|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Could I see that translated into English?
STOP MAKING UP YOUR OWN VOCABULARY. BAD IAMJOSEPH! BAD!!! BAD!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
They are also all time Nobels literalists. This does not mean anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024