Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The infinite space of the Universe
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 329 of 380 (470125)
06-09-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Agobot
06-09-2008 2:42 PM


Doh!
Read what you have written - "spontaneous creation and annhilation of matter in the vacuum of space". My intermediate level English tells me you claim that there had been space before and during the creation of matter.
My superior knowledge of physics (as compared to you - not a difficult level to attain) tells me that this is an experimentally observed effect that you would do well to at least look up before commenting.
Happy researching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Agobot, posted 06-09-2008 2:42 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Agobot, posted 06-09-2008 5:56 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 331 of 380 (470127)
06-09-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by ICANT
06-09-2008 2:04 PM


Quantum Fluctuations
what empty space is.
Wouldn't that equal an absence of anything?
In the case of quantume fluctuations as experimentally observed - No. In this case we have the vacuum of spacetime existing rather than absolute nothingness (no dimensions, no time etc. etc.)
Whether or not the same sort of principle can be applied to the origin of the universe as a whole is much more speculative. Did we not discuss this in the T=0 thread which you abandoned when it got difficult?
Has the 300 post limit been revoked or are all the admins on holiday........?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2008 2:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2008 7:03 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 338 by IamJoseph, posted 06-10-2008 4:01 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 340 of 380 (470233)
06-10-2008 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by ICANT
06-09-2008 7:03 PM


Re: Quantum Fluctuations
Then are you saying there is no such thing as empty space?
Empty space? As in the vacuum? That does exist. Obviously. It just isn't as empty as one would suppose due to the aforementioned quantum fluctuations.
BTW I thought we agreed that there was never an absence of anything.
If time was created as part of the universe then there "never" has been a time where ther was no time by definition. If we consider some sort of abstract "before" T=0 then true nothingness has to be a possibility.
I seem to remember agreeing that by definition we would never be able to witness true nothingness given that we are limited to existing in space and time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2008 7:03 PM ICANT has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 342 of 380 (470236)
06-10-2008 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by IamJoseph
06-10-2008 4:01 AM


Re: Quantum Fluctuations
Here, I cannot see any alternative other than an external [Creator?] impacting factor being applicable
Yours is not a logical or scientific position. It is not an evidence based position. It is obviously a philosophical position wherby you have inserted your preferred theological conclusion into the first god shaped gap available based on your incredulity regarding any other possible answer.
This cannot be dismissed solely because the word Creator is used, because it means science and logic itself points at this premise - by the process of elimination.
It is being dismissed not because of any particular word or concept but because of your flawed thinking. If science was simply inserting ones subjectively derived explanations into every available gap in knowledge then we would have called it religion and remained in our caves.
You assume that the natural state of nothingness is to remain so. You also assume a form of causality and determinism that we know to be false even in the observable universe.
Neither of these assumptions are justified based on any evidence. Your creator answer also requires a whole heap of other implicit assumptions regarding uncaused creators, eternity etc. etc. All of which are themselves completely unevidenced.
The honest answer is that we do not know the answers to these questions.
Pretending that your own subjectively dervied preferred answer is somehow rationally justified on the basis that any answer is better than no answer is just silly thinking of the most delusional kind

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by IamJoseph, posted 06-10-2008 4:01 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 344 of 380 (470264)
06-10-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Buzsaw
06-10-2008 10:53 AM


Back Again
Has the post limit been extended?
What has hit home to me in this thread is that what is not observable, i.e. invisible to sight touch, feel, etc is what allegedly effected the big bang. I'm referring to space and time.
The effects of spaectime curvature are very observable. In fact they are calcuble and able to be predicted to a very high degree of accuracy. How are the aspects of your proposed alternative observable? What predictions do you make with your theory and how can we verify or refute these? Can your cosmological model explain and calculate the observed effects of slowing clocks in gravitational fields, the apparent bending of light etc. etc. etc.
Both of the above POVs observe and interpret according to their respective invisible sources. The only difference is that the big bang folks claim to observe space and time by curvature etc. I say, nonsense. That would be like us claiming that we observe God, the designer in design, complexity, etc.
No Buz. They are not equal points of view. One is based on specific repeatable measurable predicted results. The other flies in the face of ll the observable evidence.
General Realativity is rightly considered one of the crowning achievemnets of science. It did not just explain known phenomenon. It predicted and led to the experimental and observational discovery of new phenomenon. It predicted these phenomenon and allowed us to verify their existence to incredible measurable accuracy.
Time dilation in gravitational fields, bending of light in spacetime, black holes etc. etc. All of these things we know about only because GR predicted them and we have subsequently observed them to be true.
No creationist theory has ever led to any new discovery or any new knowledge. EVER.
At best creationist theories are a hotchpotch of alternative explanations for the effects and phenomenon that proper scientific theories have already predicted, discovered and uncovered.
You yourself were trying to pass off the highly detailed, and accurately verified predictions of GR regarding time dilation as an effect of air resistance .
Any explanation will do huh? But without GR you would not even know that there was a phenomenon to explain in the first place!!
Creationist theories make no verifiable predictions. As a result no new knowledge has ever been gained as a result of any creationist theory.
That Buz is the difference. To claim equivelence between the two is just an outrageous lie or a demonstration of complete incomprehension.
Where is the creationist Einstein? One who will expand the limits of human knowledge with his insight and theories regarding God based creation that subsequently lead to verifiable predictions of new, and as yet unknown, physical phenomenon.
I predict that there will never be such an individual beacause creationist theories are incapable of discovering new naturalphysical evidence. Incapable because they are just wrong. Want to bet against me?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Buzsaw, posted 06-10-2008 10:53 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by ICANT, posted 06-10-2008 8:31 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 371 of 380 (470601)
06-11-2008 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by ICANT
06-10-2008 8:31 PM


Re: Back Again
So when did the BBT predict inflation?
Never. To my knowldge.
Was it some 50 years or more after the theory?
When there was enough problems with the BBT that it should have been discarded.
Really? What problems are these?
Inflation was not predicted. It was necessary or the BBT was dead. It was an invented add on theory to save a failed theory.
No. Not at all. Where do you get this stuff from?
BB theory is based mainly on the following three things -
1) Observed ongoing expansion of the universe.
2) Abundance of light elements as is both observed and predicted as a logical consequence of BB theory.
3) Predicted existence, and specific measurable value, of the CMB. This again is a necessary and logical consequence of BB theory
From this we conclude that the universe has evolved (and continues to evolve) from a very hot, very dense, very small prior state.
This is the main conclusion of BB.
Inflation (or lack of it) changes none of the above.
If any of the 3 things listed above had been found to be wrong or significantly different BB theory would indeed be in trouble. However none of these have been found to be wrong or significantly different. Thus this problem you speak of seems to be non-existant.
It was an invented add on theory to save a failed theory
Failed theory? On what basis had BB been refuted? On what basis had the verified predictions of BB been shown to be invalid?
Inflation is indeed an add-on but it replaces an evidenceless assumption regarding the original BB theory rather than anything at all key to BB theory as a wwhole. The rate of expansion has little or nothing to do with any of the things listed above and on which BBT is ultimately based.
It was indeed initially assumed that the rate of expansion was constant. However this was an assumption not based on any evidence.
As it turns out if the rate of expansion had been constant we would expect things to be much more uniform than they are observed to be. Inflation was thus proposed to explain the "clumpiness" of the observed universe.
COBE, WMAP etc. have since largely verified inflatiionary theory and it is now part of the established BB model.
I am still not sure why you think any of this is a hige problem for BB theory?
In your bizzarre quest to find fault with the theory (I still do not understand why your theistic position is so hostile to the evolution of the universe as described by BBT?) you seem to have leapt upon a non-argument.
Have you ever read any popular science books on the BB? The first Three Minutes etc. "The Big Bang" by Simon Singh is particularly accessible book on the subject detailing the history of the various competing theories regarding the universe and the discoveries involved in the eventual conclusion. If you are going to persist in discussing these topics you really should familiarise yourself with the subject in a bit more detail.
Or do you fear that if you read a convincing book on the subject you might be tempted over to the dark side........?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by ICANT, posted 06-10-2008 8:31 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by lyx2no, posted 06-11-2008 2:50 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 379 by ICANT, posted 06-12-2008 12:59 AM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 373 of 380 (470649)
06-11-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by lyx2no
06-11-2008 2:50 PM


Inflation
I shall look out for it!!
As I understand it the main prediction of inflationary theory is gravitational waves of a very specific nature.
http://scitizen.com/...Gravitational-waves-from-the-Big-Bang
However it seems that this has recently been called into question as a viable means of verification on the grounds that the same phenomenon can be produced by other means.
I would be interested to hear if anybody knows the latest thinking on this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by lyx2no, posted 06-11-2008 2:50 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2008 5:15 PM Straggler has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024