Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
595 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Percy (Admin), ramoss, Tangle (5 members, 590 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,161 Year: 4,273/6,534 Month: 487/900 Week: 11/182 Day: 11/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 211 of 389 (624810)
07-20-2011 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Pressie
07-20-2011 5:43 AM


Tentative theories.
Scientific theories all are considered scientific facts.

I think you need to careful making this assertion.

Theories can be concidered the most accurate explanations we have for phenomena at any given time but as all science is tentative a theory is open to being over turned on reciept of new evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Pressie, posted 07-20-2011 5:43 AM Pressie has taken no action

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2902 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 212 of 389 (624812)
07-20-2011 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Pressie
07-20-2011 5:43 AM


quote:
That is not essential. The fundamental premise applies, whether seen as changes, inter-changes or osmosis.

Then why write it in the first place? Just for the word salad effect?


The distinction between changes and osmosis does not impact on the premise; its divergence.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
You have not attended the issue.

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.


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:

Show how a pristine singular entity [with no internal or external components] can cause an action?

Another word salad.
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.


"Singular". Pristine has manofold applications. This is just more deflection.

quote:

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.


The BBT is made as the initiation premise for the universe. Pluralisung this is another deflection. Why not deal with the premise?

quote:

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.

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:

Of course, if one accepts internal components in the first entity,…..

And if one doesn’t?


Then it is not the first or a singular entity.

quote:

… it is not the first entity, which infers an infinite realm….

Maybe it does. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Therefore energy may be infinite.


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:

You also realize that to say things like “before the Big Bang”, doesn’t make sense as time itself started then?

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:

- of course this is a violation of a finite universe. Yes/No?

For this reason, no.


If this universe is finite, nothing it contains can be infinite.

quote:

I say the BBT is scientifically impossibility and violates the most fundamental laws of science.

What you say is not very important. It is the evidence that counts.


Do you infer you have encountered any evidence a singular entity can perform an action? Not so even via voodooism!

quote:
The notion of not knowing what laws applies at the beginning does not resolve the issue,…..

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.


If you have done or seen any research negating my premise, you have not provided this.

quote:

Granted they don't know, which I accepted already. The issue remains, what impacts when the laws of science do apply?

Err, nature.


The err is well placed; nature is not. Once there was no nature; there is no nature now.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
…There is no such thing as NATURE - actually.

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.


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:

?
IamJoseph writes:
Deferring to the issue of not knowing what laws may apply, does not conclude that no laws apply. Its a runaway.

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.


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:

IamJoseph writes:
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.

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?
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.



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:

Saying “I don’t know” is way more credible than saying: “Goddidit”.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Pressie, posted 07-20-2011 5:43 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Pressie, posted 07-20-2011 7:42 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2902 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 213 of 389 (624814)
07-20-2011 6:34 AM


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!?

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Pressie, posted 07-20-2011 7:48 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 214 of 389 (624833)
07-20-2011 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 6:23 AM


IamJoseph writes:

The distinction between changes and osmosis does not impact on the premise; its divergence.

Then why did you use the word osmosis in the first place? I think I know the answer: you used the word “osmosis” to sound as if you knew a lot about the subject. When you were shown that you were incorrect, you just pretended that the word was not important.
IamJoseph writes:

When I suggested the BBT's reliance on a singular entity at its initiation cannot produce any action, this was not contended;…..

Maybe it’s because your word salads were so ridiculously stupid and not understandable at all with the result that nobody even gave them a second thought.
IamJoseph writes:

… instead, the response was WE DON'T KNOW WHAT LAWS APPLIED THEN - OR IF LAWS WERE IN PLACE'.

Those words were used because, we don’t know.
IamJoseph writes:

What this says to me is if laws did apply, I am correct -….

Incorrect. Our laws break down when we get to the first Planck second of the Big Bang. We don’t know what happened exactly. Maybe some laws applied, maybe not.
IamJoseph writes:

… there is a fundamental glitch in accepting a singular entity can perform an action under any laws.

Why? Maybe it did. Maybe it didn’t. Our evidence indicate that it did.
IamJoseph writes:

Further, if laws do not apply, it does not mean a singualr entity can produce an action.

Why? The evidence we have indicate that the BB happened, whether laws applied or not. Maybe the scientific laws were different then. Maybe not. Maybe different laws applied. Maybe not. Who knows.
IamJoseph writes:

Its a bogus response to a genuine premise not confronted.

It has been answered. The fact that you just don’t want to accept it, reflects badly on you, not on the theory.
IamJoseph writes:

"Singular". Pristine has manofold applications. This is just more deflection.

No, it has been shown to you why in the previous post. The fact that you want to change the meanings of words in your word salads, reflects badly on you. Not on the Big bang.
IamJoseph writes:

The BBT is made as the initiation premise for the universe. Pluralisung this is another deflection. Why not deal with the premise?

I actually did deal with that premise. The fact that you don’t want to accept it is a bad reflection on you. Not on the Big Bang.
IamJoseph writes:

Yes, it would exclude any God, which was never intended. I used the premise of an external impacter,…..

Why? Some things just happen with no external impacter involved. I can refer to quantum mechanics, for example.
IamJoseph writes:

….namely a trigger factor, which admittedly, opens itself to an independent, precedent force.

No, not necessarily. Look at quantum mechanics. Some things just happen. No trigger involved. No independent, precedent force involved at all.
IamJoseph writes:

It remains a scientific premise BTW, far more so than WE DON'T KNOW.

No, postulating a trigger, when there’s no evidence for a trigger, is very unscientific.
IamJoseph writes:

Then it is not the first or a singular entity.

Why?
IamJoseph writes:

No sir. A finite universe cannot contain an infinite. Its a violation.

Why? So far it seems as if there’s at least one infinite “entity” in our “finite” universe. It’s called energy.
IamJoseph writes:

You should by now see your arguement as breaking down, tho I doubt you will admit it.

My argument surely is not breaking down.
IamJoseph writes:

This can be seen with religionists too, BTW!

Religionists don’t have arguments. They’ve got faith. What you are trying to do now, disguised as word salads.
IamJoseph writes:

I accept that time and space, as with energy, never existed at one time.

Why? It seems as if energy, for example, could be eternal.
IamJoseph writes:

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.

Maybe it’s because you don’t realize that the Big bang could be a singularity only in our Universe? Nowhere else?
IamJoseph writes:

Do you infer you have encountered any evidence a singular entity can perform an action? Not so even via voodooism!

Yes. The Big Bang is one example.
IamJoseph writes:

If you have done or seen any research negating my premise, you have not provided this.

The science of physics.
IamJoseph writes:

The err is well placed; nature is not. Once there was no nature; there is no nature now.

Word salad again. Your basic“argument, if you can call it that, is: because my parrott didn’t exist at a stage, it doesn’t exist now. Even if it sits on my shoulder now.
IamJoseph writes:

What actually is nature: tsunamies, ecosystems, volcanos, pineapples?

All of the above.
IamJoseph writes:

These are works which are driven by laws, not nature.

You still haven’t read all those posts trying to inform you of what scientific laws are, have you? Word salads won’t hide your ignorance.
IamJoseph writes:

Nature is a metaphor we use instead of godidit; act of nature replaces act of God.

No, we’ve got plenty of verifiable, empirical evidence that nature exists. Not one little piece of evidence that any kind of god exists.
IamJoseph writes:

Its a placebo so we do not get bogged down in the numerous, contradicting theologies. But there is such thing as nature - actually. Its also not a scientific answer.

We’ve got plenty of empirical, verifiable evidence that nature exists. That’s what science investigates. By definition. It’s called science. Your word salads won’t make nature, the definition of science or the scientific method disappear.
IamJoseph writes:

Deferring to the issue of not knowing what laws may apply, does not conclude that no laws apply. Its a runaway.

Who said that no laws may or may not have applied?
IamJoseph writes:

Not knowing cannot apply here: we do know that a singular entity cannot perform an action;…

We know it can.
IamJoseph writes:

..you are saying it can in lala land where laws do not apply - how do you know that or why do you embrace this?....

Empirical evidence works very well on me.
IamJoseph writes:

You fail to respond to the issue what happens when laws DO apply!

As I said earlier: maybe you don’t understand people who don’t use word salads.
IamJoseph writes:

Not all theories are accepted as facts; many are disputed equally. Many theories have fallen away.

No, all scientific theories are accepted as scientific fact, until someone can provide an alternative that not only explains everything covered in the theory, but also more. Scientific theories are regarded as scientific facts by the scientific community.
IamJoseph writes:

I am not just saying goddidit; I am giving scientific reasoning why some accepted theories are wrong.

Publish it in a scientific journal. You will become very famous and very rich. You can’t do it on a forum like this.
IamJoseph writes:

Understand the difference before casting your impression on me. You have not responded or yet attended how a singular entity can perform an action.

Lots of people have. The fact that you don’t see it, reflects on your cognitive dissonance. Not on the other posters here.
IamJoseph writes:

Agreed. But saying I DON'T KNOW must have meaning.

It certainly does. It means “I don’t know”.
IamJoseph writes:

We cannot say we don't know that a singular entity can perform an action.

Where has anybody said this?
IamJoseph writes:

This is not subject to negotiation. It is far more diabolical than godidit.

Easy. See if you can convince scientists who actually know more about the subject you do. Follow the scientific method. Word salads won’t work on them. Data would. That means empirical evidence for your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 6:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 9:43 AM Pressie has taken no action

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 215 of 389 (624834)
07-20-2011 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 6:34 AM


Yes, you said lots of stupid things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 6:34 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2902 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 216 of 389 (624841)
07-20-2011 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Pressie
07-20-2011 7:42 AM


quote:
IamJoseph writes:
The distinction between changes and osmosis does not impact on the premise; its divergence.

Then why did you use the word osmosis in the first place? I think I know the answer: you used the word “osmosis” to sound as if you knew a lot about the subject. When you were shown that you were incorrect, you just pretended that the word was not important.


It has no impact how one describes a change or elevation.

quote:
IamJoseph writes:

Incorrect. Our laws break down when we get to the first Planck second of the Big Bang. We don’t know what happened exactly. Maybe some laws applied, maybe not.


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:

IamJoseph writes:
… there is a fundamental glitch in accepting a singular entity can perform an action under any laws.

Why? Maybe it did. Maybe it didn’t. Our evidence indicate that it did.


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:

IamJoseph writes:
Further, if laws do not apply, it does not mean a singualr entity can produce an action.

Why? The evidence we have indicate that the BB happened, whether laws applied or not. Maybe the scientific laws were different then. Maybe not. Maybe different laws applied. Maybe not. Who knows.


That is only an admission you loose this debate.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
Its a bogus response to a genuine premise not confronted.

It has been answered. The fact that you just don’t want to accept it, reflects badly on you, not on the theory.


If your answer had any coherence then I can be accused of that. Not by your answers.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
"Singular". Pristine has manofold applications. This is just more deflection.

No, it has been shown to you why in the previous post. The fact that you want to change the meanings of words in your word salads, reflects badly on you. Not on the Big bang.


Pristine is fine. I stand by it. Move on.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
The BBT is made as the initiation premise for the universe. Pluralisung this is another deflection. Why not deal with the premise?

I actually did deal with that premise. The fact that you don’t want to accept it is a bad reflection on you. Not on the Big Bang.


You have not even touched the point.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
Yes, it would exclude any God, which was never intended. I used the premise of an external impacter,…..

Why? Some things just happen with no external impacter involved. I can refer to quantum mechanics, for example.


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:

IamJoseph writes:
….namely a trigger factor, which admittedly, opens itself to an independent, precedent force.

No, not necessarily. Look at quantum mechanics. Some things just happen. No trigger involved. No independent, precedent force involved at all.


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:

IamJoseph writes:
It remains a scientific premise BTW, far more so than WE DON'T KNOW.

No, postulating a trigger, when there’s no evidence for a trigger, is very unscientific.


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:

IamJoseph writes:
Then it is not the first or a singular entity.

Why?


Like, GUESS!

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
No sir. A finite universe cannot contain an infinite. Its a violation.

Why? So far it seems as if there’s at least one infinite “entity” in our “finite” universe. It’s called energy.


No sir. Energy is not free or infinite, but it depends totally on interaction.

quote:

IamJoseph writes:
You should by now see your arguement as breaking down, tho I doubt you will admit it.

My argument surely is not breaking down.


You have no laws which you respect.

quote:

Why? It seems as if energy, for example, could be eternal.


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:

IamJoseph writes:
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.

Maybe it’s because you don’t realize that the Big bang could be a singularity only in our Universe? Nowhere else?


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:

IamJoseph writes:
Do you infer you have encountered any evidence a singular entity can perform an action? Not so even via voodooism!

Yes. The Big Bang is one example.


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:

IamJoseph writes:
If you have done or seen any research negating my premise, you have not provided this.

The science of physics.


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:

No, we’ve got plenty of verifiable, empirical evidence that nature exists. Not one little piece of evidence that any kind of god exists.
IamJoseph writes:
Its a placebo so we do not get bogged down in the numerous, contradicting theologies. But there is such thing as nature - actually. Its also not a scientific answer.

We’ve got plenty of empirical, verifiable evidence that nature exists. That’s what science investigates. By definition. It’s called science. Your word salads won’t make nature, the definition of science or the scientific method disappear.
IamJoseph writes:
Deferring to the issue of not knowing what laws may apply, does not conclude that no laws apply. Its a runaway.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Pressie, posted 07-20-2011 7:42 AM Pressie has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by fearandloathing, posted 07-20-2011 10:04 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 3379 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 217 of 389 (624845)
07-20-2011 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by IamJoseph
07-20-2011 9:43 AM


The way you are cut-n-pasting quotes makes it look as if you are debating yourself or an alternate personality, its confusing because you are not separating your previous responses from their replies.


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by IamJoseph, posted 07-20-2011 9:43 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 12:49 AM fearandloathing has replied

Doctor Witch
Junior Member (Idle past 3851 days)
Posts: 27
From: Both Sides
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 218 of 389 (627991)
08-06-2011 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by fearandloathing
07-20-2011 10:04 AM


Back to problems With The Big Bang Theory
Whilst the Big Bang Theory is the agreed mainstream of Cosmology, do Theoretical Physicists agree?

I thought that the start of what we call our universe is postulated as something very different in M-Theory, the collision between two ten-dimensional 'universes' in the eleventh dimension which could have occurred over a considerable area rather at a single point.

Coudl anybody explain or give references for the fate of that theory and how it has been expanded?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by fearandloathing, posted 07-20-2011 10:04 AM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by fearandloathing, posted 08-06-2011 9:49 AM Doctor Witch has replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 3379 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


(1)
Message 219 of 389 (628035)
08-06-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Doctor Witch
08-06-2011 12:49 AM


Re: Back to problems With The Big Bang Theory
Dr.W writes:

Could anybody explain or give references for the fate of that theory and how it has been expanded?

I am the last person to answer that question. I only have the most basic understanding of "string theory". Maybe Cavediver will see this and be better able to answer.

AbE

quote:
Ultimate theory inches closer
Peter Spinks
July 25, 2011

The hunt for an all-encompassing theory of everything is arguably the most ambitious scientific undertaking in history. Although the research effort is far from over, tantalising signs are emerging that the long search may not have been in vain.

This is not mere wishful thinking, but serious physics from no less a scientific figure than Stephen Hawking.

Although the famous Cambridge University physicist once suggested that the quest to understand the cosmos might never end, he seems to have had second thoughts. Something called M-theory, he contends, is the only candidate for what Professor Hawking describes as ‘‘a complete theory’’ of the universe, which he now believes may lie within reach.


Read more...

Here is a recent article on it, hope it helps.

Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 12:49 AM Doctor Witch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 4:00 PM fearandloathing has replied

Doctor Witch
Junior Member (Idle past 3851 days)
Posts: 27
From: Both Sides
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 220 of 389 (628086)
08-06-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by fearandloathing
08-06-2011 9:49 AM


Re: Back to problems With The Big Bang Theory
Thank you 'fearandloathing' for the reference.

I also found the book Elegant Universe and its accompanying documentary by Brian Greene useful (http://youtu.be/ULlR_pkHjUQ). Both present this possibility of a collision of two objects in the 11th dimension which seems to contradict the Big Bang and perhaps explains anomalies such as the continued acceleration of the expansion of the universe to my tiny mind.

I was wondering if there is a direct comparison to Big Bang.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by fearandloathing, posted 08-06-2011 9:49 AM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by fearandloathing, posted 08-06-2011 4:56 PM Doctor Witch has taken no action
 Message 222 by AZPaul3, posted 08-07-2011 4:10 PM Doctor Witch has taken no action
 Message 223 by cavediver, posted 08-07-2011 6:38 PM Doctor Witch has taken no action

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 3379 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 221 of 389 (628096)
08-06-2011 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Doctor Witch
08-06-2011 4:00 PM


Re: Back to problems With The Big Bang Theory
Hi Dr W,

I was wondering if there is a direct comparison to Big Bang.

Not a clue.

Let me say welcome to EvC, lot of good people here.

I am sure one of the more knowledgeable members might know if there is any comparison. I have found that weekends are hit/miss as far as some members go. Be patient and I am SURE you will get more than an earful of opinions on anything you have to say or wonder about.


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 4:00 PM Doctor Witch has taken no action

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6636
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 222 of 389 (628220)
08-07-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Doctor Witch
08-06-2011 4:00 PM


Colliding Branes
I was wondering if there is a direct comparison to Big Bang.

The colliding branes of M-Theory do not contradict or replace Big Bang. It is an attempt to suggest how the Big Bang happened.

This might help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 4:00 PM Doctor Witch has taken no action

cavediver
Member (Idle past 2877 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(3)
Message 223 of 389 (628228)
08-07-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Doctor Witch
08-06-2011 4:00 PM


Re: Back to problems With The Big Bang Theory
Both present this possibility of a collision of two objects in the 11th dimension which seems to contradict the Big Bang

As AZPaul3 has already mentioned, this is not a contradiction of the classical Big Bang, but a possible "quantum gravity" explanation of it. It is highly theoretical and is based on the far from understood M-Theory. There are other speculative "quantum gravity" possibilities, such as eternal inflation and the Hartle Hawking No-Boundary Proposal.

The classical Big Bang is extremely well evidenced, so any deeper theory must mimic the Big Bang to a very close degree, only diverging fron the classical picture very close to the singularity.

The acceleration of the expansion rate is not an anomaly - it is perfectly well explained within the context of Big Bang cosmology. We just had not observed any acceleration prior to the late '90s, so naturally set the relevant parameter that drives the acceleration (or deceleration) to zero. Of course, there is the big question of what type of field is driving the acceleration (the so-called dark energy) , but that is not a mystery for Big Bang physics - it is simply a question regarding the precise field content of the Universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-06-2011 4:00 PM Doctor Witch has taken no action

Portillo
Member (Idle past 3394 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 224 of 389 (628592)
08-11-2011 5:10 AM


The "problem" would be what caused the universe to come into existence. We now know that the universe is not eternal and uncaused but had a beginning. Before the beginning of the universe there was no time, matter, physics, energy etc. So what caused the universe to pop into existence. British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, "There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity?".

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Panda, posted 08-11-2011 5:36 AM Portillo has taken no action
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 08-11-2011 8:49 AM Portillo has replied
 Message 227 by cavediver, posted 08-11-2011 8:52 AM Portillo has taken no action
 Message 231 by Taq, posted 08-11-2011 12:30 PM Portillo has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 2946 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 225 of 389 (628593)
08-11-2011 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Portillo
08-11-2011 5:10 AM


Portillo writes:

British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, "There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity?".


That is a very nice Mis-Quote-Mined™ sentence.

Perhaps you would be willing to quote the complete paragraph from which this statement was plucked?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Portillo, posted 08-11-2011 5:10 AM Portillo has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Theodoric, posted 08-11-2011 8:55 AM Panda has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022