Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Theories of Cosmological Origins: Are They Science?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 16 of 115 (460718)
03-18-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
03-17-2008 2:49 PM


Here we go again, ICANT. You're so desperate to be able to say science and faith are the same thing, aren't you.
Nothing in cosmology or any other field of science is based on faith.
In Big Bang cosmology, there is a point prior to which we know very little with any degree of certainty because our classical models break down mathematically.
Your position is that we take everything, even the existence of the Universe, prior to that point on faith. But we do know just a few scant details about the period between T=0 and T=10^-43. We know that the Universe exists in some way - time is a component of the Universe, so it's utter nonsense to say that the Universe might not exist until a fraction of a second into the time dimension of the Universe. That's like saying the Earth might not exist beyond a given latitude. We also know the trend that the Universe follows for every moment leading all the way back to T=10^-43: as you approach T=0, the Universe is smaller, hotter, and more dense. It is a reasonable, logical inference from that evidence to say "we don't really know much about the state of the Universe prior to T=10^-43 other than that it was hotter, denser, and smaller than at T=10^-43."
You realize that the reason the math breaks down is because the Universe prior to T=1-^-43 was too hot, too dense, and too small for us to model with current math, right? We have to know it was hotter and denser and smaller even for the math to break down.
Now, is it possible that the Universe prior to T=10^-43 suddenly alters, and that as we approach T=0 from that point the Universe expands? Not according to the evidence we do have. But then, that's why even when we say that we "know" something, it's still tentative pending additional information. That's the point of science - we change our models, even to the point of throwing them out completely, based on evidence. We don't change our models without evidence that they are inaccurate.
We aren't taking anything on faith, ICANT, because we are only putting forth reasonable, logical inferences based on the evidence we do have. We aren't claiming to be positively correct about any of it, we are saying "from the evidence we posses, this is what looks most likely." This educated guess is based on evidence - and as such, it is not faith.
The other big part you're missing is the "We don't really know with any degree of certainty." We're making educated guesses and reasonable inferences based on what evidence we posses, but we're prefacing that with "but we really don't know for sure because our math breaks down." As others have pointed out, it's hardly a statement of faith to say "I really don't know."
You seem to think that even making rational educated guesses and logical inferences based on limited evidence involves taking the conclusions on faith. This is not the case, because those conclusions are still based on evidence. Nobody ever said that our conclusions based on limited evidence need to be correct. When we have a model that has proven to be extremely accurate, it is in fact the opposite of faith to infer that the same model can be used to make a reasonable inference for those points for which we have little evidence.
The position of science is this: "We don't really know much. The trend leading back to T=10^-43 is that, as you move backwards in time, the Universe becomes smaller, hotter, and more dense. Prior to that point, the Universe under this model is so small, hot, and dense, that the model stops working. So it looks like the Universe was even hotter, smaller, and denser moving back, continuing the same trend, but the conditions were so exotic that the math stops working. Really, we need some more experimental evidence to shed some light here, because we're honestly just making educated guesses in the dark based on the little we do have information about."
Are you really of the opinion that such a position is based on faith?

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

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 115 (460719)
03-18-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Taz
03-18-2008 10:38 AM


Re: Ok, I'll bite
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.
I think he's talking about that verse in Isaiah that says, "And the LORD stretches the heavens like a tent, and fills it with microwave radiation that has the spectrum of a blackbody of 4 Kelvins."

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 03-18-2008 10:38 AM Taz has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 115 (460721)
03-18-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
03-18-2008 12:24 AM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
So without faith how do we know anything is there.
I dunno. Without faith, how do we know anything is here? Without faith, how do I know that you are there?
Sounds to me like you're using the word faith in an inappropriate manner.
I think we need a program that buys religious people dictionaries and explains to them why the different definitions are separated by numbers.

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 12:24 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 3:51 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 115 (460724)
03-18-2008 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
03-18-2008 8:43 AM


early predictions/measurements of CMB
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?
Well in 1896 Charles Edouard Guillaume estimated the 'radiation of the stars' to be about 5.6K - and a few other physicists played about with the idea in a variety of ways: source. I'm assuming it is to that that ICANT is referring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2008 8:43 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2008 1:10 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 3:54 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 115 (460725)
03-18-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Modulous
03-18-2008 12:34 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Very interesting, Modulous. Thanks for the contribution.
A few points, though. Most of the calculations for the temperature seemed to rely on Stefan's law:
energy density = sT4. However, this is not the only characteristic of black body radiation. Black body radiation also has a spectrum that depends on the temperature, notably the peak of the spectrum is what really distinguishes the temperature of the body.
For example, if the sun were the only thing that existed in a static universe, then one could be far enough that one would measure that the energy density would be consistent with a temperature of about 3 K; however, a more careful measurement of the spectrum of the sunlight would still reveal a peak in the visible portion of the EM spectrum, indicating that the source really has a temperature of 5000 K.
So it is important to note that the spectrum of the CMB is consistent with a black body of 3 K (or so). It is not enough to say that the total energy we get from the stars is consistent with a black body spectrum of 3 K; one also needs a means by which the radiation can come to equilibrium with a medium of 3 K.
The source that you cite does mention some early hypotheses for this: "tired light" interacting with the interstellar medium, and interaction with the aether. But both of these mechanisms have been discounted on observational grounds.
So, the source does make some delicious reading in the history of science, which is, in my opinion, one of the best ways to learn how science really works. We have several competing theories that predict a certain phenomenon, and additional observations of the phenomena predicted by each model can rule out particular models to leave, in this case, one possibility.
The earlier models are not to be laughed at though. They were good explanations/predictions based on the science at the time. It is only through continual observation that we learn when to discard a model; it is not by saying, "Oh, we don't understand a particular point, so we don't really understand anything, so it's all just a matter of faith!"
Anyway, thanks for the link. It is interesting to see yet another model, like calculating the Schwarzschild radius using Newton's law of gravity, that gave a correct answer although based on an incorrect view of the universe.

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2008 12:34 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 4:31 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 57 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2008 11:00 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 21 of 115 (460731)
03-18-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
03-18-2008 12:24 AM


Re: Re-Taking a Stab
ICANT writes
quote:
Why did it have to be so hot?
Several reasons, actually. When things are compacted, they tend to heat up. This is pretty much the same for everything we know of. But another thing is it had to be very hot in order to leave a foot print as prevalent and homogeneous as the cosmic background radiation.
quote:
Why could it just not exist?
I suppose you could see it that way also.
quote:
You say this point which is a mathamatical equation can't tell us anything.
So without faith how do we know anything is there.
That's just it. We don't know anything was there. Human intuition, however, tells us that since there was something there a little bit later, there probably must have been something there right before that point.
Suppose you are walking along in a forest. On your path is a fallen tree. From the look of it, it probably was very recent that the tree fell. Burnt marks indicate that lightning was the cause. I'm pretty sure it's reasonable to assume from the burnt marks that it was very hot when the lightning struck the tree. Sure, we could also assume that the tree simply poofed into existence fallen and with burnt marks. But ask yourself which assumption out of the two is more feasible?
quote:
You do know other predicted the CMB before Gamow and did a better job and they did not use the Big Bang Model.
If you're referring to the old "tired light" concept where the combined light of the fixed stars in the heavens contributed a calculable temperature of space, I don't know where you got the "better job" part from. Those theories assumed that the stars in our galaxy were all there was and there was no external galaxies. If anything, those scientists back then lacked sufficient data so they worked with whatever they had available.
If you are referring to something else, please let me know. I've done extensive research into this matter in the past for a project.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 12:24 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 5:28 PM teen4christ has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 22 of 115 (460736)
03-18-2008 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chiroptera
03-18-2008 11:44 AM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
Hi Chiroptera,
Chiroptera writes:
I think we need a program that buys religious people dictionaries and explains to them why the different definitions are separated by numbers.
No need for a dictionary I am using Rahvin's definition of Faith.
Found Here
2. belief that is not based on proof:
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 18 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2008 11:44 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Admin, posted 03-18-2008 4:09 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 25 by Rahvin, posted 03-18-2008 4:16 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 23 of 115 (460737)
03-18-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Modulous
03-18-2008 12:34 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
I'm assuming it is to that that ICANT is referring.
You assumed correctly.
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 19 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2008 12:34 PM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 03-19-2008 9:31 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 24 of 115 (460738)
03-18-2008 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ICANT
03-18-2008 3:51 PM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
ICANT writes:
No need for a dictionary I am using Rahvin's definition of Faith.
Found Here
2. belief that is not based on proof:
You're not using Rahvin's definition of faith. You're welcome to return to Rahvin's message to better understand what he was saying, particularly this part (from Message 7):
Rahvin writes:
The models and math have been repeatedly shown to be highly accurate. Once again, it's not a belief not based on proof. All of science is based 100% on observable, objective evidence and repeatable experiments. It's the polar opposite of blind faith.
But we're not going to waste another thread playing word games. If your arguments in this thread are going to be predicated upon a determined misapplication of the word faith then I'll stop the discussion now.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 3:51 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 25 of 115 (460740)
03-18-2008 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ICANT
03-18-2008 3:51 PM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
Hi Chiroptera,
Chiroptera writes:
quote:
I think we need a program that buys religious people dictionaries and explains to them why the different definitions are separated by numbers.
No need for a dictionary I am using Rahvin's definition of Faith.
Found Here
quote:
2. belief that is not based on proof:
I think the problem is that ICANT is stuck on the word "proof" in the definition.
ICANT, do you think we mean "a belief that has been proven?" Because that's much different from "a belief based on proof." We are led to our conclusions regarding the Big Bang by objective evidence. That means those conclusions are "based on proof." That does not mean those conclusions have been proven.
Faith can involve subjective evidence, that which is only valid for an individual, but never involves objective evidence. That's why we say faith is defined as "beliefs not based on proof." The basis of faith is not objective evidence. The basis of all science is objective evidence.
The state of the Universe has not been proven for between T=0 and T=10^-43, but then, we never claimed it was. We said "we don't really know, becasue when we follow the evidence we do have, the model stops working. But continuing the trend backwards, it looks like it was even smaller, even denser, and even hotter as you continue to approach T=0." That's not a statement of faith, ICANT. That's not a statement of certainty, or a claim of having proven anything. It is, however, a statement based around the objective evidence we do have available.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 3:51 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 4:39 PM Rahvin has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 26 of 115 (460741)
03-18-2008 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Chiroptera
03-18-2008 1:10 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Hi Chiroptera,
Chiroptera writes:
So, the source does make some delicious reading in the history of science, which is, in my opinion, one of the best ways to learn how science really works. We have several competing theories that predict a certain phenomenon, and additional observations of the phenomena predicted by each model can rule out particular models to leave, in this case, one possibility.
What would happen if we could find something to make Max Born a little more of a prophet?
Discovery of H2, in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
Published in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology, Spring 2000
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 20 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2008 1:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2008 4:54 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 42 by teen4christ, posted 03-18-2008 6:19 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 27 of 115 (460742)
03-18-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Rahvin
03-18-2008 4:16 PM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
It is, however, a statement based around the objective evidence we do have available.
But you have no evidence of anything existing at T=O.
The only way you can have something at T=O is to believe it is there.
That takes faith.
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 25 by Rahvin, posted 03-18-2008 4:16 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 03-18-2008 5:00 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 30 by Rahvin, posted 03-18-2008 5:05 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2008 5:13 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2008 5:28 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 115 (460744)
03-18-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ICANT
03-18-2008 4:31 PM


Re: early predictions/measurements of CMB
Okay. So you have nothing to say that addresses any of the points that I wrote. You found, I guess, a source that may or may not address any of the points I meant, but you don't offer an explanation since you probably don't understand any of it.
Why bother even posting at all if you're not going to say anything?

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 4:31 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 6:10 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 29 of 115 (460745)
03-18-2008 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
03-18-2008 4:39 PM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
Hi ICANT,
I'm not going to allow you to continue just ignoring the rebuttals of this argument that you keep repeating:
But you have no evidence of anything existing at T=O.
The only way you can have something at T=O is to believe it is there.
That takes faith.
Rahvin in Message 16 said:
Rahvin in Message 16 writes:
Your position is that we take everything, even the existence of the Universe, prior to that point on faith. But we do know just a few scant details about the period between T=0 and T=10^-43. We know that the Universe exists in some way - time is a component of the Universe, so it's utter nonsense to say that the Universe might not exist until a fraction of a second into the time dimension of the Universe. That's like saying the Earth might not exist beyond a given latitude. We also know the trend that the Universe follows for every moment leading all the way back to T=10^-43: as you approach T=0, the Universe is smaller, hotter, and more dense. It is a reasonable, logical inference from that evidence to say "we don't really know much about the state of the Universe prior to T=10^-43 other than that it was hotter, denser, and smaller than at T=10^-43."
He also said:
Rahvin in Message 16 writes:
You seem to think that even making rational educated guesses and logical inferences based on limited evidence involves taking the conclusions on faith. This is not the case, because those conclusions are still based on evidence.
Teen4christ said the same thing in a different way in Message 21:
teen4christ in Message 21 writes:
Suppose you are walking along in a forest. On your path is a fallen tree. From the look of it, it probably was very recent that the tree fell. Burnt marks indicate that lightning was the cause. I'm pretty sure it's reasonable to assume from the burnt marks that it was very hot when the lightning struck the tree. Sure, we could also assume that the tree simply poofed into existence fallen and with burnt marks. But ask yourself which assumption out of the two is more feasible?
If you reply again to descriptions from people describing what they to believe to be the evidence with a dismissive "But you have no evidence of anything existing at T=O," or anything remotely along these lines, I will suspend you. They've described why they believe they have evidence, it is now your turn to describe why they are mistaken in that belief.
You wanted to discuss this topic, so you now have a thread to discuss it. So begin discussing.
Please, no replies to this message.
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 4:39 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 30 of 115 (460746)
03-18-2008 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
03-18-2008 4:39 PM


Re: Re-Taking a blow to the head.
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
quote:
It is, however, a statement based around the objective evidence we do have available.
But you have no evidence of anything existing at T=O.
The only way you can have something at T=O is to believe it is there.
That takes faith.
We have evidence that the Universe exists after T=0. It is perfectly logical to conclude from that objective, observable evidence that it is highly likely "something" also exists at T=0.
We're saying "we're not entirely sure, but from what we know, we think it might be this."
That's not a statement of faith, ICANT.
A statement of faith would be "Despite having no objective evidence whatsoever, I conclude that the Christian God created the Universe."
A similar statement of faith with exactly the same amount of objective evidence would be "Despite having no objective evidence whatsoever, I conclude that the Universe was assembled from spongecake by 100 giant supernatural kittens."
A similar statement of faith with exactly the same amount of objective evidence and the same amount of subjective evidence would be "Despite having no objective evidence whatsoever, I conclude that the Muslim god Allah created the Universe." Or "Despite having no objective evidence whatsoever, I conclude that Kronos created the Universe." (Insert religious creation myth here.)
The only thing we're saying with any real degree of certainty is that the Universe exists between T=0 and T=10^-43. This is a logical necessity - time is a component of the Universe. Suggesting otherwise is like saying the Universe may not have existed at a point where matter exists - since matter is also a component of the Universe, such a statement is nonsense. Time is just one of the corrdinates that identify locations in the Universe. The period between T=0 and T=10^-43 is a segment of the Universe.
We're saying that, for that particular segment of the Universe, we don't really know much about what conditions were like, because the conditions we do have information about become so exotic that the models stop working. We can say "it looks like it was even hotter, even denser, and even smaller." That is a very tentative educated guess based on the very limited evidence we have - and since it's based on evidence, it is not a statement of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 4:39 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 03-18-2008 5:37 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024