Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
26 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Theodoric (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,466 Year: 18,502/19,786 Month: 922/1,705 Week: 174/518 Day: 48/52 Hour: 0/1


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 2251 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 331 of 389 (631648)
09-02-2011 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by Pressie
09-02-2011 7:44 AM


I suspect it is the contents and not the shape of what I am saying you are so uncomfortable with. I am sure you would be still less happy with my meaning if I wrote the post in the style of Hemingway.
Anyway, the gist of it was that the expert is very happy with the blind acceptance of his expertise by the layman, the expert would never say: "I am likely be totally wrong and if the layman believes that I know better than he does that is all down to his ignorance. The expert would never admit: if the layman studied physics and mathematics as long as I did, he would have easily seen all the blunders in my reasoning I fail to notice".
Still hard to decipher?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Pressie, posted 09-02-2011 7:44 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by cavediver, posted 09-02-2011 8:22 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 337 by Pressie, posted 09-02-2011 8:49 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2706 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 332 of 389 (631651)
09-02-2011 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-02-2011 6:32 AM


Re: looking for information
Hello AM,

Well, not at all. He makes a good point about singularities being a pure mathematical fancy and not possible physically in any way, shape or form and that point is common to many a thinker, Albert Einstein included.
His way of expression is different from any one else not the content of his idea.

Well, not at all.

Which part of my post does this refer to?

He makes a good point about singularities being a pure mathematical fancy and not possible physically in any way, shape or form

He believes that the Big Bang occured. He does not think that singularities are mathematical fancy or not possible. He believes that the Big Bang occured. He believes that God was the force that started the Big Bang. He believes that the Big Bang is what is described in the Genesis creation narrative. He continues to tell everyone how scientifically accurate Genesis is because he belives that it fits with the Big Bang Theory. He believes that the phrase 'let there be light' is the first explosion from the singularity. He believes that God started it off by interacting with the singularity in some way and starting the Big Bang. Here are some quotes (sorry that some of it sounds like rambling bullshit but that is pretty common in IMJ's posts) -

That starts at a later point than I referred to. I referred to the expansion/bang of a singular first entity. Here, one cannot say 'energy build-up' [fusion] was a factor, as this would contradict the BB's initiation as a first point. IMHO, it must be a program which allows the expansion and thereby subsequent fusion: pineapples do not perform the same feat because they are embedded with a different program. All of science rests on this premise.
That is from Message 110

One point of knowledge is that the universe could not have been initiated with a singular, indivisible, irreducible entity: it takes two to tango applies. This premise is from Genesis
This is also from Message 110. The 'two to tango' he is babbling about is the singularity and God

The universe could not have emerged with a singular, irreducible, indivisible entity. here had to be more than one entity, and each compinent had to be embedded with a program directive. Now replace the term 'SAID' as 'embedded with a program directive'?
from Message 115

If the BBT states a single/singular/singularity 'expanded' - it is clearly incorrect: there was yet nowhere to expand to, nor any reason or cause to make this happen, nor was there energy to cause a bang, nor the law that allows it to go bang. Its a hedy subject and well beyond today's fresh faced scientists. Genesis is dealing with the most hedy subject of all. It is surprising that the BBT anomaly was not rejected on the basis of the equation provided in Genesis! Boggle-boggle!
from Message 304

His point is that the start of the universe, from the singularity, needed God to begin. The Big Bang was started by God.

That kind of deflates your post.

singularities being a pure mathematical fancy and not possible physically in any way, shape or form and that point is common to many a thinker, Albert Einstein included.

common to many a thinker apart from the physicists who know what they are talking about. The physicists who are currently researching singularities. Can you supply the source that shows Einstein saying he thought that singularities were pure mathematical fancy and not possible physically in any way, shape or form?

You make it sound live every average Joe has an opinion on singularities. Like you continually hear people on the bus at at the coffe shop talking about how ridiculous the idea of singularities are. How many people do you think actually understand the theories enough to actually have a valid opinion? Do you think IamJoseph is coherent enough to value his opinion? Do you really belive, from reading his posts, that he knows enough about singularities to make any good points about them?

To hammer my point home, check this out from Message 304

my comment - Can I take this as your admission that your whole argument for God rests on the fact that you think that a singularity is a single inanimate object that, in order to do anything, needs another force (your god conveniently) to 'tango'. And you have established this because the word singular is in the word singularity.

your reply - Yes you can. There are no alternatives. In fact take this on board also: a singularity or a perfect 'ONE' cannot and does not exist in the universe; this is the meaning of the Hebrew equation, THE LORD IS ONE - a mode of phrasing Monotheism for all generation's understanding. Sublime literary genius, no?.

Just take a look at his reply. He first agrees with the part about the singularity being acted upon by god to start the Big Bang. Then he says they dont exist. And he says they dont exist in this universe even though the singularity we are talking about is not in this universe. It created this universe.

This is the guy you think has a good point regarding singularities.

I would suggest Stephen Hawking myself. But you get your education from whoever you feel is best. (Or whoever best supports you particular beliefs regardless of how stupid or wrong they seem)

His way of expression is different from any one else not the content of his idea.

I would say different is an understatement. I would suggest he is intentionally and willfully ignorant, incomprehensible and a raving fool.

You think his content is not different. Find me another source that supports his idea that the Big Bang as described by current scientific theory, matches the description of Genesis in the Old Testament exactly and that God started it all off. Good luck.

I was hoping that he was just using old books with old terminology. Some of my dads old reference books have old terms not really used anymore. It was a stab in the dark but I had to give it a shot.

I believe that no other sources that even resembles any of his ravings exists because he is some random old guy, sitting in his basement (probably naked) screaming at his computer as he types whatever crazy shit that comes into his head.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-02-2011 6:32 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-04-2011 10:57 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded
 Message 362 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-04-2011 1:09 PM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1927 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(3)
Message 333 of 389 (631652)
09-02-2011 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-02-2011 8:14 AM


if the layman studied physics and mathematics as long as I did, he would have easily seen all the blunders in my reasoning I fail to notice

a layman once did study physics and mathematics for precisely as long as I did, and he saw many blunders, made many of his own, and became an expert of the field. That is what happens to those laymen who put in the necessary work, rather than the laymen that sit in their armchairs, oblivious to their own extreme ignorance, and pontificate to any who will listen to their drivel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-02-2011 8:14 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 2706 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 334 of 389 (631653)
09-02-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Percy
09-02-2011 7:59 AM


Re: looking for information
Hey Percy,

It probably does not help that I am currently studying at university and help out as a tutor.

I am surrounded by people explaining things and am teaching people myself.

When you cant explain something so simple to someone, then it reflects badly on the teacher. Not the student.

I dont get a lot of exposure to people who cannot or will not learn.

I suppose I will just give up on IamJoseph. I will wait for one more reponse before giving up on Dawn Bertot as well. I set something out so simply that I think he may get it.

Here hoping.


I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong

Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot

"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Percy, posted 09-02-2011 7:59 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2011 1:36 PM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply
 Message 355 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-03-2011 8:58 PM Butterflytyrant has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2077
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 335 of 389 (631654)
09-02-2011 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by ProtoTypical
09-02-2011 8:12 AM


Re: ad populum
Alfred Maddenstein writes:

Unfortunately in spite of the intrinsic impossibility of those complicated matters being explained in a way to make sense to the commoners by the caste of those well qualified, it is those simple-minded janitors, engineers, geologists and philosophers on whose faith in the correctness of the explanations offered by the elite of mathemagicians, the very upkeep and existence of the mathemagicians entirely depends.

Hey, you called me (a geologist) simple-minded. Speak for yourself. I’m not. I know a lot about my speciality. I was appointed to do a job as an expert on that subject. I'm doing rather well, too.

I'm not simple-minded enough to tell all those experts on the subjects of physics, maths, cosmology, etc. that they all are wrong. I don't know enough about those subjects to do it. That's not simple-mindedness, it's facing reality.

Dogmafood writes:

Fortunately, we are moving toward a time when the truth is not dependant on it's popularity or ease of comprehension. There is plenty of nutritional value in a steak but not if you are a herbavore.

Exactly. The experts do have a more relevant opinion than people who only pretend to be experts when talking to complete novices on that subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-02-2011 8:12 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-02-2011 9:05 AM Pressie has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2251 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 336 of 389 (631657)
09-02-2011 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by ProtoTypical
09-02-2011 8:12 AM


Re: ad populum
Unfortunately it is not any ease of comprehension I am talking about. I am talking about making any sense whatsoever which is what is sadly lacking in the consensus hypothesis defended here.

Not being patently absurd and hiding the fact behind the equations like the priests hide behind the intricacies of the biblical text claiming an immunity to logical scrutiny . Equations describe only what quantity of which quality is in which relation to what quantity of another quality. Qualities are nicely expressed with words, I am afraid, so that all can see whether the qualities described by equations are physically possible or are magical and just alleged to exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-02-2011 8:12 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-03-2011 10:18 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2077
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 337 of 389 (631658)
09-02-2011 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-02-2011 8:14 AM


Alfred Maddenstein writes:

I suspect it is the contents and not the shape of what I am saying you are so uncomfortable with.

I don’t know. Haven’t figured out what you were trying to say yet.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:

I am sure you would be still less happy with my meaning if I wrote the post in the style of Hemingway.

I don’t know. What was the style of Hemingway (remember, I’m not a native English speaker. Never read a Hemingway book in my life)? Ever heard of N.P. van Wyk Louw? Now that’s the best writer, ever!
Alfred Maddenstein writes:

Anyway, the gist of it was that the expert is very happy with the blind acceptance of his expertise by the layman,…..

That sounds very much like religion. Never experienced that when I was studying.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:

…the expert would never say: "I am likely be totally wrong…..

The expert would say, I could be wrong, what do you think? The expert would even give reasons why he or she might be wrong.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:

… and if the layman believes that I know better than he does that is all down to his ignorance.

This doesn’t make sense. I’ve mentored quite a few students, not laymen, and some of their ideas were actually way better than mine. I accepted those ideas. I know more now.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:

… The expert would never admit: if the layman studied physics and mathematics as long as I did, he would have easily seen all the blunders in my reasoning I fail to notice".

The layman is welcome to do it. There’s lots of Universities all around the world where they can do exactly that. The only problem then is: when they study physics and maths, they still don't become experts on geology, chemistry, cosmology, etc.
Alfred Maddenstein writes:

… Still hard to decipher?

Yes, you still don’t make sense at all.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-02-2011 8:14 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-04-2011 10:27 AM Pressie has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2251 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 338 of 389 (631659)
09-02-2011 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Pressie
09-02-2011 8:31 AM


Re: ad populum
No, it was yourself who made the list of those who must shut up and swallow whatever claim the cosmologists care to make. Geologists were on that list and I just picked them up from there together with the janitors and philosophers.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Pressie, posted 09-02-2011 8:31 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Pressie, posted 09-05-2011 4:01 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 339 of 389 (631697)
09-02-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Pressie
09-02-2011 6:40 AM


Try a little context
Pressie writes:

Please note that from your quote he said :“I would like to reject it ….”. What did he say afterwards in that same sentence?

It's fairly hard to find a complete quote with a general search because of the pervasive number of creationist sites that want to make much out of little. Is it really all that important what scientists said about some theory 70 years ago? Do we take Louis Pasteur's detractors all that seriously now?

But perhaps creationists are not completely to blame for the Morrison quote. The half quote apparently appears in this form in Robert Jastrow's book God and the Astronomers, which book actually describes cosmologists coming to accept the big bang theory despite their initial reluctance.

Apparently, some creationists consider BBT to be bad news for atheists because it suggest that the universe has a beginning. As a result, there is endless discussion of Jastrow's book on creationist web pages.

What is the most likely way a sentence, "I would like to reject it..." might end. You can almost hear the "but" without even seeing the complete quote. Well most of us would anticipate such.

No, I'm not going to do Portillo's homework or steal Pressie's thunder.

Even more amusing is the Eddington quote.

Eddington as quoted in From Philosophy and the Physicists: By L. Susan Stebbing.

quote:
Philosophically the notion of an abrupt beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator would probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind. But I can see no escape from our dilemma.

Yeah, there is that "but" that completely changes the sense of the quote.

Pressie writes:

Portillo writes:

Robert Jastrow said "it was distasteful to the scientific mind."

Oh, did he? Any reference to this? Can’t find it anywhere except in creationist web pages who all refer to each other.

Actually, I can believe that Jastrow did say that. It would be perfectly in keeping with the theme of his book, which was that physicists had an initial emotion based dislike for the idea of a universe with an ultimate beginning. But that initial reaction just isn't the big deal Portillio makes of it. We can find physicists saying similar things about quantum mechanics, and even worse things about special and general relativity back in the early part of twentieth century. So what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Pressie, posted 09-02-2011 6:40 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-03-2011 12:15 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 340 of 389 (631698)
09-02-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Butterflytyrant
09-02-2011 8:30 AM


Re: looking for information
I don't get a lot of exposure to people who cannot or will not learn.

I feel your pain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-02-2011 8:30 AM Butterflytyrant has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 341 of 389 (631738)
09-02-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by ProtoTypical
09-02-2011 8:12 AM


Re: ad populum
it is those simple-minded janitors, engineers, geologists and philosophers on whose faith in the correctness of the explanations offered by the elite of mathemagicians, the very upkeep and existence of the mathemagicians entirely depends.

Really? Does the general public have any significant say in which cosmological inquiries get funded and who gets telescope time? I find the idea that the public has any significant input rather difficult to believe. Because surely there'd be more stink about how the money is being spent. I understand that the general purse strings are under public control at universities, but I expect that the scientist who get results and bring credit to their university (credit among peers) are the ones who get the money.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-02-2011 8:12 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-03-2011 10:16 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 347 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-03-2011 11:44 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 342 of 389 (631794)
09-03-2011 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by NoNukes
09-02-2011 5:43 PM


Re: ad populum
I think is meant for Alfred at msg 327.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by NoNukes, posted 09-02-2011 5:43 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 343 of 389 (631795)
09-03-2011 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Alfred Maddenstein
09-02-2011 8:42 AM


Re: ad populum
Not being patently absurd and hiding the fact behind the equations like the priests hide behind the intricacies of the biblical text claiming an immunity to logical scrutiny .

The real conspiracy of the priests taking advantage of the ignorance of their audience was eventually exposed when the audience learned how to read. The priests actively and obviously tried to suppress any dissension or discussion. Your imagined conspiracy of physicists has withstood decades of scrutiny from the world’s greatest minds. Your conspiring physicists are actively teaching what they know and seeking criticism. Their motivation is to know the truth. A far greater reward than some paltry wage.

Your argument is entirely cynical and requires an absurd conspiracy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-02-2011 8:42 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-03-2011 10:50 AM ProtoTypical has responded

ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 344 of 389 (631796)
09-03-2011 10:24 AM


I found this on Michio Kaku's site.

Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; math is nothing but bookkeeping.

Did Einsein actually say something like this and would the readers here agree with it?


Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2011 10:39 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 348 by Percy, posted 09-03-2011 11:50 AM ProtoTypical has responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1927 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 345 of 389 (631799)
09-03-2011 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by ProtoTypical
09-03-2011 10:24 AM


Did Einsein actually say something like this and would the readers here agree with it?

I can't find it - and no,I don't really agree with it. If Einstein did say it, it sounds very muc like from his Special Relativity era - it is not an opinion he would likely have had around General Relativity. This somewhat contradictory quote by Albert is one that I can certainly stand by:

quote:
Our experience hitherto justifies us in trusting that nature is the realization of the simplest that is mathematically conceivable. I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those lawlike connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena.

Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it.

Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics. Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp the real, as the ancients had dreamed.

from "On the Method of Theoretical Physics", p. 183. The Herbert Spencer Lecture, delivered at Oxford (10 June 1933). Quoted in Einstein's Philosophy of Science


Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-03-2011 10:24 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by ProtoTypical, posted 09-03-2011 12:49 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019