|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Goodness gracious, what a long word salad basically meaning absolutely nothing. Your comments won’t change the fact that evolution does not equal osmosis.
I will comment on the following, though: IamJoseph writes: Nothing described in the BB theory is violated by anything you mentioned. Your dreams don’t change reality. This responded to an inferred violation of the BBT. IamJoseph writes: What you say is very unimportant and also contradicted by reality. The only way for you to be taken seriously is to publish in a relevant scientific journal. Creationist (religious) websites don't count. Discussion forums on the internet neither. I say the BBT is scientifically impossibility and violates the most fundamental laws of science. Just remember, word salads won’t impress those real scientists. Empirical evidence is the most important thing that counts for them. IamJoseph writes: I guess that's why the standard scientific answer to the question of what happened during that first Planck second is "I don't know". The notion of not knowing what laws applies at the beginning does not resolve the issue,.. The perceived issues you have, together with what happened during that first Planck second will be resolved by scientific study. Not by word salads or people writing on forums on the internet. IamJoseph writes: No, science laws don’t ‘have to’ apply. Scientific laws are our descriptions of what we observe happens in nature. .. but only pushes the goal post in escapist mode: when the laws do start impacting - then science laws must apply. In instances where empirical evidence contradicting our descriptions of the behaviour of nature is observed, our descriptions of that behaviour are altered. We call that a change of scientific laws or we can even describe new laws.IamJoseph writes: Maybe that’s what you do. Other people don’t. Don’t project your behaviour on other people.
We are hard wired to accept whatever we are told, with minimal investigation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: That is not essential. The fundamental premise applies, whether seen as changes, inter-changes or osmosis.
quote: You have not attended the issue. Show how a pristine singular entity [with no internal or external components] can cause an action? Of course, if one accepts internal components in the first entity, it is not the first entity, which infers an infinite realm - of course this is a violation of a finite universe. Yes/No?
quote: You still have not attended the issue. Why rubbish the forum you attend, unless you are not serious about it?
quote: Granted they don't know, which I accepted already. The issue remains, what impacts when the laws of science do apply?
quote: There is no such thing as NATURE - actually.
quote: You admit that if the laws we do know of applies, the BBT is an impossibility? Deferring to the issue of not knowing what laws may apply, does not conclude that no laws apply. Its a runaway.
quote: Its not about other people but explaining an issue so we understand the basics, and reject what we cannot explain adequately and according to the laws we do know. You must not forget, the BBT is after all just a THEORY, its not a scientific fact. It is clear whatever knowledge will come by, it will be defined via laws, and the BBT will have to align with them. If its raining from above, we cannot use the arguement we do not know what occurs in the nano second of the rains dropping down. Its not a credible responsa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
You admit that if the laws we do know of applies, the BBT is an impossibility? Deferring to the issue of not knowing what laws may apply, does not conclude that no laws apply. Its a runaway. Just like Buzzsaw and so many others, you do not understand what is meant by "law". A law is simply a recognition of how things appear to behave. It is the last thing in physics that can be used dogmatically to state what can and what cannot occur, especially when one is totally ignorant of the domain of applicability of said law. Unless one is fully conversant in the mathematics and physics that underlie any particular law, one would do well to avoid making pronouncements such as yours. That said, if you actually do want to discuss the meaningfulness of energy as a global concept in topologically non-trivial spacetimes, then I will be only to happy to join in. But if the BBT does appear to "break" naive interpretations of the laws of thermodynamics, then so much for naive interpretations... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I agree with that - so how do I not understand what a law is? FYI, I said the entire universe works on laws, while there has been a retreat from this, namely to some point when laws never existed or that we have no idea how any laws applied: that does NOT mean no laws existed, only we were unable yet to recognize it We have no choice but to surrender to the threshold when laws did exist. And in the latter, it is not possible to condone an action based on one singular entity.
quote: I say, very dogmatically, that a pristine one cannot perform an action by and of itself. A deflection here is not science anymore.
quote: Energy is not a global but universal premise. And energy is reliant on laws, namely on specific attributes embedded into base particles of matter. This says, before the BB could go BANG - there had to be a law which allowed that to happen. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Energy is not a global but universal premise. And energy is reliant on laws, namely on specific attributes embedded into base particles of matter. This says, before the BB could go BANG - there had to be a law which allowed that to happen. What law(s) was that? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The issue is not how and if I or anyone else can fully describe a law which made energy possible: this may be impossible even in the next 1000 years. Rather, the assumption inferred it is NOT based on a law which is ridiculous. Everything in the universe is based on laws; we are able to discern some facets of those laws equal to our knowledge status at any given time.
The problematic issues arise when we ask questions such as how can a law exist without a law maker/giver. Because this connects with religion, it becomes akin to an aversion. This is understandable, because it stops science dead in its track - although it should not. Science must define without attaching a Creator, else it is not science. At the same time, when we discuss issues of ultimate and original thresholds, we cannot get answers from science - science comes in only after laws are embedded. Science is thus the B-Z and not connected with the A factor. That is my view here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Why do you assume a law must originate with some divine critter?
In science, laws are generalizations or descriptions, often mathematical, of some regularly recurring facts or events in nature. How do you get from that definition to some bearded wonder in the sky for which there is no empirical evidence? Besides: Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Empirically, there is evidence, namely the sound scientific principle posits cause and effect. Contrastingly, there is a total vacuum in the premise of effect w/o cause. There is no bearded wonder in the sky called nature or random. Which city do they live in and how old are they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I agree with that - so how do I not understand what a law is? FYI, I said the entire universe works on laws... And that is the problem: it doesn't. Laws are simply our, often misguided, attempts to describe what is happening. They have nothing to do with the Universe itself. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not some prescribed rule written down by a law-giver - it is just a short hand way of describing the behaviour of large numbers of things. This is the behaviour of mathematics. And mathematics is constrained by consistency. There is no "choice" in these behaviours - that is simply the way things are. Or do you think your god can make 1+1=3 if he so chooses?
I say, very dogmatically, that a pristine one cannot perform an action by and of itself. How bizarre. What exactly would be a "pristine one"?
Energy is not a global but universal premise. Energy is a universal concept in that just about anywhere you go in the Universe, you can apply the concept of energy *locally*. It is not a global concept, because you cannot apply the concept of energy across an entire cross-section of the Universe - at least not consistently. And around the Big Bang, you have the entire cross-section of the Universe. And so your concept of energy breaks down.
And energy is reliant on laws, namely on specific attributes embedded into base particles of matter. No, energy is not reliant on any laws. It is simply a method of counting. And it some circumstances, such as around the Big Bang, that particular method of counting breaks down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Our interpretation may be lacking, misguided or totally wrong, but this does not mean that laws do not exist or turn the universe. Laws contrast random, and are repeatable and dependable - conditional to the conditions which we are in at the time. One can diminish anything by poking holes, but the fundamental principle of laws remains. Newton was advanced and correct for his generation; he became obsolete only by a higher understanding of the law.
quote: No, that would contradict the factor of truth, which is aligned with the notion of a creator.
quote: A singular entity which is indivisible and irreducible, with nothing else around. Here, no action can occur - no expansion - no BANG. Its not bizarre, but the stumbling block of the BBT.
quote: The weak force is all pervasive in the universe. You are confusing mode of energy with energy per se.
quote: Breakdowns cannot apply here. At the BB point there was no products, so why should we speak of laws? We can be sure that in a finite realm, laws also never existed at one time. This says laws were mandated or input on some certain, unprovable level: once they never existed; then they did exist. Repeatable, deendable objects like stars, pineapples and cars work on the premise of laws. But for sure the laws emerged 'after' the universe was initiated. Analogise with a house: first come the base metals [lawless], then the blue prints [laws], then the resultant house.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
Therefore: god cannot have created the universe. A singular entity which is indivisible and irreducible, with nothing else around. Here, no action can occur - no expansion - no BANG.I concur. TBH:How do you expect anyone to believe you have any grasp of cosmology when you only have a feeble grasp of you own language?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
but this does not mean that laws do not exist or turn the universe Irrespective, laws do not "exist" and do not "turn" the Universe. But you are free to believe that they do.
A singular entity which is indivisible and irreducible, with nothing else around. Here, no action can occur - no expansion - no BANG. Its not bizarre, but the stumbling block of the BBT. No, this is just mumbo-jumbo.
The weak force is all pervasive in the universe. It certainly wasn't at the Big Bang. It didn't even exist yet
You are confusing mode of energy with energy per se. no, I can assure you, I am far from confused when it comes to this subject.
But for sure the laws emerged 'after' the universe was initiated. Except that there are no "laws"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: You are making a divergent leap from the point of debate. Your post has no relation to how a singular entity can perform an action. Check mate applies.
quote: Again, a leap and fret from the point of discussion. Wrong also in your new trajectory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Your clinging to a 2-sided protective cloak. Laws do not exist - laws do not control the universe. Does it mean if laws do exist I am right - or are you still the winner?
quote: Which part? My understsnding of the BB is it assumes a starting point of the universe; and that point is the first one. Basic reasoning says if it contains components it is not a oner nor a first. Yes/no? If it is the first point, it also means there was no components outside either. Yes/no? If it was a singular entity by itself, pls enlighten how it can perform an action?
quote: I would say it was not around before the BB. Because the BB expansion can only occur by a law which propels it to, and subsequently before this point no laws yet occured.
quote: You are confused about laws applying and what a ONE can do.
quote: Is that a new law?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: Then why write it in the first place? Just for the word salad effect? That is not essential. The fundamental premise applies, whether seen as changes, inter-changes or osmosis. IamJoseph writes: Yes, I have. Nothing about the Big Bang contradicts any of the scientific laws. You have to realize that real physicists and real cosmologists, etc. know way more than you and none of them has ever published anything in any scientific publication about the BB contradicting any scientific laws. If one of them did, he would be very famous and very rich. You have not attended the issue. IamJoseph writes: Another word salad. Show how a pristine singular entity [with no internal or external components] can cause an action? From the Concise Oxford Dictionary: Pristine means: ancient, primitive, old and unspoilt: fresh as if new. Singular means: 1. denoting a single person or thing, not dual or plural.2. single, individual, unique, unusual, remarkable from rarity; much beyond the average or degree; extraordinary, surprising, eccentric, unconventional, strangely behaved, possessing unique properties; hence distinguish, individualize. Seeing that we don’t know whether the Big bang was single, individual, unique, unusual, remarkable from rarity; much beyond the average or degree; extraordinary, surprising, eccentric, unconventional, strangely behaved, possessing unique properties;, we can’t ascribe these features to the Big Bang. For all we know, there could have been lots of Big Bangs before and after the one described in our theory, the one that we think gave rise to our universe. We do know that it was a rapid expansion of space-time. Entity Means: thing’s existence, as opp. to it’s qualities or relations; thing that has real existence.This word thus excludes any kind of god, because there’s no evidence for such an entity’s existence. IamJoseph writes: And if one doesn’t? If one only looks at the evidence before accepting anything? Of course, if one accepts internal components in the first entity,.. IamJoseph writes: Maybe it does. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Therefore energy may be infinite. You also realize that to say things like before the Big Bang, doesn’t make sense as time itself started then?
it is not the first entity, which infers an infinite realm. IamJoseph writes: For this reason, no. - of course this is a violation of a finite universe. Yes/No? IamJoseph writes: What you say is not very important. It is the evidence that counts. I say the BBT is scientifically impossibility and violates the most fundamental laws of science. IamJoseph writes: I‘m certainly not rubbishing this forum, where people try to have intelligent and meaningful conversations. I am rubbishing your style of trying to impress people with word salads not meaning much. We all know why you do it: no data of your own. Luckily this forum is full of real scientists who don’t get embezzled by word salds, but look at the evidence. Data. You still have not attended the issue. Why rubbish the forum you attend, unless you are not serious about it? IamJoseph writes: That’s why we do have very intelligent people doing research on the issue. People who actually get and also provide data before they come to any conclusion. The notion of not knowing what laws applies at the beginning does not resolve the issue,.. IamJoseph writes: Err, nature.
Granted they don't know, which I accepted already. The issue remains, what impacts when the laws of science do apply? IamJoseph writes: That’s strange. You do have to realize that your word salads won’t make the sun, neither the birds nor the bees to disappear. They do exist. nature exists. There is no such thing as NATURE - actually. IamJoseph writes: You have a very low ability to comprehend what people write. Maybe it’s because you don't understand people who don't do word salads? You admit that if the laws we do know of applies, the BBT is an impossibility? IamJoseph writes: Certainly not. The answer I don’t know is a very honest and also a very noble answer. It means that wishful thinking won’t be applied to try and get an answer. Deferring to the issue of not knowing what laws may apply, does not conclude that no laws apply. Its a runaway. IamJoseph writes: Scientific theories all are considered scientific facts. Like the gravity theory. Like the cell theory. Like the atom theory. Like the germ theory. Like the evolution theory. They all are considered scientific facts. Maybe you should brush up on your science before making ignorant statements like the one you just made? Its not about other people but explaining an issue so we understand the basics, and reject what we cannot explain adequately and according to the laws we do know. You must not forget, the BBT is after all just a THEORY, its not a scientific fact. Anyway, scientific theories are way more realiable to get to the truth than statements like Goddidit, which has been proven wrong over and over again. IamJoseph writes: Saying I don’t know is way more credible than saying: Goddidit.
It is clear whatever knowledge will come by, it will be defined via laws, and the BBT will have to align with them. If its raining from above, we cannot use the arguement we do not know what occurs in the nano second of the rains dropping down. Its not a credible responsa.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024