|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
IamJoseph, this is a science thread. You've had lots of time with the Biblical references. That's enough.
Also whether or not Genesis and BBT are in agreement it makes no difference to problems with the big bang. In fact, I would presume that you would think tha it's being in agreement with Genesis is a mark in it's favour. So drop this or be suspended for a day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Actually, there is a factor which can contradict the finite aspect of the universe, according to the BBT, and to my knowledge no one has mentioned it.
That there was an event which caused an expansion, also says there was something pre-universe, because there had to be something which caused a single primal particle to 'expand', and this would have to be a product lingering from pre-BB phase. The issue then is, what is currently universe contained, which can be a candidate for a pre-universe product? This says, the BBT does not condone a finite universe. Yes/No? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Put your money were your mouth is and start a thread to explore Genesis as a (testable?) scientific hypothesis.
If you want to restrict it to cosmology you could even set it up as a BBT Vs Genesis thread in one of the religious forums where the two are examined as rival competing theories in terms of prediction and verification of empirically observed results. I think your illogical notions of finitenes and your hindsight ridden interpretations/"predictions" will be exposed for the flawed, unscientific subjectively derived nonsense that they so obviously are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
That there was an event which caused an expansion, also says there was something pre-universe, because there had to be something which caused a single primal particle to 'expand', and this would have to be a product lingering from pre-BB phase. This is just an agument of first causes.At some point in the chain there has to be an uncaused. The issue then is, what is currently universe contained, which can be a candidate for a pre-universe product? Maybe the universe is the uncaused event in which case there is no "pre universe product". Maybe there is a wider multiverse in which case there is.Objective scientific investigation based on verification by prediction is the only means by which we should assess the validity of any hypotheses regarding these questions. At the moment the only reliable answer available - is that we do not know.
This says, the BBT does not condone a finite universe. Yes/No?
What?Your obsessive lust for finiteness is a theistically derived philosophical requirement with no basis in observation and one which has already been demonstrated to be logically flawed even if your biblical source is accepted. Start a new thread if you want to continue with this. I am happy to keep pointing out your flawed logic for as long as you are willing to keep pushing it. But this is not the place. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Could you perhaps tone down the language a bit in the manifesto in your signature? Sure Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given. All great truths begin as blasphemies I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
There can be only one truth about the universe origins, not many truths. Yeah but I doubt society will ever agree on any ONE truth.
Then you should see the inner light of logic. I do see the logic, the logic is what removes the meta-physical.
Its enough to drive you potty. Pot drives me potty, nothing else All great truths begin as blasphemies I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
That there was an event which caused an expansion, also says there was something pre-universe, because there had to be something which caused a single primal particle to 'expand', and this would have to be a product lingering from pre-BB phase. As I understand it, if its just expantion that you are talking about and the cause for it, it has been predicted to be the Higgs field that caused the expantion itself. The particles went from massless to acting as if they had mass, causing the expantion. This is post-BB, nano-seconds post but, post none the less. All great truths begin as blasphemies I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1614 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
ah. not a pointless point, yet, more than one road leads to Rome.
science is observation. you run an experiment, to OBSERVE. but until you ask the right question, your not looking for the answer. same goes for observation, which is all science truly is. documented observations. if you do not run the correct experiment, you observe nothing. now this topic is titled about problems with the most accepted "theory" which is a guess based on tentative math and observations within our abilities. it is NOT meant for such a theory to be accepted, because it is not a tested proven law. and such as it is, but a stepping stone in the right direction with some truths and half truths on to the path of the hopeful : TRUTH. what IS sad is acceptance of half truths by scientists they kill the reason of science, which is to know the truth, that knowing it mankind will excel. i have not yet participated with a debate on this topic in which the debaters where searching for a greater understanding by :a: identifying and acknowlodging faults. b: searching for the answers. c: searching for a way to check or double checked the observed new answers by experimentation or mass logic. it should not be surprising that on questions with which a guess must be made because you lack understanding of the question, or data, that the guesses of the majority are almost always the correct answer. but that is : almost always. the big bang theory is ascribing all of the universe as ONE, in its evolution of its "manys". these "many s" are still "as one" in its ascription to the math. the singularity is inevitable. with no outside interactions no ONE thing with NO environment can evolve unless it is a self directed evolvment. direction...being the key. with no direction a timeless always was in its form holds no possibilities for evolution of itself without outside interaction of another force. which, as long as two forces are, the question "before that" is relevant. which is not true T=0, but a path after. this is your science, that you have put your trust and faith in, that the big bang is the most probable theory, and it has issues. but aside from that REASON: of the problems, what is it REALLY saying? from ALL observation, ALL math, ALL SCIENCE it says: T=0 is inevitable. the only thing scientists have not done, is evaluate that statement for what it DOES say, by what it CANNOT say, based on what now is, and what was, after the T=0 event by all observation. the fault, is the arrogance, and unwillingness, of science as a whole to endorse God. or any such being greater than science itself which they worship. but the science of God is the science of all that is. since God is existence, so also are all that exist a part of God. to become religious, is when a scientist understands the definition of God, and understands the universal language enough, that they find his definition reiterated over and over again by the text and events that prove what science of today rejects. the issue here of this site is to argue creation and evolution ce'st nes pas? i bring the argument that all of science, and that the evolution of all things, is therefore proof only of what it has tried to disprove; which is: that God is. but much to the dismay of religious peoples, creationists and scientists alike, who reject the truth, is: the definition of God does not fit what they envision. albeit: is that not like science? that the truth is almost never what you wish for it to be, yet it is, what it is. maybe not in this age, maybe never. but the truth will be known to all one day. if they exist. if existence itself, which recycles all things in its grandeur for its hidden reasons, recycles all but your consciousness to live in a body that lasts forever more, then you will know. long after I'm forgotten i pray one day the truth will be known to those who live in flesh, before there flesh is lost to them. because how much better a decision will people make in there fleshly living lives armed with such evidence as the indisputable truth and proof that God is? you see, many say; ill believe it when i see it. but...they see it and still dont believe. so for that: it is those who believe who will see. and not the other way around. i hope one day you or perhaps others who debate the topic of the start of the universe and all things; will debate honestly. and look for the truth by observing. and that by all observation; the law of existence IS solid. i dont know my part in this life, but whatever comes will come. perhaps i may never know that i have aided my fellow mankind in any way, towards any good thing; but in my obvious destitude, what gifts God has given me to give, i pray even one individual might be blessed as i give it away. good luck in your debates. perhaps ill return before too long and put my two cents in keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your description of science as observation is a commonly held misapprehension. Especially amongst those of a creationst persuasion.
The basis of science is testing. Not observation per se. Testing theories against the facts of nature. Testing hypotheses. Observation is a means to an end in this respect not an end in itself. Unless the conclusions we make about nature are tested against nature itself they are unscientific and, in any objective terms, not to be considered reliable. That is why verification by prediction is the gold standard of scientific investigation. We can make our theories fit known facts. We can work our philosophical bias and subjective interpretations around known evidence. We can easily fool ourselves into believing false explanations for known phenomenon. But it is all but impossible to make new facts of nature fit our theories of nature. Predictions of new physical phenomenon made from theory and verified by observation are the most objective tests of theory possible.Thus we achieve a level of objectivity by means of predicted results that is impossible through explanatory theories alone. Current cosmological models have passed such tests. With flying colours. Until someone can predict new and as yet unknown physical phenomenon by means of the God hypothesis such conclusions will rightfully be considered unreliable, unscientific and ultimately somewhat pointless.What new phenomenon has the creationist or IDists method discovered recently? Or indeed ever? In short - Science is a philosophy and method of discovery whilst creationism (in all it's various ID forms) is a philosophy of ignorance. Enjoy Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
it is NOT meant for such a theory to be accepted, because it is not a tested proven law. General Relativity IS a law. GR goes perfectly with the BBT.
and such as it is, but a stepping stone in the right direction with some truths and half truths on to the path of the hopeful : TRUTH. If you are going to define truth as ONLY what your faith helps you believe, then no amount of evidence will ever suffice.
have not yet participated with a debate on this topic in which the debaters where searching for a greater understanding by : a: identifying and acknowlodging faults. What faults?
c: searching for a way to check or double checked the observed new answers by experimentation or mass logic. Mass logic? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
it should not be surprising that on questions with which a guess must be made because you lack understanding of the question, or data, that the guesses of the majority are almost always the correct answer. but that is : almost always. You do understand that you are making a case against the belief in God with that statement right?
the singularity is inevitable Not with all theories, some theories don't have a singularity.
which, as long as two forces are, the question "before that" is relevant. First you need to devote a long time to studying what the 'forces' are before you can just guess where they came from or how they act.
T=0 is inevitable. You do understand that T=O isn't the moment when time began right?
the fault, is the arrogance, and unwillingness, of science as a whole to endorse God. Shouldn't that read , "the fault, is the arrogance, and unwillingness, of science as a whole to endorse the CHRISTIAN God." What if science endorses Zeus, would you be ok with that? "ALL HAIL ZUES THE MIGHTY CREATOR OF T=O", how would that work?
which is: that God is. Let me understand you right, you say that science is incomplete with its theories and mathematical predictions and then turn around and give this statement, 'God is'!!! What does that mean? Can you clarify any of that? Do you have any experiments or observable tests to justify that statement? You can't argue sciences incompleteness with 'God is'. With your logic anything 'just is'. That clarifies nothing.
your consciousness to live in a body that lasts forever more, Thats your ego talking there, YOU think you last forever. Typical ego-centric religious babel.
so for that: it is those who believe who will see. and not the other way around. What will you see?
i hope one day you or perhaps others who debate the topic of the start of the universe and all things; will debate honestly. We are trying to but, that entails us excluding superstitions about invisible beings who duel in the minds of the delusional
and look for the truth by observing. Without speaking metaphorically how have you observed God? All great truths begin as blasphemies I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1614 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
The basis of science is testing. Not observation per se. you observe the test results. i don't expect everyone to "get it" the point of my post is i expect everyone to "overlook" the truth. because what is simple, is made complicated because the truth is too easy and taken for granted. since i will not be able to reply to the message directly after yours due to a posting time limit, and my time to leave PC access, i will respond to the post below yours with this: to debate to win based on assumptions that no scientist would ever chance calling anything but "tentative" based on current observations within limits yet limited, to being called an unproven "theory" for the sake of continuance of the field of exploring the beginning of all things, is a foolish endeavor that only promotes your own ignorance in a field that promotes string theory and other now popular but just as science fiction as string theory, all for the sake of looking for the answer to the question that all of current science says: what did the universe look like in the "location' of space time known as T=0. if you didn't understand that understand this: to be mocked by ignorant people who believe themselves smarter than they are makes a fool feel less foolish. i would hope in the future there are at least some that do come to this site to sort out and document potentials that can be explored by logic and observation, via testing or pure observation of already tested links to further science in its goal of understanding what it is, to exist. my time is done, and i go to visit my father in the hospital (heart attack, he's doing fine tho) i don't mind being called a fool, and i wish i time to argue with you (30 min limit kills debate potential) because i would so like to see you "prove" your statements. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
I would have expected that someone with an imposed posting limit would use their time to address the topic.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
How does the BBT come up with a conclusion that the size of the singularity must have been about pea-size? Or an atom-size or less? How do we know it must have been infinitely small size? Because even if we were able to condense matter(sqeezing the atoms so that electrons and the nucleus become one body), wouldn't we get a singularity 1 billion times greater in size than our Sun? According to my calculations, the Earth could be shrinked to just 100 metres.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How does the BBT come up with a conclusion that the size of the singularity must have been about pea-size? Or an atom-size or less? How do we know it must have been infinitely small size? From the math from Genereal Relativity. They can calculate back to the smallest possible timescale where the math in GR breaks down into a singularity.
Because even if we were able to condense matter(sqeezing the atoms so that electrons and the nucleus become one body), wouldn't we get a singularity 1 billion times greater in size than our Sun? According to my calculations, the Earth could be shrinked to just 100 metres. Here, maybe that will help, I dunno.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
you observe the test results. i don't expect everyone to "get it" It appears to be you that is not getting it. Nobody is denying that science involves observation. However simply observing things and explaining them is not scientific investigation. It is the testing of hypotheses that makes scientific investigation the powerful tool that it is. Without the test of theories against the facts of nature we simply have untested hypotheses at best, and subjectively derived philosophically biased wishful thinking at worst. Whilst I would defend current cosmological models specifically with regard to having been tested against nature by means of prediction this is kind of off topic. As such I will propose a new topic on this subject more generally sometime soon.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024