Author Topic: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space  (Read 8162 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #58 on: December 02, 2008, 11:49:24 AM »
trustno1,

It's a valid concern.  The theory of General Relativity may be incomplete.  However, I was careful to properly caveat the proof in both instances.  Hideousmonster doesn't have sufficient insight into the matter to bring up the objection you have, which was really my point.  He claims to "understand" the evidence, but in actuality, he's simply a nay-sayer, which amounts to nothing.  He should get a job in the argument clinic, where he can get paid a pound for five minutes of saying, "Nuh-uh".  He doesn't understand general relativity, he doesn't understand quantum theory, he's never even looked at Hawking's proof and was probably unaware of its existence entirely until I brought it to his attention.  He's trying to pass off knee-jerk negation as intelligent criticism and I've pulled his card on it.  I have serious problems with the idea that anyone would carte blanche reject something without even examining it, and his refusal to even properly address the question of why he would do that reveals it for the simple-minded laziness it really is.  About the only thing that earns a pre-judged rejection from me is claims of the supernatural, which is a prejudgement I can and do eagerly defend.  His defense of the rejection of the entire class of mathematical proofs rests on the idea that one orange does not equal another orange?!  What a waste of space.

By the way, if you want to see another instance of hideousmonster engaging in this sort of automatic negation, here's a classic example.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=2200.msg47348#msg47348

You can start there and follow down through my Reply #24.  He doesn't respond after that.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #59 on: December 02, 2008, 01:05:00 PM »
People from Science Fiction Conventions have theories that make more sense than this.

no, no they don't.  I go to cons and they really don't. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #60 on: December 03, 2008, 02:41:56 PM »
...

Hideousmonster,

Again, this is about participating in the forum.  Why don't you simply replace your existence here entirely by deleting all of your posts and starting a thread entitled, "Hideousmonster doubts what you just said and nothing you can ever do or say can possibly alter my position" and leave it at that?  This is a discussion forum.  If you aren't interested in discussion, then you're just trolling.

I don't mind discussing things, but when I express a doubt, and somebody asks me to prove something is doubt-worthy, I'm not going to waste my time. Doubt needs no evidence. Doubt is always logical, until the doubter feels supporting evidence is solid enough. I don't believe our grasp on the cosmos and the physics which govorn it are solid enough to disolve my doubts that the big bang theory is true. It's not up to me to prove a doubt, it's up to science to find better evidence.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 02:48:11 PM by hideousmonster »
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #61 on: December 03, 2008, 03:24:31 PM »
Do you understand the fundamental principle of this webpage IS the explanation of doubt?  Why Does God Hate Amputees?  It's why we doubt.  We don't just say that we doubt; we explain the wellspring for it.  Evidence was provided and it should be addressed.  If I show you a picture of something and you say, "I don't believe that picture is accurate," and I ask why and you say, "Because pictures can be doctored," that's not a rebuttal.  If you can show that you have specific reason to think that THIS photograph has been altered, then please do so.  And even if I granted that some kinds of evidence may be insufficient to receive the benefit of the doubt, you STILL have to show why a mathematical proof is rightfully so considered.  The problem is that you pretend to have examined the evidence, but you actually haven't.  People who read your initial post would be misled into thinking that you had actually investigated the evidence for the claim.  And, of course, that was your intention.  But it's not true.  You haven't actually examined the evidence.  You don't actually understand the way that general relativity proves that Big Bang happened.  Upon further questioning, you revealed, reluctantly I pause to note, that you had not actually examined the evidence.  You simply had decided at some point prior to examination that evidence of this sort doesn't need to be examined.  Those are two RADICALLY different things.  So, don't say you understand the evidence and have doubt.  That's not true.  You doubt the relevance of ALL mathematics to the physical world, and because of that, you have refused to examine Hawking's proof of the Big Bang.  You are a dishonest person who attempted to cheat the readers here, and your reluctance to answer direct questions is a part of that fraud.

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #62 on: December 03, 2008, 07:15:28 PM »
Do you understand the fundamental principle of this webpage IS the explanation of doubt?  Why Does God Hate Amputees?  It's why we doubt.  We don't just say that we doubt; we explain the wellspring for it.  Evidence was provided and it should be addressed.  If I show you a picture of something and you say, "I don't believe that picture is accurate," and I ask why and you say, "Because pictures can be doctored," that's not a rebuttal.  If you can show that you have specific reason to think that THIS photograph has been altered, then please do so.  And even if I granted that some kinds of evidence may be insufficient to receive the benefit of the doubt, you STILL have to show why a mathematical proof is rightfully so considered.  The problem is that you pretend to have examined the evidence, but you actually haven't.  People who read your initial post would be misled into thinking that you had actually investigated the evidence for the claim.  And, of course, that was your intention.  But it's not true.  You haven't actually examined the evidence.  You don't actually understand the way that general relativity proves that Big Bang happened.  Upon further questioning, you revealed, reluctantly I pause to note, that you had not actually examined the evidence.  You simply had decided at some point prior to examination that evidence of this sort doesn't need to be examined.  Those are two RADICALLY different things.  So, don't say you understand the evidence and have doubt.  That's not true.  You doubt the relevance of ALL mathematics to the physical world, and because of that, you have refused to examine Hawking's proof of the Big Bang.  You are a dishonest person who attempted to cheat the readers here, and your reluctance to answer direct questions is a part of that fraud.

General relativity doesn't prove the big bang theory, because even general relativity is a theory. Find me a reputed physicist who disagrees. You don't use an unknown to prove another unknown. That's not scientific. And yes, I do doubt the relevance of all mathematics to the physical world, because, as I've state earlier, mathematics is just a human invention, as an attempt, though not necessarily a perfect one, to understand a very mysterious world. We have been seeing the universe for thousands of years from just one angle, and only recently have we even realized that the apparent expansion of the area of space which immediately surounds us, looks like it might be accelerating. It has barely been more than ten years since that idea was thought idotic by most, because it conflicts with the previously established laws of gravity. Are you telling me that physicists can make such an enormous blunder as this, and still expect people to trust them when they tell us what the universe looked like over 13 billion years ago, when we know they rely on regularly-reimagined "standard" model of theoretical physics?  I'm sorry, but I doubt it, and I'm going to continue to doubt it, probably for the rest of my life. It's a theory. No respected physicist or cosmologist would call it "the Big Bang Reality" on record. Even they call it a theory, which shows conclusively from my point of view, that even they have room for doubt. Why do I not consider mathematical proof conclusive evidence? Because it's not. Math is used to produce simulated virtual model worlds, that can operate however the designer wants to imagine them. I will doubt this human theory for a long time.
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #63 on: December 03, 2008, 07:50:27 PM »
If you put your mailing address in your next post, hideousmonster, I will send you a dictionary that has the definition of "theory" in it.

In any case, you failed to address my central point.  You haven't actually examined and understood the evidence, as you claimed.  That was a lie.  Are you going to admit that or are you going to tell a second lie in a transparent attempt to cover your first?

Offline Irish

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Darwins +18/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Moraxella catarrhalis on BA
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #64 on: December 03, 2008, 11:32:55 PM »
General relativity doesn't prove the big bang theory, because even general relativity is a theory

That is not the scientific definition of a theory.  In main-stream the term 'theory' means a guess.  However, in the science realm it is correctly defined as an idea that has withstood the test of time and every conceivable attempt to *disprove* it.  When a scientist has an idea he/she will actively set out to disprove or prove it while other scientists actively set out to disprove or prove it.  When all is said and done if the idea withstands the brutal arena of academic, scientific work then it is a theory.

Some other popular theories are Cell theory and gravitational theory.  Now, not one respectable person would disagree that cells or gravity exist because they are "only theories."  The fact that they are theories just means we cannot actively reproduce the phenomena or actively define the mechanism of the theory.  For instance:  We all know gravity exists.  Mathematicians long ago formulated it's speed constant.  We can even go so far as to produce artificial gravity by rotating objects around a center.  However, knowing all we know about gravity we still cannot define exactly how gravity works i.e. what particles or forces are at work.
La scienze non ha nemici ma gli ignoranti.

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #65 on: December 04, 2008, 12:06:41 AM »
If you put your mailing address in your next post, hideousmonster, I will send you a dictionary that has the definition of "theory" in it.

In any case, you failed to address my central point.  You haven't actually examined and understood the evidence, as you claimed.  That was a lie.  Are you going to admit that or are you going to tell a second lie in a transparent attempt to cover your first?

I don't defend myself against accusations. I ignore them. Accusations are not points. They are what people turn to when they have no point. When dogmatic people cannot show any reason why people they disagree with are unfounded in their opinions, they start attacking character.  I understand that, and let it be. The big bang has not been proven. Mathematics can show that it is theoretically possible, given what little we have seen. Not that it is certainly true.
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #66 on: December 04, 2008, 06:38:15 AM »
Just learn what the term "scientific theory" means and save everyone some grief.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #67 on: December 04, 2008, 10:38:45 AM »
General relativity doesn't prove the big bang theory, because even general relativity is a theory. Find me a reputed physicist who disagrees. You don't use an unknown to prove another unknown. That's not scientific. And yes, I do doubt the relevance of all mathematics to the physical world, because, as I've state earlier, mathematics is just a human invention, as an attempt, though not necessarily a perfect one, to understand a very mysterious world. We have been seeing the universe for thousands of years from just one angle, and only recently have we even realized that the apparent expansion of the area of space which immediately surounds us, looks like it might be accelerating. It has barely been more than ten years since that idea was thought idotic by most, because it conflicts with the previously established laws of gravity. Are you telling me that physicists can make such an enormous blunder as this, and still expect people to trust them when they tell us what the universe looked like over 13 billion years ago, when we know they rely on regularly-reimagined "standard" model of theoretical physics?  I'm sorry, but I doubt it, and I'm going to continue to doubt it, probably for the rest of my life. It's a theory. No respected physicist or cosmologist would call it "the Big Bang Reality" on record. Even they call it a theory, which shows conclusively from my point of view, that even they have room for doubt. Why do I not consider mathematical proof conclusive evidence? Because it's not. Math is used to produce simulated virtual model worlds, that can operate however the designer wants to imagine them. I will doubt this human theory for a long time.

General relativity does suppot a big bang theory.  In it, you get a singularity that starts everything out.  However, Einstein wasn't totally pleased by this since he didn't like singularities.    There are other modifications of this theory that get rid of the singularities but still fit the evidence of some dramatic start to the universe.  General relativity does fit the observed evidence and does fit the acceleration that is observed, though with some additions of dark energy, etc.  Horrors, a theory that can be modified.  Well, dear, that's part of the definition and theories will change as our abilities to observe get better.  The math works, "human invention" or not.  For you to say that you doubt mathematics because it dares to contradict your myth is just hilarious and quite hypocritical.  You use the benefits of these "human inventions" constantly.  I would indeed love for such sanctimonious theists like yourselves to at least have the integrity to go back to live like the xenophobic ignorant agrarians that you so venerate. 

Just on the verge of finishing reading "Reinventing Gravity" by Dr. Moffat.  It has a great overview of relativity, and all variations on it. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #68 on: December 04, 2008, 10:55:34 AM »
I understand the evidence we use to back up the big bang theory...

Hideousmonster,

This is a bald-faced lie.  You do no understand the evidence used to back up the Big Bang Theory.  You haven't even LOOKED AT Hawking's proof.  You don't begin to understand the mathematical proof of Big Bang.  This is and was a lie, which makes you a liar.  Period.  You don't address the charges because you know they're true and I'm glad we had this little chat so everyone else here can see you for the dishonest weasel you are.


Folks,

We should probably let the "theory" thing go.  Trying to address this with member hideousmonster is a waste of time, because contrary to his claim, he DOESN'T actually understand the evidence, is clearly not capable of ever doing so, and really most importantly, he doesn't want to.  He wants to sit on the floor of the toy store and hold his breath until his face turns blue.  If y'all want to pound sand trying to get him to acknowledge that 1=1, I guess I can't stop you, but ultimately, even if you reach some common ground on the idea of representing reality with mathematics, you won't change the fact he's a liar and that he intentionally crafts his answers in a way to make people think he possesses insight and understanding that he's lightyears away from.

Offline trustno1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #69 on: December 04, 2008, 11:26:52 AM »
...In main-stream the term 'theory' means a guess.  However, in the science realm it is correctly defined as an idea that has withstood the test of time and every conceivable attempt to *disprove* it...

Just learn what the term "scientific theory" means and save everyone some grief.

It's only when defenders of evolution are catalyzed into extreme reaction during debate with religionists that this very odd definition of "scientific theory" crops up.  (For the record, I'm a lifelong atheist and believer in the purely physical, organic origin of all life, including humanity.  So evolution is to me merely another theory, but with "very strong" evidence to support it.)  Mainstream science and scientists use the term "scientific theory" in very much the same sense that nonscientists use the term "theory" -- a comprehensive explanation or model of this or that facet of nature which has varying degrees of evidence to support it.  Some theories, such as the heliocentric model, have such strong evidence and consensus backing that there is no longer much debate at all.  Some theories, such as the abiogenic origin of petroleum, are about midway insofar as evidence and consensus and so a lively debate continues.  (Again, for the record, I've myself drilled out core samples into and below petroleum sandstone formations, and am almost entirely convinced that petroleum is of organic origin.  The formations just below the sandstone traps are always full of the remains of living things.  But I could be wrong.  I could be confusing causation with association.  I can live with not knowing for sure.)  Then there's stuff like ESP and UFOs and god -- these things are perfectly OK as scientific theories, but there's just very poor evidence for them.  For us to label these kinds of things "mere hypotheses" or "delusions" is kinda like the difference in politics between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" -- it depends on whose side you're on and how you interpret the evidence.   

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+theory
Quote
Noun 1. scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
Quote
Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Notice here the important difference between the bare-bones definition of "theory" and "valid theory." 
With a free will to except him or reject him

Offline trustno1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #70 on: December 04, 2008, 11:39:55 AM »
Um, davedave, are you yourself familiar with Mach's Principle?  A central motive in discovering a causal theory of gravitation has always been to physically relate gravitation to inertia.  It still hasn't been done.  There is still huge debate within the specialist community whether general relativity satisfies Mach's Principle.  Nobody really understands general relativity.  It's had a few correct statistical "hits" insofar as making predictions, yet it's also failed to predict many many other discoveries.

You and hideousmonster and I can disagree with the Aztec theory that thousands of virgins must be sacrificed to appease the gods without fully understanding every detail and motive behind that theory. 
With a free will to except him or reject him

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #71 on: December 04, 2008, 11:47:44 AM »
trustno1,

Yes, we can.  However, if that's what we're doing, then we should never say that we understand the evidence.  As I have said over and over again, if he chooses to consider a mathematical proof evidence not worthy of examination or rebuttal, then that's a decision he is fully entitled to make.  However, his FIRST post in this thread did not say that.  He claimed he understood the evidence.  But he didn't understand the evidence.  He had simply made a decision to preclude examination of the evidence.  Those are two WILDLY different things.

To continue with your example, I would never say that I understood the details and motives of Aztec sacrifice.  I would instead say that I don't care to understand the details of ANY theory that involves deities, because I consider the notion of "gods" to be a postulate that can be entirely rejected aforehand.  To mean the former and say the latter is to mislead.

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #72 on: December 04, 2008, 12:22:10 PM »
General relativity does suppot a big bang theory.  In it, you get a singularity that starts everything out.  However, Einstein wasn't totally pleased by this since he didn't like singularities.    There are other modifications of this theory that get rid of the singularities but still fit the evidence of some dramatic start to the universe.  General relativity does fit the observed evidence and does fit the acceleration that is observed, though with some additions of dark energy, etc.  Horrors, a theory that can be modified.  Well, dear, that's part of the definition and theories will change as our abilities to observe get better.  The math works, "human invention" or not.  For you to say that you doubt mathematics because it dares to contradict your myth is just hilarious and quite hypocritical.  You use the benefits of these "human inventions" constantly.  I would indeed love for such sanctimonious theists like yourselves to at least have the integrity to go back to live like the xenophobic ignorant agrarians that you so venerate. 

Just on the verge of finishing reading "Reinventing Gravity" by Dr. Moffat.  It has a great overview of relativity, and all variations on it. 

I'm not a theist. I do not believe in creationism. I understand that the Big Bang is a far more likely model than any religious explanation. I do not believe in god. Doubt in the standard model does not imply theism or deism.
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline trustno1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #73 on: December 04, 2008, 12:35:56 PM »
Same here.

It's just that I have faith in one less god (Einstein), one less theology (geometric gravitation) and one less cosmology (Big Bangism) than most.
With a free will to except him or reject him

Offline cruguru

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #74 on: December 04, 2008, 12:38:32 PM »
Quote
Then there's stuff like ESP and UFOs and god -- these things are perfectly OK as scientific theories, but there's just very poor evidence for them.  For us to label these kinds of things "mere hypotheses" or "delusions" is kinda like the difference in politics between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" -- it depends on whose side you're on and how you interpret the evidence.

That's a fantastic statement.  I really wish there were more Christians that understood this type of open-mindedness.  Your comment leaves me with hope that people can debate issues and still walk away respecting each other and working towards common goals.

(and you are much kinder to that abiogenic theory than I would be...it sounds like the wishful thinking of exxon-mobil).

This is a bit off topic, but you seem like the right person to ask.  Sounds like you've done your fair share of research, so what effect do you think assumptions and belief have on scientific research?

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #75 on: December 04, 2008, 01:01:13 PM »
Just learn what the term "scientific theory" means and save everyone some grief.

I know what a scientific theory is. It's a temporary explanation of available evidence. It's subject not only to refinement but also revision.
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #76 on: December 04, 2008, 06:55:11 PM »
trustno1, UFOs and ESP aren't scientific theories.  Neither are gods.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #77 on: December 04, 2008, 07:26:13 PM »
I know what a scientific theory is. It's a temporary explanation of available evidence. It's subject not only to refinement but also revision.

And do you know what leads to refinement and revision?  Understanding and investigation.  Two things you are apparently unfamiliar with.  Theories stand because they work.  As long as they continue to work, they continue to stand.  If you wish to doubt the theory, you could be constructive and explain the problems with the theory, or you could contribute nothing useful to this conversation and continue to pretend you have understanding you do not.

Offline hideousmonster

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #78 on: December 04, 2008, 08:02:00 PM »
And do you know what leads to refinement and revision?  Understanding and investigation.  Two things you are apparently unfamiliar with.  Theories stand because they work.  As long as they continue to work, they continue to stand.  If you wish to doubt the theory, you could be constructive and explain the problems with the theory, or you could contribute nothing useful to this conversation and continue to pretend you have understanding you do not.

You are a very confrontational person. I understand the theory. I also understand your unwillingness to take my word for it. I don't understand your apparent certainty that I'm lying. My doubts are based in a fundamental distrust in the durability of theoretical physics. Observation only narrows down the number of possible realities that we live in. Of those remaining possibilities, one or two will be the most popular. I simply doubt that the popular one is the correct one, due to a lack of confidence in the human perspective. You can keep accusing me of lying. I don't mind. When people misjudge me in a discussion, I like to feed the fire so I know how many errors in judgement I can get them to unknowingly make.
If a tree fell in a forest, and the people around to hear it were not scientists conducting a controlled audio experiment... did it make a sound?

Offline spider

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • ATT ambassador
    • Atheist Think Tank
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #79 on: December 04, 2008, 09:07:10 PM »
Sorry to interrupt the lovefest here, but may I ask, after all I've read, why it is that I'm not seeing the reason why we have to explain how something can come from nothing?  My understanding of the idea that Big Bang is an explosion of space time rather than an explosion within it, was that there was no "nothing" to make something from.  Didn't Hawkings also propose cyclical time or maybe it was imaginary time, which negated the notion of a beginning and end, nothing and something?

To define nothing, don't you need something to put next to it? 

Just to clarify: I'm not trying to argue these points, I just am trying to fill in the gaps here because I don't get it.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #80 on: December 05, 2008, 10:50:44 AM »
I understand the theory.

That's really in doubt, hideousmonster, and furthermore, it's a red herring.  We weren't talking about whether you understand the theory.  We were talking about your claim that you understood the evidence and it is clear that you do not.

I understand the evidence we use to back up the big bang theory...

In fact, despite having claimed to have an understanding of the evidence, the truth is that you haven't even looked at the evidence.  I consider myself a fairly smart person, but even I know better than to claim that I would understand a mathematical proof written by an astrophysicist without even looking at it.  Are you REALLY that smart, hideousmonster?  Do you REALLY understand the Big Bang Theory that well, that you already know what Hawking's proof contains without even reading it?  I think not.  So, why is it that you insist on claiming this knowledge that anyone can see you have zero chance of understanding at all?  The notion that you have an innate understanding of the evidence presented in Hawking's proof without even reading it is such an obvious lie that if it didn't reflect such utter immaturity on your part, surely we'd have to be insulted.

There is a friend of my family that habitually tells lies like this.  He'll tell you about the 75 pound spiny lobster he pulled out of the water last season.  Now, the world record spiny lobster is only 26 pounds, but this guy will swear up and down that he really pulled a 75 pound bug out of the rocks.  He tells lies like this routinely.  There's no reason to get too upset because it's obviously some sort of psychological compulsion involved, telling lies that have zero chance of being believed by anyone.  You don't understand the evidence, hideousmonster.  You haven't even looked at it.  You may understand the broad strokes of the theory, and I emphasize "may", but you haven't even looked at the evidence, so please don't say you understand it.  When you use "understand" to describe your relationship with the evidence when it's crystal clear that you haven't even read it, how can we help but doubt you when you also claim to "understand" the theory?

So, the simple solution is for you to retract your claim about understanding the evidence.  You don't understand it, that's as plain as day, because it's not possible because you haven't even looked at it.  I don't know why you seem unwilling to retract what is the equivalent of telling us you caught a 75 pound lobster last week.  If you refuse to retract the claim, then what are we left with?  A crazy, crazy, crazy lie that you refuse to back away from.  A claim on par with Biblical miracles, and of course, completely devoid of any hint of anything to back it up.  If it is entertaining to you to engender underestimation of yourself by periodically telling gargantuan tall tales, then maybe you should see a shrink.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2008, 11:03:50 AM by Davedave »

Offline trustno1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #81 on: December 05, 2008, 12:32:03 PM »
...UFOs and ESP aren't scientific theories...

Sure they are.  At the moment they just don't happen to have the consensus backing of the mainstream scientific community, and the supporting evidentiary framework is poor.  I personally don't believe there's much chance at all that aliens are visiting us or that ESP works.  But they remain in principle equally as valid as scientific theories as the speculative existence of einsteinian spacetime, and have been treated as empirically confirmable/refutable scientific theories by the world's most prestigious science journal, NATURE.  My personal opinion is that neither einsteinian spacetime nor ESP nor UFOs exist, while of those three spacetime as a concrete, testable reality is the least likely and the most faith-based belief or speculative human invention.

And of course I don't need to remind a forum full of atheists that consensus is no final arbiter of truth.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7004/full/431027a.html
Quote
Nature 431, 27-28 (2 September 2004) | doi:10.1038/431027a
Astrobiology: Message in a bottle
Woodruff T. Sullivan, III1

Abstract
Extraterrestrial civilizations may find it more efficient to communicate by sending material objects across interstellar distances rather than beams of electromagnetic radiation.

Are we alone? Although the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has yet to detect a signal, the efforts continue because so little of the possible parameter space has been searched so far.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v251/n5476/abs/251602a0.html
Quote
Nature 251, 602 - 607 (18 October 1974); doi:10.1038/251602a0

Information Transmission Under Conditions of Sensory Shielding

RUSSELL TARG & HAROLD PUTHOFF

Electronics and Bioengineering Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California 94025

WE present results of experiments suggesting the existence of one or more perceptual modalities through which individuals obtain information about their environment, although this information is not presented to any known sense. The literature1?3 and our observations lead us to conclude that such abilities can be studied under laboratory conditions.

© 1974 Nature Publishing Group
Privacy Policy
With a free will to except him or reject him

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #82 on: December 05, 2008, 02:24:56 PM »
...UFOs and ESP aren't scientific theories...

Sure they are.

Have they shown any evidence for them, plus any predictive power?

If not, they aren't theories.  (There are other reasons why they aren't theories, but these are the low hanging fruit.)
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #83 on: December 05, 2008, 04:30:44 PM »
Um, davedave, are you yourself familiar with Mach's Principle?  A central motive in discovering a causal theory of gravitation has always been to physically relate gravitation to inertia.  It still hasn't been done.  There is still huge debate within the specialist community whether general relativity satisfies Mach's Principle.  Nobody really understands general relativity.  It's had a few correct statistical "hits" insofar as making predictions, yet it's also failed to predict many many other discoveries.

You and hideousmonster and I can disagree with the Aztec theory that thousands of virgins must be sacrificed to appease the gods without fully understanding every detail and motive behind that theory. 

which discoveries has it failed to predict? 
 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Cycle4Fun

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1371
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #84 on: December 05, 2008, 05:26:06 PM »
It's had a few correct statistical "hits" insofar as making predictions, yet it's also failed to predict many many other discoveries.
which discoveries has it failed to predict? 

I'm certainly not aware of any thing general relativity has failed to predict.  Unless he is referring to how general relativity does not work on the small scale.
How do you define soul?
"A baseless assertion by simple-minded, superstitious individuals"
   -Starstuff

Offline trustno1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #85 on: December 06, 2008, 07:55:17 AM »
which discoveries has it failed to predict?

General relativity failed to predict the Hubble expansion.  General relativity failed to predict Zwicky's discovery of anomalous rotation speeds of galaxies and larger observed structures, necessitating the ad hoc invocation of dark matter in order to rescue the theory.  General relativity failed to predict the discovery a decade ago of the accelerating universe, necessitating the ad hoc invention of dark energy in order to rescue the theory. 

Incidentally, it's a matter of historical record that Mercury's anomalous perihelion shift, often pointed to as the first and most concrete physical prediction of general relativity, was actually a postdiction.  Einstein and his mathematician coauthors and indeed all the physics world of that era were well aware of the anomaly and were looking for an explanation.  The form of general relativity announced as "predicting" the anomaly was actually the fourth or fifth version specifically tailored to explain it mathematically.  Of course it's perfectly correct to make sure one's physical theory jives with physical observation, but to then claim that the theory predicts the incorporated phenomenon is just lawyer-like dissembling.
With a free will to except him or reject him

Offline trustno1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
« Reply #86 on: December 06, 2008, 08:03:03 AM »
Have they shown any evidence for them, plus any predictive power?

Have they shown any evidence for string theory or brane theory, in spite of decades and possibly billions of dollars in science funding spent on the adventures?  Have string theory and brane theory shown any predictive power? 
With a free will to except him or reject him