Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 181 of 389 (623840)
07-13-2011 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by IamJoseph
07-13-2011 9:19 PM


Re: Problem with the big bang
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2011 9:19 PM IamJoseph has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 182 of 389 (623841)
07-13-2011 10:32 PM


Singularity
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2011 11:08 PM AZPaul3 has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 183 of 389 (623843)
07-13-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by AZPaul3
07-13-2011 10:32 PM


Re: Singularity
quote:
Since the known "laws of physics" do not apply neither do your conclusions.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by AZPaul3, posted 07-13-2011 10:32 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by AZPaul3, posted 07-13-2011 11:35 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 186 by Panda, posted 07-14-2011 5:07 AM IamJoseph has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 184 of 389 (623846)
07-13-2011 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by IamJoseph
07-13-2011 11:08 PM


Re: Singularity
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2011 11:08 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by IamJoseph, posted 07-14-2011 12:24 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 185 of 389 (623848)
07-14-2011 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by AZPaul3
07-13-2011 11:35 PM


Re: Singularity
Apparently you are wrong from A-Z. Not knowing when laws kicked in or became applicable does not vindicate your stance!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by AZPaul3, posted 07-13-2011 11:35 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 186 of 389 (623867)
07-14-2011 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by IamJoseph
07-13-2011 11:08 PM


Re: Singularity
IamJoseph writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2011 11:08 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by IamJoseph, posted 07-14-2011 5:23 AM Panda has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 187 of 389 (623869)
07-14-2011 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Panda
07-14-2011 5:07 AM


Re: Singularity
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Panda, posted 07-14-2011 5:07 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Panda, posted 07-14-2011 6:10 AM IamJoseph has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 188 of 389 (623872)
07-14-2011 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by IamJoseph
07-14-2011 5:23 AM


Re: Singularity
IamJoseph writes:
You said it, but you did not show how this is possible.
Oh - sorry. I thought it was a 'write complete and utter gibberish' competition.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by IamJoseph, posted 07-14-2011 5:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by IamJoseph, posted 07-14-2011 8:27 AM Panda has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 189 of 389 (623878)
07-14-2011 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Panda
07-14-2011 6:10 AM


Re: Singularity
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Panda, posted 07-14-2011 6:10 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Panda, posted 07-14-2011 8:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 190 of 389 (623879)
07-14-2011 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by IamJoseph
07-14-2011 8:27 AM


Re: Singularity
IamJoseph writes:
Go ahead and blame my english or me - which I'll crack you to smitherens any time. Its my only tongue.
The irony is strong in this one.
IamJoseph writes:
Is my english confusing?
If you were able to read my previous reply then you would have the answer to this already.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by IamJoseph, posted 07-14-2011 8:27 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by IamJoseph, posted 07-14-2011 9:03 AM Panda has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 191 of 389 (623880)
07-14-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Panda
07-14-2011 8:55 AM


Re: Singularity
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Panda, posted 07-14-2011 8:55 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Panda, posted 07-14-2011 9:13 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 192 of 389 (623881)
07-14-2011 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by IamJoseph
07-14-2011 9:03 AM


Re: Singularity
IamJoseph writes:
a new song is a new sing - but it was always universe contained. The point here.
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.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by IamJoseph, posted 07-14-2011 9:03 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 193 of 389 (623887)
07-14-2011 10:33 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Pressie, posted 07-15-2011 7:43 AM IamJoseph has replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 194 of 389 (623993)
07-15-2011 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by IamJoseph
07-14-2011 10:33 AM


IamJoseph writes:
As everyone is aware, evolution is based on CHANGES. Evolving and elevations are the result of changes.
Changes in elevations are covered under the word evolution.
IamJoseph writes:
Changes says the existing material has undergone an osmosis,
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.
IamJoseph writes:
.. mixing part of itself with part of something else [crudely put].
No, it doesn’t mean that. Most changes have nothing to do with a membrane as is described in osmosis.
IamJoseph writes:
But in all cases, the material changed to or changed from - is already existant.
No, it isn’t. New properties arise through mutations in DNA, for example.
IamJoseph writes:
There is technically nothing new from outside of the universe.
Is that what you believe? Any evidence? A believe without evidence doesn’t mean much.
IamJoseph writes:
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.
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).
IamJoseph writes:
Changes is a result of LAWS. Without the law which directs an action, there would be no changes.
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.
PS, what does this have to do with the Big Bang?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by IamJoseph, posted 07-14-2011 10:33 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by IamJoseph, posted 07-15-2011 8:21 AM Pressie has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 195 of 389 (623997)
07-15-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Pressie
07-15-2011 7:43 AM


quote:
Changes in elevations are covered under the word evolution.
Changes; inter-changes; osmosis. Your distinction is petty and won't stand up to the fundamental impacts here.
quote:
.. mixing part of itself with part of something else [crudely put].
No, it doesn’t mean that. Most changes have nothing to do with a membrane as is described in osmosis.
Ok. They undergo a change though - your word.
quote:
IamJoseph writes:
But in all cases, the material changed to or changed from - is already existant.
No, it isn’t. New properties arise through mutations in DNA, for example.
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:
IamJoseph writes:
There is technically nothing new from outside of the universe.
Is that what you believe? Any evidence? A believe without evidence doesn’t mean much.
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:
IamJoseph writes:
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.
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).
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:
IamJoseph writes:
Changes is a result of LAWS. Without the law which directs an action, there would be no changes.
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.
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:
PS, what does this have to do with the Big Bang?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Pressie, posted 07-15-2011 7:43 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Pressie, posted 07-15-2011 8:57 AM IamJoseph 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