|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Because we are talking emperically, not theologically, right? And science is laws, as we see the entire universe rests on majestic laws throughout - it was either created in wisdom or became such on its own [only two possibilities apply]. We know that an action results only via an interaction - whch says a true pristine ONE cannot create an action. Thus, if the BBT is based on a ONE singular, indivisible, irreducible entity, with nothing else yet existing at the initiation point - it cannot expand or go BOOM! No action can occur here. This leaves the only plausable alternative of a duality construct. Consider the first human or the frst zebra: the first example would have to be a positive [male]/negative [female] duality. The situation at the BB point is even more critical: there was no enviornemnt yet. Admittedly, this scenario is based on an absolutely fnite universe - a pivital factor most neo scientists run far from - they either ignore this or produce novel manipulations around it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Al, Joseph,
You do know what the "singularity" is, do you not? When we use our theories to run the universe backward we come to a period just a small split second after the "beginning" where our theories break down. They cannot show us what the universe was or what it looked like from that point back. We cannot say, and so you cannot say, what the attributes of this period were (called the singularity only because it needs some name so we can have conversations about it), what rules or laws applied or did not apply or what conditions, energies, temperatures, or anything else about this "thing" were. It is a period of total ignorance for us.
To keep so much motion so densely compressed and confined in so little volume or rather an absence of volume would imply application of a terrible force. Here is the problem. The laws of physics as they stand do not allow anything like that. Since the known "laws of physics" do not apply neither do your conclusions.
Thus, if the BBT is based on a ONE singular, indivisible, irreducible entity, with nothing else yet existing at the initiation point - it cannot expand or go BOOM! No action can occur here. The Big Bang Theory is not based on the singularity but on the periods of our knowledge well after the singularity period. Your assumption is faulty and thus so is your conclusion. Edited by AZPaul3, : In bold changed "before" to "after". Thanks for the correction, Moose.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This is what I referred to as escapist, novel manipulation; it is senseless and has no reasoning behind it - it cannot refer to majestic laws because it is not specifically conducive to anything as its resultant subsequence. If the laws of physics break down [which I agree with, because laws need a law maker; or they never existed once - else we would not measure the universe's life span, and had to be introduced as laws], then we can start at the point when laws did kick in. Here, we still cannot condone a ONE by itself as conducive to any action whatsoever. An external impact, pre-universe, must be at the helm to triger an action. There is no scientific alternative to this factor. A better, scientific scenario: 1. All matter and contents of the universe as we know it was ushered simultainiously. Nothing new applies - because there was nowhere else for anything knew to come from - now or then. At this point no laws [science] yet existed. Everything was one indecipherable mush; nothing was seperate or seperated to have its own identity: how could they w/o laws? Here, size also does not factor in - because size is relative and dependent on an observer - both never existed yet. 2. Laws were enacted. Before this time, there was no 2 or 2+2 = 4; nor H or H20 - water never yet existed. Because no laws yet existed. The laws gave specific attributes to the mush [matter]. Therein, and only therefter, a seperation or action could occur, specific to the laws embedded in the mush. 3. What was the first action, or the first thing seperated? This is LIGHT; it was seperated from the void [mush]. Light is the primodial force and independent of star light: stars cannot produce light unless light pre-existed the stars. Light is the anticipatory factor for everything, including life and stars, and a direct result of laws [aka a command]. It does appear a correct protocol. 4. What should be listed after light - which other products? This becomes a mute point because it will account for trillions of actions. What is relevant for humans is what came next relative to humans. Namely what came next for earth - the subject for us. These should include those actions which anticipate life; what can these be? How about a focusing on this solar system, namely the critical incline of the earth relative to our sun, such as the critical seperation of DAY and NIGHT? How about getting closer to the earth now, because its about anticipation of life - like the seperation of water from land, to cater to a host of life forms which will appear? What happens when we extend this thread - we find the first life form being vegetation - which is again anticipatory to all life forms fortheir sustainence. It is a slight of hand casino science which prefers to talk science, while also accepting a foundation based on a scienceless premise. If there was no laws or laws are deemed to emerge out of nothing - then there cannot be anything called science. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Don't know where to start.
This is what I referred to as escapist, novel manipulation; it is senseless and has no reasoning behind it - it cannot refer to majestic laws because it is not specifically conducive to anything as its resultant subsequence. What a overwhelming dump of nonsensical BS. Apparently English is not your native, nor foreign, language. And the rest of this slop of indecipherable garbage is not worth the effort to attempt any kind of translation even if we had some kind of rosetta stone. I think I'll pass on this one.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Apparently you are wrong from A-Z. Not knowing when laws kicked in or became applicable does not vindicate your stance!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
More than one [several] applies, regardless of the matter and contents of it. New things can always be. Just because science [rules not laws] hasn't always been or will be, doesn't mean that everything is past our knowledge. The main tree of thought branches into many observers: each can view [know] what there is. Relative size makes for a poor measurement.
1. All matter and contents of the universe as we know it was ushered simultainiously. Nothing new applies - because there was nowhere else for anything knew to come from - now or then. At this point no laws [science] yet existed. Everything was one indecipherable mush; nothing was seperate or seperated to have its own identity: how could they w/o laws? Here, size also does not factor in - because size is relative and dependent on an observer - both never existed yet.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You said it, but you did not show how this is possible. In a finite realm, new things cannot emerge. What is credible instead, is that the laws embedded in the same stuff is able to evolve into percieved new things, because of the program which fosters this extension - this is varied from your statement of new. There is nowhere else for new to come from - consider the first point of the universe if you will: there is no 'somewhere else'. Is a song new - or that its notes were always dangling within the universe? The situation is like a compounded permutation, as in a lotto which has billions of possibilities with just 10 digits; all potentials are bound up in the same realm. One can see this as anticipatory programmed, catering for all future possibilities. Gun Powder, Newton's laws of motion and MCSq are not new - they are percieved newly as we advance in our knowledge quotient; these existed from the beginning of the first point, with nowhere else to come from. New violates the finite factor.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: Oh - sorry. I thought it was a 'write complete and utter gibberish' competition. You said it, but you did not show how this is possible. Nothing I wrote makes sense. It was not even structured correctly. The fact that you thought it had meaning says an awful lot about your grasp of the English language.Clearly you can only guess at what people are writing, but never actually read and comprehend. While I am sure that you enjoy imagining what people are trying to say, it is frustrating for those trying to actually communicate with you. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Go ahead and blame my english or me - which I'll crack you to smitherens any time. Its my only tongue.
Now how about attending the responses with contextual responsa. Tell us how if laws once never existed, that they would still behave lawlessly when they did come into being - tell us how the first entity would incur an expansion or a big bang - who/what would they collide with - and still remain the frst entity? Is my english confusing?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: The irony is strong in this one.
Go ahead and blame my english or me - which I'll crack you to smitherens any time. Its my only tongue. IamJoseph writes: If you were able to read my previous reply then you would have the answer to this already. Is my english confusing? If you continue to think that your English is perfectly understandable: you will continue to babble incoherently.And if you continue to only guess what people are writing: you will continue to be ignorant of what people are actually writing. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No sir! This does NOT answer the specific question. Perhaps you need to define NEW to your self in this instant. In the context of new things occuring in the universe, it means new things entering which were not in the universe before; else it is a childish superfluous premise This is certainly not the same as in new application of the existing. I repeat: technically, there is nothing new in the universe; everything was always universe contained. There is no 'some other place' aside from this universe, no matter how one wants to spin it. I provided you with relevant examples: a new song is a new sing - but it was always universe contained. The point here. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: If you continue to think that your English is perfectly understandable: you will continue to babble incoherently. a new song is a new sing - but it was always universe contained. The point here.And if you continue to only guess what people are writing: you will continue to be ignorant of what people are actually writing. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
As everyone is aware, evolution is based on CHANGES. Evolving and elevations are the result of changes.
Changes says the existing material has undergone an osmosis, mixing part of itself with part of something else [crudely put]. But in all cases, the material changed to or changed from - is already existant. There is technically nothing new from outside of the universe. The only conclusion here is all the changes we percieve as new - are as old as the universe itself; else we could not witness it. Changes is a result of LAWS. Without the law which directs an action, there would be no changes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: Changes in elevations are covered under the word evolution. As everyone is aware, evolution is based on CHANGES. Evolving and elevations are the result of changes. IamJoseph writes: Not at all. Osmosis is covered under the word ‘evolution’. Not all changes have anything to do with osmosis. So, no, changes don’t say what you claim. Changes says the existing material has undergone an osmosis, IamJoseph writes: No, it doesn’t mean that. Most changes have nothing to do with a membrane as is described in osmosis. .. mixing part of itself with part of something else [crudely put]. IamJoseph writes: No, it isn’t. New properties arise through mutations in DNA, for example. But in all cases, the material changed to or changed from - is already existant. IamJoseph writes: Is that what you believe? Any evidence? A believe without evidence doesn’t mean much. There is technically nothing new from outside of the universe. IamJoseph writes: Not at all. We do see changes giving rise to new properties. Look at changes originating from changes in DNA, for example. A sequence in DNA did not exist before, then they do. Brand new. 13.75 billion years younger than the Universe (give or take 0.11 billion years). The only conclusion here is all the changes we percieve as new - are as old as the universe itself; else we could not witness it. IamJoseph writes: No, not at all. We can’t change the behaviour of energy and matter. We can just describe that behaviour and call them laws. Changes will happen regardless of how we describe them. Changes is a result of LAWS. Without the law which directs an action, there would be no changes. PS, what does this have to do with the Big Bang?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Changes; inter-changes; osmosis. Your distinction is petty and won't stand up to the fundamental impacts here.
quote: Ok. They undergo a change though - your word.
quote: Yes, I would say this accounts for 99.9% of cases, namely the seed factor rules. This still means the internal mechanism which produced the changed result is internal of the universe: it is not new. Technically, new = from outside the universe, which violates the finite factor.
quote: From where, applies? If one holds a finite uni view, the question becomes mute. If one sees stars producing light, it does not also mean light was initiated by stars; the reverse applies. The stars, like all other products in the universe which are gone by and will go by, are limited to the components of this universe.
quote: Compare with a song, a pineapple or a car. These too never perceptively existed before. However, if one could travel back in time with the same knowledge and kniow how, a car could be made 5000 years ago - or 13B years ago - because the base components always existed. A new human may be unique with its own dna which never existed as a whole before - but when examined more closely, say at the quark levels, there is nothing new here. Our thoughts are likewise limited to the potentials allowed by the constraints of the universe: try and imagine a new color?
quote: Fact is, the universe operates on laws. This factors in accidents and random, which are also based on laws, perhaps even more complex ones. Man can one day change the behavior of energy with greater sub-atomic knowledge; one day mankind [humanity] will also be able to move Jupiter 5% to the left. Else we won't survive and not be the dominate entity in the known universe. Past historical prowess affirms this trajectory.
quote: This responded to an inferred violation of the BBT. I say the BBT is scientifically an impossibility and violates the most fundamental laws of science. The notion of not knowing what laws applies at the beginning does not resolve the issue, but only pushes the goal post in escapist mode: when the laws do start impacting - then science laws must apply. We are hard wired to accept whatever we are told, with minimal investigation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024