|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 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 3696 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The distinction between changes and osmosis does not impact on the premise; its divergence.
quote: When I suggested the BBT's reliance on a singular entity at its initiation cannot produce any action, this was not contended; instead, the response was WE DON'T KNOW WHAT LAWS APPLIED THEN - OR IF LAWS WERE IN PLACE'. What this says to me is if laws did apply, I am correct - there is a fundamental glitch in accepting a singular entity can perform an action under any laws. Further, if laws do not apply, it does not mean a singualr entity can produce an action. Its a bogus response to a genuine premise not confronted.
quote: "Singular". Pristine has manofold applications. This is just more deflection.
quote: The BBT is made as the initiation premise for the universe. Pluralisung this is another deflection. Why not deal with the premise?
quote: Yes, it would exclude any God, which was never intended. I used the premise of an external impacter, namely a trigger factor, which admittedly, opens itself to an independent, precedent force. It remains a scientific premise BTW, far more so than WE DON'T KNOW.
quote: Then it is not the first or a singular entity.
quote: No sir. A finite universe cannot contain an infinite. Its a violation. You should by now see your arguement as breaking down, tho I doubt you will admit it. This can be seen with religionists too, BTW!
quote: I accept that time and space, as with energy, never existed at one time. The issue of prior to the BB was not mine; it was offered in desperation by someone else that the laws we know would not apply at that point. I merely responded if that were the case, it still does not support a singular entity performing an action.
quote: If this universe is finite, nothing it contains can be infinite.
quote: Do you infer you have encountered any evidence a singular entity can perform an action? Not so even via voodooism!
quote: If you have done or seen any research negating my premise, you have not provided this.
quote: The err is well placed; nature is not. Once there was no nature; there is no nature now.
quote: What actually is nature: tsunamies, ecosystems, volcanos, pineapples? These are works which are driven by laws, not nature. Nature is a metaphor we use instead of godidit; act of nature replaces act of God. Its a placebo so we do not get bogged down in the numerous, contradicting theologies. But there is NO such thing as nature - actually. Its also not a scientific answer.
quote: Not knowing cannot apply here: we do know that a singular entity cannot perform an action; you are saying it can in lala land where laws do not apply - how do you know that or why do you embrace this? You fail to respond to the issue what happens when laws DO apply!
quote:Not all theories are accepted as facts; many are disputed equally. Many theories have fallen away. I am not just saying goddidit; I am giving scientific reasoning why some accepted theories are wrong. Understand the difference before casting your impression on me. You have not responded or yet attended how a singular entity can perform an action. quote: Agreed. But saying I DON'T KNOW must have meaning. We cannot say we don't know that a singular entity can perform an action. This is not subject to negotiation. It is far more diabolical than godidit. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The anxst of debate against my premise is telling. It threatens to fell a cornerstone pillar, with scary implications. This occurs when science is treated by many as a religion. The godidit people bashers have become the naturedidit religionists. It is nigh impossible to dent such fire walls, and is now akin to disputing a trinity as a one, or that Moses was not a Muslim - try it sometime, so will go blue in the face before getting any coherent response! Sadly, it is a syndrome becoming a scientific affliction: why else would a science minded person dispute a singular entity cannot perform an action - did I say something stupid!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: It has no impact how one describes a change or elevation.
quote: Laws don't break down. Better, they yet not existed [Genesis]. If you subscribe to laws breaking down, that is a huge action; then you have the issue how did it return? And remember at this point you have no environment, nature or anything else to rely on. When closely examined it makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does it impact: you still face the issue how a singular items can cause an action when the laws do impact! Your just pushing the goal post to meet the same dead end.
quote: How is that possible from any scientific premise? The universe is based on laws - its all we have which can be put on the table and be seen as science. Your answers are unsatisfactory.
quote: That is only an admission you loose this debate.
quote: If your answer had any coherence then I can be accused of that. Not by your answers.
quote: Pristine is fine. I stand by it. Move on.
quote: You have not even touched the point.
quote: Now you are coming apart. Your mainstay fulcrum reason is unacceptable: if there was quantumn mechanics at work here, then we are not talking of a pristine, singular, indivisible and irreducible entity. Now we are talking to a construct of components - exactly as I said was a minimum requirement for any action.
quote: Your are not attending the issue at all. First you denied any law can apply; now we have multiple items and still my position is denied.
quote: How can it be unscientific when its based on laws - every law and every action we know of as science? You are suggesting all laws be set aside and there is no requirement for an interaction for an action to occur. That is not science.
quote: Like, GUESS!
quote: No sir. Energy is not free or infinite, but it depends totally on interaction.
quote: You have no laws which you respect.
quote: Now your arguement rests on infinite energy which predates the universe. And this infinite energy caused the universe to happen - with nothing more than infinite energy functioning by itself for ever. Is there any residual proof of this? Don't answer that.
quote: Where is this 'nowhere else'? So it sounds you admit an action could not have occured with the BB in any other universe, yet you say it could happen in this universe? Which scientific law is that based on?
quote: But you also said there was quantumn mechanics - which works on probability factors, which requires many components to be called quantumn. So your BB is not an appropriate example.
quote: Did you not say laws were not yet existent or impacting here - they broke down? I cannot accet the response 'WE DN'T KNOW WHAT LAWS APPLIED' - because we know of no example of an action without an interaction in this universe. Even in magic spells and voodooism, one needs more than one.
quote: We have absolutely no evidence nature exists. All we have is human allocation to what is termed nature. The rest of your responses are in same vein. Defections and overturning if laws. Its called denial. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
[quote]Look at creationist websites. There's lots of them. They are the overwhelming majority of people who reject the Big Bang Theory, because they still insist that their particular chosen god (s) created everything[/qupte]
Wonderfully wrong. The BB is rejected because it is simply not scientifically possible, and it contradicts a scientific equation in Genesis as well as Creationism - a scientific premise itself. The universe could not have begun with a singularity because then there cannot be an action. Everything begins with a 'duality' as the minimum requirement: it takes two to tango. The BBT is just a means of bypassing the enigma of origins, else we would not be able to proceed. The BBT is a greasy bryclream kidstuff premise: if the universe is exampanding this away, it must have come from that away. That's all it is
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024