Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 76 of 115 (461185)
03-23-2008 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
03-23-2008 1:54 AM


Re: expansion
You make assumptions and you believe them.
You are such an arrogant twat, aren't you? You have NO CLUE as to what I "believe". What I "believe" is irrelevant. You have had various ideas and models explained ad-nauseam, and you do not understand a single one of them. You are told REPEATEDLY that we don't know what happens in the earliest moments, but we have some ideas based upon the relevant mathematics and physics. And you are so confused in your dementia that you insist that somehow, this has something to do with FAITH
Is this the faith that you have, ICANT??? That you DON'T KNOW God exists?
Anyway, as you are so sure of yourself, would you mind telling me what assumptions I believe? I'm fascinated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2008 1:54 AM ICANT has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 77 of 115 (461189)
03-23-2008 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
03-23-2008 1:54 AM


Re: expansion
This hypothesis has been around since 1983 and the only support I find for it is here on EvC.
What? You are claiming that Wick Rotation has only been around since 1983??? You really don't have a clue about advanced quantum field theory, do you?
And the only support is here at EvC??? Are you sure you have checked ALL of the journals? You mean there's nothing in Nuc Phys B? And there has to be something in Phys Rev D, surely? They'll take anything. And then Phys Let B, PRL, CQG, GRG, etc, etc. You've checked through all of that? Wow, I'm impressed...
Imaginary time is exactly that, you have to believe it is there
by "FAITH".
So when we use instantons to explain observed quantum tunnelling, that's "by FAITH" is it? And when a model is built to use the same mechanism to explain the early Universe, somehow "FAITH" is involved? Could you explain how?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2008 1:54 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 78 of 115 (461194)
03-23-2008 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by ICANT
03-23-2008 12:37 AM


Re: expansion
ICANT writes:
What does the video you presented have to do with the Big Bang Theory.
It has nothing to do with the Big Bang. I'm using it to better understand how you're using words like faith and evidence.
The video has a cause for what takes place. Powder is discharged to cause the bullet to fly through the air.
You didn't actually see the bullet emerge from a gun, but you conclude from what you can see of the bullet's path that the discharge of powder caused the bullet to fly through the air. You reached this conclusion on the basis of observational evidence.
In the same way, we can't actually see the Big Bang, but we conclude from what we can observe about the universe today that it was expanding before T=10-43 seconds just as it was after. We reach this conclusion on the basis of observational evidence.
Let's say you didn't know there was any such thing as guns and you saw the video. You carefully examine and measure the bullet's path and create an equation that models its path taking into account air resistance and gravity and so forth. You notice that if you project the bullet's path backward in time far enough that it must have been traveling so fast that it would have burned up in the atmosphere, and that it would have had to have originated from a point beneath the surface of the earth. You realize this is not likely and that your mathematical model breaks down at this point. But you don't conclude that the bullet didn't exist before the point where your math breaks down, and you certainly don't ascribe your belief that the bullet still existed to faith.
It's the same with the Big Bang. We closely examine and measure what we observe of the universe, and we can see that it was once all in the same place in a very hot, extremely dense state just after T=0 seconds. We create mathematical models for the behavior of the universe and discover that the model only gives us reasonable results back to about T=10-43 seconds. That only means our model breaks down, not that the universe didn't exist before that point and that it's prior existence can only be taken on faith. We know it existed before T=10-43 seconds because we can project the current motion of the universe back in time, just as you projected the motion of the bullet back in time. The problems with the period prior to T=10-43 seconds have no relationship to the conclusions that we can reasonably draw from our observations, only with what our current mathematical models can handle.
Bottom line: conclusions reached on the basis of observational evidence are not based upon faith, and mathematical models are only models, not reality. When a model stops working it doesn't mean reality stops existing and must be taken on faith.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling and clarity in last two para.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2008 12:37 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2008 5:10 PM Percy has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 79 of 115 (461195)
03-23-2008 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
03-23-2008 1:54 AM


A Plain Brown Box
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.

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 75 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2008 1:54 AM ICANT has not replied

          
        Percy
        Member
        Posts: 22388
        From: New Hampshire
        Joined: 12-23-2000
        Member Rating: 5.2


        Message 80 of 115 (461196)
        03-23-2008 9:41 AM
        Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
        03-23-2008 1:54 AM


        Re: expansion
        ICANT writes:
        Imaginary time is exactly that, you have to believe it is there by "FAITH".
        Imaginary time is a mathematical construct. Many fields of science use imaginary constructs that have no objective reality but nonetheless tell us useful things about the real world. Even something as simple as electrical engineering (compared to general relativity) takes advantage of the imaginary construct of the square root of minus one (imaginary numbers).
        To repeat, Cavediver isn't saying that mathematical constructs have objective reality, only that they are tools that provide useful answers about the real world.
        You do not know what is there. Science does not tell you what is there. Until the Big Bang Theory takes over and can explain what is happening in expansion you have no clue as to what precedes the beginning of time as we know it.
        The breakdown of our mathematical models at T=10-43 seconds is not "the beginning of time as we know it." I suppose you could call it the beginning of time for those particular mathematical models, but even though we can't model it and can't say much specific about it, the observational evidence tells us the universe was there and expanding before T=10-43 seconds just as it was after.
        Just as you don't believe the bullet popped into existence when it first entered the frame of the video, cosmologists don't believe the universe popped into existence at the point in time where our models begin working. Your belief that the universe might have popped into existence at the exact time when these first primitive mathematical models of a race of biological creatures on a planet of a nondescript sun in the outer arm of a typical spiral galaxy break down has no evidential support and so could more accurately be called faith.
        --Percy

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 75 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2008 1:54 AM ICANT has not replied

          
        ICANT
        Member
        Posts: 6769
        From: SSC
        Joined: 03-12-2007
        Member Rating: 1.5


        Message 81 of 115 (461221)
        03-23-2008 5:10 PM
        Reply to: Message 78 by Percy
        03-23-2008 9:14 AM


        Re: expansion
        Hi Percy,
        Percy writes:
        You didn't actually see the bullet emerge from a gun, but you conclude from what you can see of the bullet's path that the discharge of powder caused the bullet to fly through the air. You reached this conclusion on the basis of observational evidence.
        Not really observational evidence.
        I assumed at the speed the bullet was traveling that it did not come out of a slingshot.
        I assumed it did not come out of a vice that someone squezed the bullet in as the path was straight at the target.
        Since bullets are in casings there are only two ways to get them out one is to remove them manually from the casing.
        Two is to activate the powder in the casing with the cap that is centered or the rim with rim fire bullets.
        Percy writes:
        In the same way, we can't actually see the Big Bang, but we conclude from what we can observe about the universe today that it was expanding before T=10-43 seconds just as it was after.
        I got no problem with that Percy but when you get to T=0 there is zero happening.
        Or did the universe exist at T=0?
        Percy writes:
        Let's say you didn't know there was any such thing as guns and you saw the video. You carefully examine and measure the bullet's path and create an equation that models its path taking into account air resistance and gravity and so forth. You notice that if you project the bullet's path backward in time far enough that it must have been traveling so fast that it would have burned up in the atmosphere,
        Well if I concluded it burned up in the atmosphere. Went out of existence. I would have to conclude if what I saw was a bullet something or somebody had to manafactured and propelled that bullet at the object it hit and went through. There is no amount of faith that would create the bullet and propell it.
        Now if that bullet was sitting there in imaginary time and could somehow be activated and hit the target. I would have to have faith the imaginary time was there. I would have to have faith the bullet was there. I would have to have faith somehow it activated and hit the target.
        But like the bullet if I concluded the universe burned up at singularity at which point everything is squished out of existence I would need some form of creation to get an expanding universe.
        Percy writes:
        and mathematical models are only models, not reality. When a model stops working it doesn't mean reality stops existing and must be taken on faith.
        If you can't see it, feel it, dupicate it, or test it you have to accept it on "FAITH" or discard it.
        God Bless,

        "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 78 by Percy, posted 03-23-2008 9:14 AM Percy has replied

        Replies to this message:
         Message 82 by Percy, posted 03-23-2008 8:02 PM ICANT has replied
         Message 83 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2008 9:49 PM ICANT has replied
         Message 84 by lyx2no, posted 03-23-2008 11:26 PM ICANT has not replied

          
        Percy
        Member
        Posts: 22388
        From: New Hampshire
        Joined: 12-23-2000
        Member Rating: 5.2


        Message 82 of 115 (461244)
        03-23-2008 8:02 PM
        Reply to: Message 81 by ICANT
        03-23-2008 5:10 PM


        Re: expansion
        ICANT writes:
        Percy writes:
        You didn't actually see the bullet emerge from a gun, but you conclude from what you can see of the bullet's path that the discharge of powder caused the bullet to fly through the air. You reached this conclusion on the basis of observational evidence.
        Not really observational evidence.
        I assumed at the speed the bullet was traveling that it did not come out of a slingshot.
        Its pretty clear you don't know what observational evidence is. How do you know "the speed the bullet was traveling" if you did not observe it? So of course you observed it, and you used this observational evidence to make reasonable inferences, such as that the bullet was fired from a gun.
        In the same way, cosmologists peer out into the universe and observe the motion of all the galaxies and project backward in time, just as you did with the bullet, and discover that at one time all the matter and energy in the universe was concentrated in a very small, very dense, very hot region.
        We have models of the early universe that work very well, but they break down for times earlier than T=10-43 seconds. That doesn't mean the universe didn't exist then, just that we can't model it.
        Percy writes:
        and mathematical models are only models, not reality. When a model stops working it doesn't mean reality stops existing and must be taken on faith.
        If you can't see it, feel it, duplicate it, or test it you have to accept it on "FAITH" or discard it.
        No argument there, but we *can* see it. We just can't model it.
        --Percy

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 81 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2008 5:10 PM ICANT has replied

        Replies to this message:
         Message 85 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2008 12:57 PM Percy has replied

          
        Rahvin
        Member
        Posts: 4032
        Joined: 07-01-2005
        Member Rating: 9.2


        Message 83 of 115 (461255)
        03-23-2008 9:49 PM
        Reply to: Message 81 by ICANT
        03-23-2008 5:10 PM


        Re: expansion
        Not really observational evidence.
        I assumed at the speed the bullet was traveling that it did not come out of a slingshot.
        I assumed it did not come out of a vice that someone squezed the bullet in as the path was straight at the target.
        Since bullets are in casings there are only two ways to get them out one is to remove them manually from the casing.
        Two is to activate the powder in the casing with the cap that is centered or the rim with rim fire bullets.
        In other words, you made a logical inference based on the observational evidence you had. You can't say for certain the bullet was fired from a gun - you didn't see the gun. But you have excellent reason to infer that this was the case. You are also not equipped with the means to accurately measure the real speed of the bullet, but you know enough from what you saw to believe that it was probably going pretty damned fast.
        Likewise, while we can't model T=0 (the gunshot, offscreen), we have some pretty good evidence from after T=0 (the observed bullet) suggesting that it was probably continuing the same trend if you were to model it's path backwards from where you see it (it looks like the Universe was smaller and hotter and denser because that was the trend immediately after T=0).
        Is any of this based on faith? Not by any sane definition of the term. You're making a logical inference, a model, based on what information you do have.
        You're just being difficult and arguing out of desperation because you so badly want to say that your evidence-less faith stands on the same ground as a scientific model. It's painfully obvious to the rest of us, ICANT.
        I got no problem with that Percy but when you get to T=0 there is zero happening.
        Or did the universe exist at T=0?
        There's nothing to suggest there was "nothing" at T-0, and a lot to suggest that there was, considering we see the entire universe existing a fraction of a moment later. It's exactly like the bullet - there's nothing to suggest the bullet existed before entering the camera frame, either - or at least nothing different from what suggests there was "something" between T=0 ant T=10^-43. We aren't certain, ICANT, but it's a pretty damned obvious conclusion from the evidence we actually have.

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 81 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2008 5:10 PM ICANT has replied

        Replies to this message:
         Message 88 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2008 2:08 PM Rahvin has replied

          
        lyx2no
        Member (Idle past 4716 days)
        Posts: 1277
        From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
        Joined: 02-28-2008


        Message 84 of 115 (461264)
        03-23-2008 11:26 PM
        Reply to: Message 81 by ICANT
        03-23-2008 5:10 PM


        Amazing Powers of Observation
        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.

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 81 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2008 5:10 PM ICANT has not replied

          
        ICANT
        Member
        Posts: 6769
        From: SSC
        Joined: 03-12-2007
        Member Rating: 1.5


        Message 85 of 115 (461321)
        03-24-2008 12:57 PM
        Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
        03-23-2008 8:02 PM


        Re: expansion
        Hi Percy,
        Percy writes:
        such as that the bullet was fired from a gun.
        I think I concluded the bullet was removed from the casing by the powder being activated. Anything else would be a guess.
        Percy writes:
        That doesn't mean the universe didn't exist then, just that we can't model it.
        Doesn't mean that the universe did exist either. It means you don't know.
        So you can either believe it existed or did not exist. It is just as easy to believe it was created as to believe it just existed and for no reason began to expand into what we see today.
        Besides if it just existed, where did it come from?
        They both take faith.
        God Bless,

        "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 82 by Percy, posted 03-23-2008 8:02 PM Percy has replied

        Replies to this message:
         Message 86 by Percy, posted 03-24-2008 1:24 PM ICANT has replied
         Message 87 by Rahvin, posted 03-24-2008 1:32 PM ICANT has not replied

          
        Percy
        Member
        Posts: 22388
        From: New Hampshire
        Joined: 12-23-2000
        Member Rating: 5.2


        Message 86 of 115 (461324)
        03-24-2008 1:24 PM
        Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
        03-24-2008 12:57 PM


        Re: expansion
        Let me address the end of your post first:
        ICANT writes:
        So you can either believe it existed or did not exist. It is just as easy to believe it was created as to believe it just existed and for no reason began to expand into what we see today.
        Besides if it just existed, where did it come from?
        This is a different question. Concerning whether the universe existed before T=0, I don't think we know, but this would be a better question for Son Goku or Cavediver. But please don't change the subject to theories about the T<0 universe.
        Percy writes:
        such as that the bullet was fired from a gun.
        I think I concluded the bullet was removed from the casing by the powder being activated. Anything else would be a guess.
        Whatever you say, but you're ignoring the point that you drew your conclusions based upon observational evidence, not assumptions. After I posted my message explaining this, Rahvin and Lyx2no posted messages explaining the exact same thing to you. You don't seem to understand what observational evidence is.
        Percy writes:
        That doesn't mean the universe didn't exist then, just that we can't model it.
        Doesn't mean that the universe did exist either. It means you don't know.
        Cosmologists conclude the universe existed before it came into their view just as you concluded the bullet existed before it came into your view. There's no faith involved in either conclusion.
        --Percy

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 85 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2008 12:57 PM ICANT has replied

        Replies to this message:
         Message 91 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2008 3:00 PM Percy has not replied

          
        Rahvin
        Member
        Posts: 4032
        Joined: 07-01-2005
        Member Rating: 9.2


        Message 87 of 115 (461325)
        03-24-2008 1:32 PM
        Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
        03-24-2008 12:57 PM


        Re: expansion
        Hi Percy,
        Percy writes:
        quote:
        such as that the bullet was fired from a gun.
        I think I concluded the bullet was removed from the casing by the powder being activated. Anything else would be a guess.
        That's an educated guess, as well. Bullets can be molded individually without casings, you know. And then the bullet could have been propelled without the use of a gun.
        You're making reasonable conclusions about things you cannot be certain of based on the evidence you are provided with. The Big Bang model is the same thing - reasonable conclusions are tentatively drawn based on available evidence. Those conclusions are based on that evidence. That means that they are not based on faith.
        Percy writes:
        quote:
        That doesn't mean the universe didn't exist then, just that we can't model it.
        Doesn't mean that the universe did exist either. It means you don't know.
        Saying
        "from what we do know, it looks like the Unvierse existed in a form we cannot currently describe between T=0 and T=10^-43"
        is exactly the same as saying
        "from what I saw in the video screen, it looks like that a bullet was ejected from its casing by igniting the powder in the cartridge"
        Both are reasonable conclusions based on evidence. Neither involves faith.
        So you can either believe it existed or did not exist. It is just as easy to believe it was created as to believe it just existed and for no reason began to expand into what we see today.
        It's reasonable to conclude, based on the evidence currently available, that it looks like the Unvierse existed, albeit in a state we cannot currently describe, betwen T=0 and T=10^-43. There is currently no reason to assume the Universe did not exist prior to that point and just magically winked into being. We know it exists after T=10^-43. It is reasonable to conclude that it exists immediately prior to that, as well. It's just as reasonable as concluding that the bullet in the video existed off-camera, and that it did not suddenly wink into existence by magic at the exact moment it comes into view.
        Besides if it just existed, where did it come from?
        They both take faith.
        Saying "we don't know, it may have simply existed by itself, or been created, or whatever, we just don't know" is nt a statement of faith. If I have a rock, and I don't know where it came from, do I need faith to tell me that it simply exists? Of course not - it's right in front of me. Do I need faith to conclude that it likely existed a month ago, even if I don't know the state it was in (possibly part of a larger rock, for instance)? No, that's a reasonable, logical inference based on the evidence at hand. Do I need faith to conclude that it is highly unlikely that a magic leprechaun put the rock here when I wasn't looking? No, that would be a compeltely unfounded premise based on nothing but my imagination.
        Saying "I think it's likely that a supernatural entity for which there is no objective evidence created x" is a statement of faith. There is no eidence.
        Saying "I don't know how it got here, and I can't really describe it, but here's what looks likely from what I do know" is based on evidence, and is not a statement of faith.

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 85 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2008 12:57 PM ICANT has not replied

          
        ICANT
        Member
        Posts: 6769
        From: SSC
        Joined: 03-12-2007
        Member Rating: 1.5


        Message 88 of 115 (461328)
        03-24-2008 2:08 PM
        Reply to: Message 83 by Rahvin
        03-23-2008 9:49 PM


        Re: expansion
        Hi Rahvin,
        Rahvin writes:
        There's nothing to suggest there was "nothing" at T-0
        Nothing to tell us there was as I have been told, "we don't know".
        Rahvin writes:
        and a lot to suggest that there was, considering we see the entire universe existing a fraction of a moment later.
        If the universe was created by the Big Bang or God there was no need for anything to be there at T=0.
        Rahvin writes:
        It's exactly like the bullet - there's nothing to suggest the bullet existed before entering the camera frame,
        The bullet had to be created.
        Rahvin writes:
        either - or at least nothing different from what suggests there was "something" between T=0 ant T=10^-43.
        If it is the same as the bullet then it had to be created.
        Rahvin writes:
        We aren't certain, ICANT, but it's a pretty damned obvious conclusion from the evidence we actually have.
        Now if the Hartle Hawking hypothesis is correct, there would be a universe sitting in imaginary time at T=0. It would begin to expand and the Big Bang Theory would take over and try to explain what is observed in the universe.
        We know Penrose does not agree with Hawking on this view.
        Hawking said Hereon page 40.
        There is, however, a second and more serious objection. Cosmology can not predict
        anything about the universe unless it makes some assumption about the initial conditions.
        Now if it can be assumed that the imaginary time is there with the universe in it and that it began to expand for no reason there would be no problem.
        To do that you must believe the universe is sitting there in imaginary time doing nothing. The imaginary time having existed in imaginary time for a long time. Or it was created in imaginary time at T=0.
        If it was created at T=0, where did it come from? How was it created?
        If it had always been there, where did it come from or who created it? Same question asked when creationist mention God.
        Since all this takes place at T=0 in imaginary time as there is no before we are talking about T=0.
        God Bless,

        "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 83 by Rahvin, posted 03-23-2008 9:49 PM Rahvin has replied

        Replies to this message:
         Message 89 by Percy, posted 03-24-2008 2:36 PM ICANT has replied
         Message 90 by Rahvin, posted 03-24-2008 2:46 PM ICANT has replied

          
        Percy
        Member
        Posts: 22388
        From: New Hampshire
        Joined: 12-23-2000
        Member Rating: 5.2


        Message 89 of 115 (461332)
        03-24-2008 2:36 PM
        Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
        03-24-2008 2:08 PM


        Re: expansion
        ICANT, you seem to have lost track of what you were talking about. Please don't try to shift the focus to T=0, Hartle/Hawking or imaginary time.
        You claimed that we could only accept it on faith that the universe existed prior to T=10-43 seconds.
        We pointed out that conclusions that the universe existed prior to T=10-43 seconds stemmed from observational evidence, not faith.
        If you want to concede this point then we can move on to your next point, but please stop trying to change horses in mid-ride.
        --Percy

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 88 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2008 2:08 PM ICANT has replied

        Replies to this message:
         Message 93 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2008 3:25 PM Percy has not replied

          
        Rahvin
        Member
        Posts: 4032
        Joined: 07-01-2005
        Member Rating: 9.2


        Message 90 of 115 (461333)
        03-24-2008 2:46 PM
        Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
        03-24-2008 2:08 PM


        Re: expansion
        Hi Rahvin,
        Rahvin writes:
        quote:
        There's nothing to suggest there was "nothing" at T-0
        Nothing to tell us there was as I have been told, "we don't know".
        ...except for my very next line...
        Rahvin writes:
        quote:
        and a lot to suggest that there was, considering we see the entire universe existing a fraction of a moment later.
        If the universe was created by the Big Bang or God there was no need for anything to be there at T=0.
        Nobody has ever said the Universe was "created by the Big Bang!" Now you really are just being difficult, ICANT. Surely you can see that, when you see that something exists, it very likely existed a moment ago as well? Just like your bullet - isn't it reasonable from the evidence in the video to conclude that the bullet very likely existed before coming into the frame? A 10-year old can see this.
        Rahvin writes:
        quote:
        It's exactly like the bullet - there's nothing to suggest the bullet existed before entering the camera frame,
        The bullet had to be created.
        Rahvin writes:
        quote:
        either - or at least nothing different from what suggests there was "something" between T=0 ant T=10^-43.
        If it is the same as the bullet then it had to be created.
        You really do take every single opportunity to say "it had to be created," don't you. You love to take analogies farther just to be difficult. This isn't honest debate any more, ICANT. You only know the bullet was created because of additional experiences and observational evidence of other bullets. We have no such information about the Universe. You know full well that you have no objective evidence showing the Universe was created, and you know full well that your comment here isn't even related to the topic. You're just trying to squeeze it in, once again trying to equate your faith-based beliefs with the evidence-based conclusions of science.
        Why don't you respond to my statements rather than some wild tangent?
        I'll be really direct, ICANT.
        What is the difference between these two statements?
        "The existence of the bullet in the video leads us to conclude that the bullet likely existed a moment prior to entering the frame, even though we cannot see it and do not know for certain from the video its point of origin."
        "The existence of the Universe at T=10^-43 leads us to conclude that the universe likely existed a moment prior as well, even though we currently lack the ability to model the exact state it was in at that prior moment and cannot tell for certain its origin, or if it even has an origin."
        Don't respond with more "if the bullet was created, the Universe was created" tangential asshattery. Respond very specifically with what makes those two statements different, or how either one of them is based on faith. Don't just say "it's faith," either. Be very specific and show how either one involves a belief not based on evidence.
        Rahvin writes:
        quote:
        We aren't certain, ICANT, but it's a pretty damned obvious conclusion from the evidence we actually have.
        Now if the Hartle Hawking hypothesis is correct, there would be a universe sitting in imaginary time at T=0. It would begin to expand and the Big Bang Theory would take over and try to explain what is observed in the universe.
        We know Penrose does not agree with Hawking on this view.
        Hawking said Hereon page 40.
        quote:
        There is, however, a second and more serious objection. Cosmology can not predict
        anything about the universe unless it makes some assumption about the initial conditions.
        Now if it can be assumed that the imaginary time is there with the universe in it and that it began to expand for no reason there would be no problem.
        To do that you must believe the universe is sitting there in imaginary time doing nothing. The imaginary time having existed in imaginary time for a long time. Or it was created in imaginary time at T=0.
        If it was created at T=0, where did it come from? How was it created?
        If it had always been there, where did it come from or who created it? Same question asked when creationist mention God.
        Since all this takes place at T=0 in imaginary time as there is no before we are talking about T=0.
        I'm not even going to respond to this. You aren't practicing honest debate, ICANT - you're spouting barely related off-topic nonsense rather than responding to an actual statement. You're purposefully being difficult and taking analogies farther than they are intended to apply, and you know it.
        Worst of all, you're trying to argue cosmological theories you do not comprehend, and can't even grasp as you do not posses the mathematical ability to work these ideas through yourself. I cringe every time you bring up Hawking, becasue you don't even posses the prerequisite knowledge to pass physics 101, let alone follow along on one of Hawking's lectures.
        Your asinine discussions of "imaginary time" aren't even related to the topic. This topic is not about arguing back and forth over Hawkings perspectives on cosmology, or even about trying to teach you the basics, since we've tried that repeatedly and failed.
        This topic is about whether scientific models of cosmological origins are based on evidence, or based on faith. That's the extent of this topic. Thus far you have failed, miserably in showing that any part of a scientific model is based on faith rather than the available evidence. All you have done so far is ignored various people's comments, instead picking out a particular aspect of an analogy and running away with a tangent you think helps your cause.
        Respond to people's statements, ICANT, not what you see as more "proof" that the Universe has been created by your deity. Show where, specifically, cosmological models are based on faith, or concede that faith and science are based on wholly different things and cannot be considered the same.
        If you cannot do even this, then I see no point in anyone continuing to respond to your broken-record "see, it was created!!1!" garbage.

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 88 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2008 2:08 PM ICANT has replied

        Replies to this message:
         Message 92 by ICANT, posted 03-24-2008 3:14 PM Rahvin has replied

          
        Newer Topic | Older Topic
        Jump to:


        Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

        ™ Version 4.2
        Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024