Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?

No.Scientific theories start some wee bit of time after the origin. About 10^-43 seconds after.However, it is kind of like if I turn the corner of a street and see a bloke walking towards me, and I notice that he’s getting closer and closer to this corner with each step, that it is probably a safe bet that before I stepped around the corner and spotted him he was farther from this corner still.You’re right, I didn’t see him prior to my turning the corner so he could have been walking backwards or standing still in anticipation of my appearance. He could have sprung fully formed from the head of Zeus. I don’t know. That’s why I don’t say. It wouldn’t be scientific.By that very same token, science, striving to be scientific and all, doesn't say what happened prior to 10^-43 seconds. Only that it was probably hotter and denser. But "probably hotter and denser" doesn't amount to a theory.If by "origin" you don't mean T=0 kindly let me know.

---

Kindly******Scared of the dark

Good morning ICANT:You may wish to take note that I write in whole sentences and stuff. Every one of your questions are contained within my previous post. To which I add: T=10 ^-44 wasn’t the origin either. To which I add: Read the title again it says origins “Theories”.Just saving myself some writing. (Not really, just being a wise guy.) Faith in “probably”?To this I add: Firstly, if you’re going to have me saying something at least don’t have me saying it in rubbish English. Secondly, “it” in that sentence is “science”, and science isn’t me. The confusion was likely my fault, -· --- -.

To simply assume that a trend continues is not faith. It would require faith to believe that the Universe deviates from the trend simply because the maths break down at that point. The maths are descriptive not proscriptive and have no actual say so in what the Universe does.Now seriously, ICANT, I use the phrases “Thank God.”, “Bless you.” and “God bless America.” often. I do not believe in the existence of God or any mechanism by which one could be blessed. I use them as metaphors, which some believe cheapens them. I tend to agree but don’t care because I don’t believe they have any non-metaphorical value. But I really, really can not understand why you would want to use “Faith” as a metaphor.*Violation of the rubbish English rule.
”Violation of full sentence rule.

---

Kindly******Scared of the dark

This is the second time in this thread that you have put more care into discussing an analogy than the OP.Could you please define your meaning of: origins, theories and scientific. Especially the last. If the problem isn’t solvable through your understanding of the word “faith” maybe it can be gotten at through your understanding of the word “scientific”. If you’re going to refer me to Webster’s I’m all set, thanks. But I’d like to know your meanings.

---

Kindly******Scared of the dark

Been there. Done that. Been there. Done that. Been there. Done that. Been there. Done that. Been there. Done that.Okay, my work here is done. I win.

---

Kindly******Ever eat a pine tree? What are you, stupid?

Good morning ICANT:There is a box on a table. A plain brown, packing box, say 20” ” 14” ” 14”. It is merely a box. It is not a metaphor for space or time or anything else. It’s just a box.

• I am asked what is in the box and I truthfully respond “I do not know.”
  ​
  ​
• I'm asked if the box contains a stampeding heard of elephants. I respond "no."
  ​
  ​
• I’m asked if the box might contain a stampeding heard of elephants. I respond “not likely.”
  ​

Regardless of your answers could you expound upon them? In the case of yes, faith in what? If no, why not ” why the difference?AbE: I use a ridiculous example in the hopes that you will not again mistake the subject of the analogy for the point under consideration. I don’t intend a discussion about elephants in boxes, but about your usage of the word “faith”.Edited by lyx2no, : A clarification.

---

Kindly******Only claiming to not wanting to be difficult as a courtesy.

Assuming a standard size soda can then we can safely say that is a .45 caliber slug having an approximate velocity of 270 mps. The barrel has to be at least one meter out of frame or we’d see a fair amount of powder. That would mean that we first see the round at 3.7 ”10^-3 seconds, but to simplify the matter (and wipe out any possible objection to any of my assumptions) let us round this to T=10^-3.That means that you are looking a million trillion trillion trillion times farther back from your last observation to say the bullet came out of a gun then physicists are looking back from T=10^-43 to T=0.Are your powers of intuition that much better than all the physicists on the planet?Just asking.Edited by lyx2no, : Repeat.

---

Kindly******Only claiming to not wanting to be difficult as a courtesy.

Hello molbiogirl:Good idea, but ICANT has already found his refuge form your logic. He will (has) bury (ied) himself so deeply in this most important of all points that the bullet was created being analogous to God’s creation of the initial Universe ” which you are blind to ” that your meager human reasoning will never get him to acknowledge a word of what you’ve so ably stated. One has nothing to do with the other, yet no answer to your prodding will be forth coming.You’re reasonable. He ain’t. You’re using a church key on a wrecking bar fix.Edited by lyx2no, : Tense.

---

KindlyAre you gonna' eat that donut?