Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 350 of 389 (631818)
09-03-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by NoNukes
09-02-2011 1:32 PM


Re: Try a little context
Neither the repugnant and preposterous idea of an ultimate beginning to the Universe is a small trifle. The idea was a blunder it still remains, I am sorry to inform you about that. For, it is an observable fact that any finite entity in existence may have a beginning. Yet extrapolating that observation on the ultimate sum of all entities in existence which is the Universe by definition is a logical error.
Such extrapolation contradicts another observation that any beginning of any finite entity is always an end of something else with both being observed smack in the middle of a process to which neither end nor beginning is in sight.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2011 1:32 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 354 of 389 (631838)
09-03-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Dogmafood
09-03-2011 12:55 PM


Re: ad populum
There is a minimal need to conspire in order to be protecting the interests of a group one is belonging to. Also that fight for funding goes much deeper, for although the funding as such may be important in itself, getting it is taken as an indication that one is on the right track of research. That is a deep-seated human need for an absolute certitude as sharing the funds with the proponents of rival ideas would cast too much doubt and confusion. Doubt is pain just like simple hunger is so is to be avoided at all costs and since the physicists are not exactly starving to begin with, that avoidance may be the primary motivation. No conspiracy, I am afraid.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Dogmafood, posted 09-03-2011 12:55 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Dogmafood, posted 09-04-2011 9:26 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 359 of 389 (631903)
09-04-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Pressie
09-02-2011 8:49 AM


Okay, the style of Hemingway is called telegraphic. Simple, bare bones sentences. Unlike Faulkner's who was prone to make a sentence half a page long. I don't find one easier to understand than the other, by the way. Not really. All depends on the actual content and context and so on.
Otherwise, you confuse the cosmologists and the rest of specialists. No other specialist is making any general claims as to the ultimate nature of existence as a whole. Traditionally such claims are made only by priests and philosophers which is firmly placing cosmologists in either of these groups.
Now, the only way to distinguish between the two groups is that the philosophers on the whole tend to offer natural explanations to the ultimate nature of existence. They are mostly on the side of the physical and logical necessity whereas the priests on the whole plump for magic. Otherwise both are equally self-assertive and dogmatic. Now since the modern cosmologists in their explanations invoke a lot of magic such as space in proper motion, the whole of existence popping out of nothing to expand into nowhere, the laws of necessity possibly breaking at a certain point and in certain conditions, etc. that firmly places them in the category of priests. Simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Pressie, posted 09-02-2011 8:49 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2011 1:17 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 360 of 389 (631905)
09-04-2011 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Butterflytyrant
09-02-2011 8:19 AM


Re: looking for information
Here we go with the dirty pot calling kettle hellishly black. Of course, the hypothesis presented in Genesis may appear rather naive and absurd, yet since the underlying principles of that myth and of what is offered by the Big Bang idea are exactly the same, such tirades as yours read as highly ironic.
Moreover, when the two versions are compared in a detached fashion, the original biblical one may be found to be much more logically consistent and therefore vastly superior from purely scientific point of view. In other words the Big Bang idea is the Genesis absurdity squared, drawn and cubed. For if the existence is a tango to start dancing the Universe needs a partner which the person of God is providing in a logically consistent way while the idea of singularity does not do that unless the singularity is dancing with itself which is making the process described not a tango by definition.
That's all IamJoseph is telling you whether he is realising it himself or not. But you would not listen to him comfortably ensconced in your learned arrogance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-02-2011 8:19 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 361 of 389 (631911)
09-04-2011 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Dogmafood
09-04-2011 9:26 AM


Re: ad populum
Well, if you want to persuade me that scientists as a group may possess any greater than the rest of humans integrity, whatever that might mean, I may have to remain unconvinced. As an institution science behaves just like any other group of people enjoying authority among the rest. Any individual behaviour is irrelevant, for the individual may buck or may not buck the trends and tendencies of the institutions they belong to, the institutions themselves may only represent those trends.
I do not see any chance given to the scientists for sprouting any wings where other groups are not given such angelic possibilities.
Now given that the general human condition is to be in egregious fundamental error of thinking and to persist in the error indefinitely unless and until the persistence is met with an irresistible force, there is nothing unnatural in the current situation in cosmology under my scrutiny. The modern physical science is simply getting its fair share of the human condition while persisting in such absurdities as the Big Bang, the existence as a whole being both expandable and compressible, space possessing the attribute of peculiar motion, the Universe possessing an attribute of finite age and so on and so forth. Nothing special to write home about. Those ideas, I am afraid, are very much business as usual as far as the preposterous beliefs of humanity are concerned. I discern nothing either specially conspiratorial or exceedingly vicious in any of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Dogmafood, posted 09-04-2011 9:26 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Dogmafood, posted 09-04-2011 10:48 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 362 of 389 (631917)
09-04-2011 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Butterflytyrant
09-02-2011 8:19 AM


Re: looking for information
You were asking me to provide a link to Einstein's attitude towards singularities to see if he ever said anything like what I was attributing to him. I was, of course, using my own words that I am not in the habit of mincing. Einstein was much more polite in his verbal custom. Still, here's a good paper on the subject containing all the references to Einstein's proper expressions on the issue:
http://www.olduniverse.com/1,5%20Singularities.pdf
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : repair the link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-02-2011 8:19 AM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024