. Now how does one reconcile that space and time existed always if the Big Bang is the point where our physics ends and begins. General Relativity, String, Matrix, M, or any other theoretical phyisics can not begin to have meaningful answers to a event that began our cosmological clock ticking.cavediver 235 Although this classical Big Bang model is quite possibly (even quite likely) NOT the real picture, it is very important to understand the validity of this picture before trying to move further into theoretical cosmology. The concepts it teaches are exceptionally important. And it is just so damn aesthetic that it could just be trueModulous 239 I'd kind of like to see some of this, despite the fact that my A-level maths will mean precisely nothing for the level of maths I'd need to fully comprehend it (or perhaps even partially understand it(my missus has a BSc in Physics, though in a different area entirely (accoustics) she had to deal with the start of the obscene maths of the quantum world...). Still, something deep within me would like to see some of the maths, with some discussion (and a nearby guru) - I might not understand it but it would give me a sense of satisifaction to know that somebody out there understands it, and that if I really wanted to I could give a shot at coming to grips with it all.Phat quoting Chirop (somewhere on page 7) What the Big Bang does not do is describe the actual beginning of the universe, if it does indeed have a beginning. As I have stated in other threads, our present laws of physics are not adequate to describe the universe before a certain time after the creation. Right now scientists are trying to improve our understanding of the laws of physics so that we can understand the universe at these earlier times, but for now any discussion of the origin of the universe can only be speculation.