Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 3:24 PM
30 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK, RAZD (4 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,593 Year: 3,630/19,786 Month: 625/1,087 Week: 215/212 Day: 30/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345678Next
Author Topic:   Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 1 of 115 (460635)
03-17-2008 2:49 PM


It was suggested that if I wanted to explore the beginnings further I should start a new tread.

Here

Hi bluescat48,

bluescat48 writes:

In what way does science require faith?

Good question.

Anything at and everything prior to T=10-43 has to be believed by faith.

I have learned some things over the past year even though no one thinks I have.

One of the things I have learned is:

Here
Son Goku says,

Now for the umpteenth time, the singularity is not a physical object.

If the singularity is a mathematical equation and not physical then it can not be the universe.

Another of the things I have learned is:

Here Son Goku says,

13.7 billion years ago the whole universe was about the size of a pea.

This pea sized universe is at T=10-43.

The only way that universe can be there is to believe it is there by "FAITH" there is no evidence for it being there.

From the point the Big Bang Theory takes over and begins to describe what took place there is evidence, some of which is questioned.

Similar evidence is presented in the Bible.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : Trim Down for Admin

Edited by Admin, : Change title.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-17-2008 3:08 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 5 by teen4christ, posted 03-17-2008 6:49 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 6 by lyx2no, posted 03-17-2008 11:26 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2008 9:50 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 03-18-2008 11:12 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 2 of 115 (460638)
03-17-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
03-17-2008 2:49 PM


I don't want to release a thread that continues to mix faith in science with the misunderstanding of a cosmological issue. Could you please trim this down to simply the cosmological issue, and change the title appropriately? Just the portion containing your reply to Bluescat should be sufficient.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 2:49 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 5:44 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 3 of 115 (460653)
03-17-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
03-17-2008 3:08 PM


Re-Trim Down
Admin,

I trimed it down and changed the name. If the name is not sufficient change it to whatever you think is best.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-17-2008 3:08 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 4 of 115 (460662)
03-17-2008 6:33 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 3877 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 5 of 115 (460664)
03-17-2008 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
03-17-2008 2:49 PM


Ok, let me try to take a stab at this.

You wrote

quote:
Anything at and everything prior to T=10-43 has to be believed by faith.

From what I know of physics (and I am a college physics and chem major), nothing about prior to T=10^-43 is known except that our current model just doesn't apply there. Unless you're including "I don't know" in the faith catagory, I simply don't know how you could describe this part of science as faith.

quote:
If the singularity is a mathematical equation and not physical then it can not be the universe.

You're right that the singularity is not the universe. I don't think anyone is going to dispute with you here. The singularity is a description of a state of unknown that so far science has been unable to describe or model. If you have trouble comprehending this, simply replace the word "singularity" with "absolute unknown". Nothing we know about the universe can help us understand the singularity. About the only thing we know about it right now is none of our theories and mathematical models work in such condition.

Again, if you want to place the "I don't know" in the faith catagory, then I guess we are in agreement.

quote:
The only way that universe can be there is to believe it is there by "FAITH" there is no evidence for it being there.

Sure, there is. Based on our mathematical model of such an early universe, it had to be very dense and very hot. In other words, the whole universe back then had to be glowing hot. If the universe expanded to its current size from this very small pea size, the prediction under the mathematical model was that there must be an after glow of this very dense, very hot condition. What's more, this after glow should be seen just about evenly throughout the universe everywhere no matter what direction we look. Sure enough, the cosmic background radiation was discovered. This cosmic background radiation is found everywhere we look at in the universe. It is just about evenly distributed throughout the cosmos. About the only thing that we can possibly imagine that could have placed this cosmic background radiation this evenly everywhere in the universe is if the universe started out as a very small, very dense, very hot thing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 2:49 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 12:24 AM teen4christ has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2794 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 6 of 115 (460680)
03-17-2008 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
03-17-2008 2:49 PM


Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
No.

Scientific theories start some wee bit of time after the origin. About 10-43 seconds after.

However, it is kind of like if I turn the corner of a street and see a bloke walking towards me, and I notice that he’s getting closer and closer to this corner with each step, that it is probably a safe bet that before I stepped around the corner and spotted him he was farther from this corner still.

You’re right, I didn’t see him prior to my turning the corner so he could have been walking backwards or standing still in anticipation of my appearance. He could have sprung fully formed from the head of Zeus. I don’t know. That’s why I don’t say. It wouldn’t be scientific.

By that very same token, science, striving to be scientific and all, doesn't say what happened prior to 10-43 seconds. Only that it was probably hotter and denser. But "probably hotter and denser" doesn't amount to a theory.

If by "origin" you don't mean T=0 kindly let me know.


Kindly

******

Scared of the dark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 2:49 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 12:45 AM lyx2no has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 7 of 115 (460684)
03-18-2008 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by teen4christ
03-17-2008 6:49 PM


Re-Taking a Stab
Hi teen4christ,

teen4christ writes:

it had to be very dense and very hot. In other words, the whole universe back then had to be glowing hot.

Why did it have to be so hot?

Why could it just not exist?

You say this point which is a mathamatical equation can't tell us anything.

So without faith how do we know anything is there.

teen4christ writes:

Sure enough, the cosmic background radiation was discovered.


It sure was.

You do know other predicted the CMB before Gamow and did a better job and they did not use the Big Bang Model.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by teen4christ, posted 03-17-2008 6:49 PM teen4christ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2008 8:43 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 03-18-2008 10:38 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2008 11:44 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 21 by teen4christ, posted 03-18-2008 2:04 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 8 of 115 (460685)
03-18-2008 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by lyx2no
03-17-2008 11:26 PM


Re: Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
Hi lyx2no,

lyx2no writes:

Scientific theories start some wee bit of time after the origin. About 10-43 seconds after.

The Big Bang Theory starts then. Read the title again it says origins. This is Percy's choice of title.

lyx2no writes:

By that very same token, science, striving to be scientific and all, doesn't say what happened prior to 10-43 seconds.

Then why did you say: " Only that it was probably hotter and denser. "

You say it don't say anything and then you say it says something.
Isn't that showing faith.

If by "origin" you don't mean T=0 kindly let me know.

I am refering to anything between T=O and T=10-43.

Anything that is there has to be assumed, believed to be there, faith that it is there. Because there is no evidence that anything is there.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by lyx2no, posted 03-17-2008 11:26 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by bluegenes, posted 03-18-2008 5:06 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Admin, posted 03-18-2008 9:00 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 14 by lyx2no, posted 03-18-2008 10:15 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 555 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 9 of 115 (460695)
03-18-2008 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
03-18-2008 12:45 AM


Re: Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
ICANT writes:

Anything that is there has to be assumed, believed to be there, faith that it is there. Because there is no evidence that anything is there.

All you seem to be saying is that no-one knows the ultimate origins of the universe, which is exactly what the physicists are telling you.

Are you trying to imply that people need faith to know that they don't know something? Do you need faith to know that you don't know my real name?

If not, then what's your point? No-one needs to have faith about the ultimate origins of the universe. It's something religious people do, but if sane and honest people don't know something, they say that they don't know.

Evidence based beliefs do not require faith, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily right, or 100% sure. For example, ancient cultures believing that the sun goes round the earth were doing so completely reasonably, on the basis of observation. They were not doing so based on blind faith, even though they turned out to be wrong. If, however, they believed that the sun was the sun God driving his chariot of fire round the earth, that would be faith based, because they had no observations or evidence for it at all.

I think what you may be doing is trying to reduce science to the level of your own faith based superstitions. You're wrong. Your religion is on the same level as the belief in the sun God. Just like the sun God belief, it is evidence-less, and therefore no more or less likely to be true.

You could try honesty, for a change, and give up your religion, but I doubt if you will. Honesty, after all, wouldn't be so comfortable for you, would it? Try to be honest with yourself about this.;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 12:45 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 03-18-2008 8:53 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 10 of 115 (460701)
03-18-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
03-18-2008 12:24 AM


Re: Re-Taking a Stab
You do know other predicted the CMB before Gamow and did a better job and they did not use the Big Bang Model.

I am intrigued by this. If true I did not know this. Did they also predict this in specific measurable terms or just predict it's existence?

Do you have any more info on this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 12:24 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2008 12:34 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 11 of 115 (460703)
03-18-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by bluegenes
03-18-2008 5:06 AM


Re: Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
bluegenes writes:

You could try honesty, for a change, and give up your religion, but I doubt if you will. Honesty, after all, wouldn't be so comfortable for you, would it? Try to be honest with yourself about this. ;)

Let's please keep the focus on the topic and not on other participants.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bluegenes, posted 03-18-2008 5:06 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 12 of 115 (460705)
03-18-2008 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
03-18-2008 12:45 AM


Re: Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
ICANT writes:

Hi lyx2no,

lyx2no writes:

Scientific theories start some wee bit of time after the origin. About 10-43 seconds after.

The Big Bang Theory starts then. Read the title again it says origins. This is Percy's choice of title.

The phrase "cosmological origins" does not specify a time period, but it certainly includes much more than just the instant T=0. This area of study seeks to understand and model the conditions in the early universe that led to the cosmological characteristics we observe today.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 12:45 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 115 (460710)
03-18-2008 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
03-17-2008 2:49 PM


Anything at and everything prior to T=10-43 has to be believed by faith.

If anyone claims to know for definite what happened prior to this time, currently, they are doing so on faith. Very few people make this claim. However, developing a theory to try and explain what was happening at this time is science. The problem that these theories suffer from is that the unique predictions they make about the universe are incredibly difficult to test.

Hopefully we will have a better idea which theories are looking in the right direction at least after the LHC has been running for a while.

his pea sized universe is at T=10-43.

The only way that universe can be there is to believe it is there by "FAITH" there is no evidence for it being there.

Assuming that the universe exists during time is not a faith based assumption. If time exists, so does the universe. There is evidence that the universe is about 13.7 billion light years in length/duration at this time.

Even you agree that the universe(heavens/earth) exists 10-43 seconds after "In the beginning". Believing that the universe exists during its existence is not a matter of faith :)

re: CMB: An interesting 10 minute video can be found here = as part of the physics for future presidents series. It gives a brief overview of why there should be one according to Big Bang cosmology, as well as its 'clumpiness'

The beginning of this video talks about this "Planck Epoch" in much the same we have tried to get it across to you. The creator of the video uses a gigantic spinning question mark and says, in effect, 'We don't know, we have some theories but we haven't been able to confirm them yet'.

And finally a classic wiki quote to drive the point home

quote:
Experimental data casting light on this cosmological epoch has been scant or non-existent until now, but recent results from the WMAP probe have allowed scientists to test hypotheses about the universe's first trillionth of a second (although the cosmic microwave background radiation observed by WMAP originated when the universe was already several hundred thousand years old). Although this interval is still orders of magnitude longer than the Planck time, other experiments currently coming online including the IceCube neutrino detector and the Planck Surveyor probe, promise to push back our 'cosmic clock' further to reveal quite a bit more about the very first moments of our universe's history, hopefully giving us some insight into the Planck epoch itself. Of course, data from particle accelerators provides meaningful insight into the early universe as well. Experiments with the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider have allowed physicists to determine that the Quark-gluon plasma (an early phase of matter) behaved more like a liquid than a gas, and the Large Hadron Collider soon to come online at CERN will allow us to probe still earlier phases of matter, but no accelerator (current or planned) will allow us to probe the Planck scale directly. However, the more we understand about how matter forms, the more precisely we will be able to interpret what we learn from astrophysical data, and from other sources.

Definitely looks like science to me. Nobody is making any unsubstantiated claims, just describing what seems to be the case based on the evidence and proposing new experiments that can help give us more evidence to increase what we do know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 03-17-2008 2:49 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2794 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 14 of 115 (460713)
03-18-2008 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
03-18-2008 12:45 AM


Re: Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
Good morning ICANT:

You may wish to take note that I write in whole sentences and stuff. Every one of your questions are contained within my previous post.

You* writes:

The Big Bang Theory starts then. Read the title again it says origins. This is Percy's choice of title.

I* writes:

If by "origin" you don't mean T=0 kindly let me know.

To which I add: T=10 -44 wasn’t the origin either.

You writes:

Then why did you say: " Only that it was probably hotter and denser. "

I writes:

By that very same token…

I writes:

… it is probably a safe bet that before I stepped around the corner and spotted him he was farther from this corner still.

I writes:

But "probably hotter and denser" doesn't amount to a theory.

To which I add: Read the title again it says origins “Theories”.

Just saving myself some writing. (Not really, just being a wise guy.)

You writes:

You say it do[es]n't say anything and then you say it says something. Isn't that showing faith.

I writes:

But "probably hotter and denser" doesn't amount to a theory.

Faith in “probably”?

To this I add: Firstly, if you’re going to have me saying something at least don’t have me saying it in rubbish English. Secondly, “it” in that sentence is “science”, and science isn’t me. The confusion was likely my fault, -· --- -.

You writes:

Anything that is there has to be assumed, believed to be there, faith that it is there. Because there is no evidence that anything is there.


    T=10-40: Universe hot and small‡.

    T=10-41: Universe hotter and smaller.

    T=10-42: Universe hotterer and smallerer.

    T=10-43: Universe hottererer and smallererer.

    T=10-44: The "er" button breaks down, and we’re screwed.

To simply assume that a trend continues is not faith. It would require faith to believe that the Universe deviates from the trend simply because the maths break down at that point. The maths are descriptive not proscriptive and have no actual say so in what the Universe does.

Now seriously, ICANT, I use the phrases “Thank God.”, “Bless you.” and “God bless America.” often. I do not believe in the existence of God or any mechanism by which one could be blessed. I use them as metaphors, which some believe cheapens them. I tend to agree but don’t care because I don’t believe they have any non-metaphorical value. But I really, really can not understand why you would want to use “Faith” as a metaphor.

*Violation of the rubbish English rule.
‡Violation of full sentence rule.


Kindly

******

Scared of the dark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 12:45 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1369 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 15 of 115 (460715)
03-18-2008 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
03-18-2008 12:24 AM


Ok, I'll bite
ICANT writes:

You do know other predicted the CMB before Gamow and did a better job and they did not use the Big Bang Model.


Could you please expand on this a little bit? This is like saying "hey, did you hear about the newly invented cure for cancer?" and then stop there. Most of us would want to hear more about this.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 12:24 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2008 11:39 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
1
2345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019