EvC Forum: Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 93 of 115 (461336)
03-24-2008 3:25 PM

Reply to: Message 89 by Percy
03-24-2008 2:36 PM

Re: expansion

Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

We pointed out that conclusions that the universe existed prior to T=10^-43 seconds stemmed from observational evidence, not faith.

Percy you have pointed out that you believe, have faith in your conclusions that is based on circumstantual evidence that the universe existed prior to T=10^-43 .

As I pointed out I know where the bullet came from. It was manufactured.

You have no idea where the universe came from or even if it existed at T=0.

In the absence of any evidence you have to exercise faith that the universe is there.

I have asked the question several times. What is at T=0? The answer is we don't know.

Well if you don't know what is there then to believe the universe is there is to do so by 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 89 by Percy, posted 03-24-2008 2:36 PM		Percy has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 99 of 115 (461466)
03-25-2008 6:05 PM

Reply to: Message 97 by molbiogirl
03-24-2008 5:27 PM

Re: expansion

Hi molbiogirl,

molbiogirl writes:

ICANT will refuse to admit a bullet "just appeared" but will not admit that the universe "just appeared" (because, of course, in his mind, it did).

Why will I refuse to admit a bullet "just appeared"? It did.

Why will I refuse to admit the universe "just appeared"? It did.

molbiogirl writes:

And no fair saying something like, "Well, I know that there are guns."

I don't think I mentioned gun at anytime.

I said Message 75 "
Powder is discharged to cause the bullet to fly through the air"

If you will read my posts you will find I never mentioned gun. (This is the first time.)

molbiogirl writes:

Prove to me that the bullet didn't just appear. Given ONLY the evidence in the video, DEDUCE that the bullet didn't just appear.

But the bullet did just appear in the video. I did observe the bullet and know it was a bullet in the video.

But I have pretty good evidence that a bullet is manufactured in an ammunition plant or by a gun smith.

molbiogirl writes:

ICANT uses "common sense" stuff (that he learned just as a matter of course over his lifetime) to figure out that the bullet (1) didn't just appear (2) was shot from a gun, etc. just as a physicist uses "physicist common sense" stuff (that he learned earning his PhD) to figure out that the universe (1) didn't just appear (2) was small/hot/dense, etc.

Since you can go into any sporting goods store and buy ammunition common sense says bullets exist. There is visible, testable, see able evidence for them.

This type of evidence does not exist for the physicist to make his conclusion the universe exists prior to T=10^-43.

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 97 by molbiogirl, posted 03-24-2008 5:27 PM		molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 100 by Admin, posted 03-25-2008 6:28 PM	ICANT has not replied
	Message 101 by molbiogirl, posted 03-25-2008 10:30 PM	ICANT has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 104 of 115 (461842)
03-28-2008 8:08 AM

Reply to: Message 102 by molbiogirl
03-27-2008 12:18 AM

Re: Bump for ICANT

Hi molbiogirl,

mobiogirl writes:

Still waiting.

Please don't hold your breath. If the answer I gave you in Message 99 for which I received a suspended suspension is not satisfactory you are out of luck. I have no other answer and do not care to tempt another suspension.

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 102 by molbiogirl, posted 03-27-2008 12:18 AM		molbiogirl has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 105 of 115 (461847)
03-28-2008 8:39 AM

Re-Analogy

Maybe someone can explain.

I am having a real problem understanding the analogy of the bullet hitting the target, being comparable to the universe appearing could someone please explain.

My problem.
The bullet is a known product that is manufactured by man. Bullets were in existence prior to the video being made. Prior to the video being made there was visible, testable, see able evidence for bullets.

The universe may or may not have existed prior to T=10^-43 according to Rahvin.

In Message 95 Rahvin says:

It is very likely that the Universe exists between T=0 and T=10^-43. My evidence for this conclusion is that the universe exists immediately after T=10^-43. While it is remotely possible that the Universe simply winked into existence at T=10^-43, there is nothing to suggest this, so I conclude that the trend (existence) likely continues into the unknown region.

When we get to the unknown region, whatever that point is there is no visible, testable, see able evidence for anything to be there. I conclude that since there is no evidence for something to be there, to believe that there is requires faith.

I have thought long and hard to try to come up with an analogy that would be equal to the universe appearing and the only thing I can come up with is abiogenesis. Those two would be comparable.

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."

Replies to this message:
	Message 106 by Percy, posted 03-28-2008 9:47 AM	ICANT has replied
	Message 107 by Rahvin, posted 03-28-2008 12:31 PM	ICANT has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 108 of 115 (461883)
03-28-2008 12:54 PM

Reply to: Message 106 by Percy
03-28-2008 9:47 AM

Re-Analogy

Thanks Percy,

Percy writes:

The part of the video that's significant and that we've been drawing attention to is when the bullet first appears at the left edge of the video. The question was, "Given only the evidence on the video, did the bullet exist before it can be seen?"

Worded this way my explanation was sufficient.

If you change the phrase "on the video", to "only on the video".

Then I would have to say "I don't Know". I believe it did but I have no proof.

Percy writes:

So here's the question for you. Before the meteor (doesn't matter which one) comes into view on the video, did it exist? Your answer should be, "Of course."

I like them all but I will refer to the second one.

The screen is blank sky and the meteor appears. To me it seems to appear out of an absence of anything.

Did it exist before its appearance? I believe it did because it could not just appear out of the absence of anything. Can I prove it did? No.

Percy writes:

Did you have any direct observational evidence that the meteor existed prior to when you first saw it? 10 years before your first saw it? 20 years? Of course not. Do you believe it existed 10 and 20 years ago? Of course you do. That's because human beings understand beginning at about 5 months of age that objects not in view still exist.

I guess I am not a human being.
Prior to the meteor appearing on the video (meteor #2) there is no visible, testable, see able evidence for the meteor to be there. I can believe that it did but that is not evidence.

Percy writes:

We do have a pretty good idea of what the universe was like at T=10-43 seconds. It was an extremely hot, dense plasma of quarks, photons, etc. Prior to T=10-43 seconds we do not have a good idea of the nature of the universe, because we don't have accurate models of what happens to the universe below the Planck scale (the very, very tiny scale).

Before I get back into this I need to know if we are talking about Hartle Hawking hypothesis or Standard Big Bang Theory.

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 106 by Percy, posted 03-28-2008 9:47 AM		Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 109 by Percy, posted 03-28-2008 1:56 PM		ICANT has replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 110 of 115 (461977)
03-29-2008 1:29 AM

Reply to: Message 109 by Percy
03-28-2008 1:56 PM

Re-Analogy

Thanks Percy,

Percy writes:

We're not talking about Hartle/Hawking now, we weren't talking about Hartle/Hawking before, and everyone keeps telling you we're not talking about Hartle/Hawking. The only one who keeps introducing Hartle/Hawking is you, so why do you keep asking?

That is all cavediver ever talks about.

This is response to a message by Son Goku in the preceding msg 150.

Here

cavediver says, I agree, it's a tough one. I guess I've always gone with Hartle Hawking, as it seems more in tune with the spirit (or my perception of the spirit) of FRW and GR in general. If you can appreciate the globe (north pole, south pole) analogy of a closed FRW, you have gained a real insight into GR. You can then take that picture and easily expand into the current FLRW picture.
Talking about pushing through the singularity, while quite possibly what happened, does not give such the large-scale insight. So I guess I'm more reacting out of defense of my own presentation, and others may well say that FRW with its singularity is more in tune with your picture than mine, where I ignore the singularity by silently invoking No-Boundary.

cavediver ignores the singularity of the standard model.

cavediver SILENTLY invokes the No-Boundry of Hartle Hawking hypothesis without telling you he did.

Unless there is something I misunderstand about, "I ignore the singularity by silently invoking No-Boundary".

Percy writes:

But Hartle/Hawking or not, standard Big Bang or not, inflation or not, they're all irrelevant to the question of whether we have evidence supporting the existence of the universe prior to T=10^-43 seconds.

I thought it did have a bearing on the question, but maybe I am wrong and you can straighten me out.

The standard Big Bang with inflation.
The universe and time had a beginning in the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago.
GR says there should be a singularity in our past.
Singularity is a place where the math breaks down and we don't know what is there.

This model requires a beginning.

The Hartle Hawking No-Boundry hypothesis has a self-contained universe in imaginary time and all it has to do is begin to expand. Thus Hawking's claim he has proved we don't need God.

This model does not require a beginning.

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 109 by Percy, posted 03-28-2008 1:56 PM		Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 111 by Percy, posted 03-29-2008 7:52 AM		ICANT has replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 112 of 115 (462016)
03-29-2008 12:20 PM

Reply to: Message 111 by Percy
03-29-2008 7:52 AM

Re-Analogy

Hi Percy,

Percy writes:

ICANT, please focus on the current sub-topic of the meteor and whether something exists before you first see it.
The question was, do you believe the evidence supports the view that the meteor existed before it came into view?

In previous messages I satated:

Message 108

Percy writes:

So here's the question for you. Before the meteor (doesn't matter which one) comes into view on the video, did it exist? Your answer should be, "Of course."

I like them all but I will refer to the second one.

The screen is blank sky and the meteor appears. To me it seems to appear out of an absence of anything.

Did it exist before its appearance? I believe it did because it could not just appear out of the absence of anything. Can I prove it did? No.

You did not like my word prove.

Message 108

Percy writes:

You didn't like those answers.

You state in Message 109

Percy writes:

Let's not use the word "prove". Science doesn't deal in proofs. Do you believe the evidence supports, as at least one of the viable possibilities, that the meteor existed before it first came into view?

I did not respond to this and will now. I thought theories did not deal in proofs. I thought science dealt in facts.

In Message 106 you stated.

We can see the universe today and we can see it billions of years ago. And for the period before that, all our experience says that objects not in our direct view continue to exist. The evidence that the universe existed is as strong for T=10^-43 as it is for T=10^-42, for T=10^-41, for T=10^-40, and so forth. You're drawing an arbitrary line and saying before T=10^-43 seconds the universe did not exist, and that makes no sense.

There is no visible, testable evidence for anything prior to T=10^-43 seconds.

The only way for anything to be there is found in the mind of a human being. You have to believe it is there.

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 111 by Percy, posted 03-29-2008 7:52 AM		Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 113 by Admin, posted 03-29-2008 12:50 PM		ICANT has not replied

ICANT

Member

Posts: 6769

From: SSC

Joined: 03-12-2007

Member Rating: 1.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 114 of 115 (462699)
04-07-2008 11:51 AM

Reply to: Message 111 by Percy
03-29-2008 7:52 AM

Re-Analogy

Hi Percy,

Sorry it took so long to get back to the topic I had many pressing problems to attend too.

Percy writes:

ICANT, please focus on the current sub-topic of the meteor and whether something exists before you first see it.

In Message 108 I stated:

Did it exist before its appearance? I believe it did because it could not just appear out of the absence of anything. Can I prove it did? No.

I think I said I believe it existed.

Percy writes:

The question was, do you believe the evidence supports the view that the meteor existed before it came into view?

I will go with the above answer, I believe it existed.

In Message 106 You state:

Your answer should be, "Yes, of course it existed, though of course things would have happened to it throughout time, most likely collisions, and there must have been a time at which the meteor actually formed and before which there was no meteor, but whatever changes the meteor itself might have experienced, most certainly the matter comprising that meteor always existed."

Bolding mine.

Can I conclude from this that you believe the universe has always existed in some form?

If so I agree with you.

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 111 by Percy, posted 03-29-2008 7:52 AM		Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 115 by Percy, posted 04-07-2008 3:24 PM		ICANT has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	PaulK, Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0