Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


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 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 154 of 389 (457724)
02-25-2008 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by IamJoseph
02-24-2008 11:37 PM


Re: another problem with the big bang theory
Could I see that translated into English?
STOP MAKING UP YOUR OWN VOCABULARY. BAD IAMJOSEPH! BAD!!! BAD!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by IamJoseph, posted 02-24-2008 11:37 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by IamJoseph, posted 02-25-2008 1:22 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 169 of 389 (623739)
07-13-2011 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-13-2011 2:06 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
For me the problem with the idea is that though it is as fascinating a tale as that of Baron von Mnchhausen lifting himself by the hair in the air with the help of his glorious hand, it is just as believable.
The theory postulates that the baby Universe in its first discernible to the "science" instant was 100 million trillion times smaller than a proton while being as hot as trillions hells in spite of such minuscule appearance.
Should I believe that? Well...
Well, why not?
If you have any sort of argument that small things can't be "hot", now would be a great time to present it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 2:06 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 5:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 172 of 389 (623749)
07-13-2011 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-13-2011 5:15 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Heat is confined motion raring to go.
And why cannot something be confined in a small space?
Confined implies divided in two at least-
No it doesn't. If I say that a man is confined in a prison cell, I do not mean that he is divided in two in a prison cell. I mean that he cannot get out of it.
confined by itself is a contradiction in terms
No. To say that a man is confined by himself in a prison cell is not a contradiction in terms --- solitary confinement, since it exists, cannot break the laws of logic.
Instead of messing about with words, try some actual physics. Why should a small thing not be "hot"? Show your working.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 5:15 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 5:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 174 of 389 (623753)
07-13-2011 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-13-2011 5:31 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Prisoner, the prison and somewhere to be free make three already.
I accept the premise that those are three nominal clauses. In your own time, please reason from that premise to the conclusion that small things can't be hot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 5:31 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 3:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 389 (623814)
07-13-2011 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-13-2011 3:55 PM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Much of that did not appear to be in English.
The laws of physics as they stand do not allow anything like that.
Show me.
This is a fact unknown to physicists, who know actual physics, and do not use phrases such as "heat equals not just to anything", but I'm willing to give you a fair hearing. Just show me the physics proving that small things can't be hot.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 3:55 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 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

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 260 of 389 (631046)
08-30-2011 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Portillo
08-30-2011 3:23 AM


I used the word atheist for lack of a better word. The point I was trying to make is that many people refuse to believe in the scientific evidence for the big bang because it doesnt fit in with their worldview.
Yeah. They're called "creationists". This would be a much, much better word than "atheists", what with creationists not being atheists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Portillo, posted 08-30-2011 3:23 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Portillo, posted 08-30-2011 4:37 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 262 of 389 (631053)
08-30-2011 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Portillo
08-30-2011 4:37 AM


The big bang actually fits with theism, since theists have long since believed that the universe had a beginning.
And yet the people who deny it are in fact by an overwhelming majority creationists.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Portillo, posted 08-30-2011 4:37 AM Portillo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Maartenn100, posted 08-30-2011 5:16 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 265 by Portillo, posted 08-30-2011 9:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 272 of 389 (631219)
08-31-2011 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Portillo
08-31-2011 12:01 AM


What I want to know is do people reject the big bang theory because the scientific evidence does not point towards it or because they dont agree with the view that the universe had a beginning.
Neither. They reject it because they are Biblical literalists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Portillo, posted 08-31-2011 12:01 AM Portillo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 6:05 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 293 of 389 (631310)
08-31-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by IamJoseph
08-31-2011 6:05 AM


They are also all time Nobels literalists.
This does not mean anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 6:05 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 294 of 389 (631311)
08-31-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by IamJoseph
08-31-2011 6:03 AM


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
This does not mean anything.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 6:03 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Panda, posted 08-31-2011 5:20 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 296 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 7:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 298 of 389 (631423)
08-31-2011 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by IamJoseph
08-31-2011 7:21 PM


Re: IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!
You mean it check mates you?
No, I mean that it doesn't mean anything. You can kinda tell by the way I said: "This does not mean anything".
Take a singular item. Place it in a bowl of soup - oops, there is bowl or soup! Damn thing is a singularity with nothing else around. Darn - not even an observer in sight!
This does not mean anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 7:21 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 376 of 389 (632620)
09-09-2011 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 373 by Portillo
09-08-2011 10:25 PM


Re: ad populum
Theres a reason creationists and intelligent designers arent peer-reviewed. Its called philosophical naturalism.
The reason most creationist nonsense is not peer-reviewed is that most creationist nonsense is not submitted for peer-review. This is entirely their decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Portillo, posted 09-08-2011 10:25 PM Portillo has 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