whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Science => Topic started by: Inactive_1 on November 17, 2008, 08:35:31 AM

Title: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Inactive_1 on November 17, 2008, 08:35:31 AM
Explanation of the Big Bang -

I think the thing that trips up most people when they think about the Big Bang, is thinking about it in terms of an explosion, like a supernova or a nuclear bomb. This leads to some typical inaccurate assumptions.

    * Since the Big Bang, the universe has expanded from a central point.
    * The universe must be expanding into something, what?
    * There was a time BEFORE the Big Bang.

These assumptions come from thinking about the Big Bang as a typical explosion, one originating from a single point and spewing matter out concentrically from there.

That’s not what the Big Bang was.

The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.

So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.

Before the Big Bang there was simply nothing, there was no ‘where’ nor was there a ‘when’. It doesn’t even make sense to say ‘before the Big Bang’.


(http://www.astronomybuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/history-of-universe-tm.jpg)

Read more ...

Article (http://www.astronomybuff.com/the-big-bang-was-an-explosion-of-space-not-in-space/)
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Freezykow on November 24, 2008, 05:18:20 PM
Explanation of the Big Bang -

I think the thing that trips up most people when they think about the Big Bang, is thinking about it in terms of an explosion, like a supernova or a nuclear bomb. This leads to some typical inaccurate assumptions.

    * Since the Big Bang, the universe has expanded from a central point.
    * The universe must be expanding into something, what?
    * There was a time BEFORE the Big Bang.

These assumptions come from thinking about the Big Bang as a typical explosion, one originating from a single point and spewing matter out concentrically from there.

That's not what the Big Bang was.

The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.

So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.

Before the Big Bang there was simply nothing, there was no ‘where’ nor was there a ‘when’. It doesn’t even make sense to say ‘before the Big Bang’.


(http://www.astronomybuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/history-of-universe-tm.jpg)

Read more ...

Article (http://www.astronomybuff.com/the-big-bang-was-an-explosion-of-space-not-in-space/)

People from Science Fiction Conventions have theories that make more sense than this.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: bahramthered on November 24, 2008, 06:01:34 PM
Just because you can't or won't understand dosn't mean it dosn't make sense.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Freezykow on November 24, 2008, 09:50:36 PM
Just because you can't or won't understand dosn't mean it dosn't make sense.

I'll understand the Big Bang theory when you understand how to spell doesn't or how to use a spell check.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: bahramthered on November 25, 2008, 07:26:25 AM
Witty comeback. Make fun of my spelling. Wow. Really hit the point.

Lets see. Doesn't and faith really bug you when I misspell them and miss the spell check. Any other? Going hit a physics book now?

*Spell check used just for you*
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Cycle4Fun on November 25, 2008, 09:19:07 AM
People from Science Fiction Conventions have theories that make more sense than this.

I would actually have to agree with you here.  Back in the day, the universe was pretty small and simple.  It's also hard to sell a book when the concepts in that book are way over the average person's head.

However, your failure to research the evidence, understand the simple underlying concepts , and reproduce the math does not make it an error.  All of the evidence we have regarding the universe supports the Big Expansion.  Even the tiny amount of matter (as opposed to anti-matter) and its distribution in the universe supports quantum fluctuations in the very early universe.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity take several months of solid scholarship to begin to understand at the basic level.  The reason these concepts are not intuitive is because we don't live at relativistic speeds or see at the atomic/subatomic level.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Deus ex Machina on November 25, 2008, 12:15:46 PM
People from Science Fiction Conventions have theories that make more sense than this.

1. Please, use appropriate terms, especially in the Science section. Science Fiction doesn't have "theories". It has highly speculative fiction.
2. The Universe isn't obliged to 'make sense' to us, if you mean it in the sense of being intuitively 'obvious'. It matters not one whit if it's intuitive if that's how things actually happened. Big Bang cosmology is backed up by reliable evidence (e.g. redshift of distant galaxies, WMAP data).
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: JackWhitehead1 on November 25, 2008, 02:42:08 PM
With the big bang being theoretical, I am pretty sure there are several other valid scientific theories which rebuke this concept.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 25, 2008, 02:43:15 PM
Stephen Hawking mathematically proved Big Bang, assuming general relativity.  1971.  Thirty-seven years ago.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: hideousmonster on November 25, 2008, 03:06:17 PM
I'm not convinced. I understand the evidence we use to back up the big bang theory, but it's not sufficient for me to consider it proof. I think we could easily be over-looking another better explanation of why the observable universe appears as it does. I'm skeptical that we posess enough understanding of the nature or even sufficient technology to deduce the history of our universe even to the accuracy that the Big Bang theorists suggest. I do like the theory. I just doubt that it's nearly as accurate as popular science would have us believe.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 25, 2008, 03:10:02 PM
I'm not convinced. I understand the evidence we use to back up the big bang theory, but it's not sufficient for me to consider it proof. I think we could easily be over-looking another better explanation of why the observable universe appears as it does. I'm skeptical that we posess enough understanding of the nature or even sufficient technology to deduce the history of our universe even to the accuracy that the Big Bang theorists suggest. I do like the theory. I just doubt that it's nearly as accurate as popular science would have us believe.

Mathematical proofs aren't supposed to be "convincing", hideousmonster.  They are either flawed or they aren't.  Please present the line in Hawking's proof that you think is wrong.  Or haven't you read that either?  Why do you think yourself qualified to hold opinions on things you haven't read or examined, hideousmonster?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: nihilanth on November 25, 2008, 03:13:30 PM
Explanation of the Big Bang -

I think the thing that trips up most people when they think about the Big Bang, is thinking about it in terms of an explosion, like a supernova or a nuclear bomb. This leads to some typical inaccurate assumptions.

    * Since the Big Bang, the universe has expanded from a central point.
    * The universe must be expanding into something, what?
    * There was a time BEFORE the Big Bang.

These assumptions come from thinking about the Big Bang as a typical explosion, one originating from a single point and spewing matter out concentrically from there.

That’s not what the Big Bang was.

The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.

So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.

Before the Big Bang there was simply nothing, there was no ‘where’ nor was there a ‘when’. It doesn’t even make sense to say ‘before the Big Bang’.


(http://www.astronomybuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/history-of-universe-tm.jpg)

Read more ...

Article (http://www.astronomybuff.com/the-big-bang-was-an-explosion-of-space-not-in-space/)

I have been trying to say this for a while on many threads. It was the creation of this universe, time, space, matter and energy.

Something cannot come from nothing so where did it come from?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: JackWhitehead1 on November 25, 2008, 03:13:42 PM
Stephen Hawking mathematically proved Big Bang, assuming general relativity.  1971.  Thirty-seven years ago.

The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 25, 2008, 03:15:42 PM
I have been trying to say this for a while on many threads. It was the creation of this universe, time, space, matter and energy.

Something cannot come from nothing so where did it come from?

The solution to your paradox has also been explained to you repeatedly, in many threads, nihilanth.  Something may be able to come from nothing.  Also, Big Bang is NOT about the creation of matter and energy.  It's about the creation of space-time.  Since you've never created space-time, nor have you observed the creation of space-time, you're hardly in any position to declare what is and is not possible with regard to its creation, are you?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 25, 2008, 03:17:58 PM
The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.

I was only partially responding to what you posted, Jack, and the part that was yours that I was aiming at was the "Big Bang is theoretical" part.  If General Relativity is true, then Big Bang is mathematically proven.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: nihilanth on November 25, 2008, 03:20:55 PM
Stephen Hawking mathematically proved Big Bang, assuming general relativity.  1971.  Thirty-seven years ago.

The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.

Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?

Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: JackWhitehead1 on November 25, 2008, 03:25:39 PM
The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.

I was only partially responding to what you posted, Jack, and the part that was yours that I was aiming at was the "Big Bang is theoretical" part.  If General Relativity is true, then Big Bang is mathematically proven.

Of course, but the Big Bang remains undefined nevertheless.
Defining the Big Bang as the expansion of something into nothing is the area that is undefined (but not theoretical, thank you for pointing that out).

Obviously it's very much impossible to define something we know so little of, but with that in mind, I have never read Stephen Hawkin's proof before, assuming you have, how precise can it possibly be and can we tell?

Also, is there a particular book on his proof? I'm actually very much interested in this :)
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: JackWhitehead1 on November 25, 2008, 03:27:40 PM
Stephen Hawking mathematically proved Big Bang, assuming general relativity.  1971.  Thirty-seven years ago.

The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.

Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?



Is this a question directed at me?
Assuming it isn't rhetorical, I honestly don't know, and neither does anybody.
But just because we cannot explain something, does not mean it isn't true.
Surely you of all people must be an advocate of such a statement; being a God-believer.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: nihilanth on November 25, 2008, 03:56:47 PM
Stephen Hawking mathematically proved Big Bang, assuming general relativity.  1971.  Thirty-seven years ago.

The "concept" I referred to as being an "outside" of space, not the actual big bang.
Obviously that sounds illogical but I mean "outside" as in an area defined as separate from our universe.

Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?



Is this a question directed at me?
Assuming it isn't rhetorical, I honestly don't know, and neither does anybody.
But just because we cannot explain something, does not mean it isn't true.
Surely you of all people must be an advocate of such a statement; being a God-believer.


Something had to make the big bang happen. So what was it? It is impossible for it to be nothing.

We do not know. What if I say God, and I am correct even if we scientifically do not know. What then?

Maybe we have the answer and people here will not accept it.

Untill the question is answered, i will always believe in God.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 25, 2008, 04:09:48 PM
Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?

Maybe that's just how "something"s are formed.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 25, 2008, 04:12:29 PM
Also, is there a particular book on his proof? I'm actually very much interested in this :)

Actually, my understanding is that he entered his proof into a contest and, believe it or not, it only won second place.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: JackWhitehead1 on November 25, 2008, 05:28:23 PM
He mathematically proven the origin of everything, and got second place for it?
What on earth could have beaten that?!

As for nihilanth, although yours is a logical conclusion, you forget that you remain adamant that God has always existed, which is even more questionable.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 25, 2008, 05:46:51 PM
Something had to make the big bang happen. So what was it? It is impossible for it to be nothing.

Why is it impossible for it to be nothing?  Can you prove that statement or do you just repeat it to look stupid?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 25, 2008, 05:48:24 PM
He mathematically proven the origin of everything, and got second place for it?
What on earth could have beaten that?!

Yes, well, the history of scientific advancement has certainly been quirky, and on that count, this is no significant deviation.  I believe he wrote about it in one of his for-public-consumption books, as I'm hardly capable of digesting his technical works.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: hideousmonster on November 25, 2008, 06:38:39 PM
I'm not convinced. I understand the evidence we use to back up the big bang theory, but it's not sufficient for me to consider it proof. I think we could easily be over-looking another better explanation of why the observable universe appears as it does. I'm skeptical that we posess enough understanding of the nature or even sufficient technology to deduce the history of our universe even to the accuracy that the Big Bang theorists suggest. I do like the theory. I just doubt that it's nearly as accurate as popular science would have us believe.

Mathematical proofs aren't supposed to be "convincing", hideousmonster.  They are either flawed or they aren't.  Please present the line in Hawking's proof that you think is wrong.  Or haven't you read that either?  Why do you think yourself qualified to hold opinions on things you haven't read or examined, hideousmonster?

I said I understand the evidence. I don't consider it convincing. What qualifications does one need to hold an opinion?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 25, 2008, 06:42:03 PM
Well, unfortunately, you have only demonstrated that you THINK you know the evidence.  You haven't shown that you actually do.  Can you cite the part of Hawking's proof you feel you can disprove and provide that disproof?  Mathematics isn't a field where opinion matters much.  Either you can prove something or you can't, either you can disprove his proof, or you can't.  If you understand the proof, then please provide the flaw you have identified.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: hideousmonster on November 25, 2008, 07:01:05 PM
Well, unfortunately, you have only demonstrated that you THINK you know the evidence.  You haven't shown that you actually do.  Can you cite the part of Hawking's proof you feel you can disprove and provide that disproof?  Mathematics isn't a field where opinion matters much.  Either you can prove something or you can't, either you can disprove his proof, or you can't.  If you understand the proof, then please provide the flaw you have identified.

I don't need to find a flaw. I simply need to doubt the accuracy of our mathematics as a means of measuring and calculating the nature of the real universe. And ultimately proof is observer-dependent. It's a word that means "sufficent evidence to convince me." In math, that may not be the case, but again, I'm not convinced that our math is as in concert with actual physics as we would like to believe.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 25, 2008, 07:03:11 PM
So, do you think 1+1=3?  How deep is the rabbit hole of mathematical propaganda?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Ambassador Pony on November 25, 2008, 07:06:19 PM
Allow me to translate.

Hideous monster is full of shit.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Sleeping Shadow on November 25, 2008, 07:07:07 PM
Perhaps the origin of our universe could be explained in parallel universes? I personally believe something has had to've always existed (the religious here can't deny this). Maybe there is a universe that's always existed. And the cause of the Big Bang of our universe came from another universe.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Inactive_1 on November 25, 2008, 07:11:24 PM
3) Problems and Objections

a) "Something can not come out of nothing" - the first law of thermodynamics

The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. See, for instance, the Wikipedia page for the Casimir effect.

The common point for all of these effects is that they do not violate any known conservation laws of physics (e.g., the conservation of energy, momentum, and charge). Something can indeed come out of nothing as long as these conservation laws permit this. But people often argue that the Big Bang theory violates the conservation of energy (which is essentially the first law of thermodynamics).

There are several valid counterarguments against this: first, as already pointed out, the BBT is not about the origin of the universe, but rather its development with time. Hence, any statement that the appearance of the universe "out of nothing" is impossible has nothing to do with what the BBT actually addresses. Likewise, while the laws of thermodynamics apply to the universe today, it is not clear that they necessarily apply to the origin of the universe; we simply do not know. Finally, it is not clear that one can sensibly talk about time "before the Big Bang". "Time" is an integral part of our universe (hence the GR term "spacetime") - so it is not clear how exactly one would characterize the energy before and after the Big Bang in a precise enough way to conclude it was not conserved.

Assuming we have some way to handle notions of time outside of our spacetime, the universe appearing out of nothing would only violate the first law of thermodynamics if the energy beforehand were different from the energy afterwards. Probably all people will agree that "nothingness" should have an energy of zero; so the law is only violated if the energy of the universe is non-zero. But there are indeed good arguments that the energy of the universe should be exactly zero!


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 25, 2008, 07:15:43 PM
I simply need to doubt the accuracy of our mathematics as a means of measuring and calculating the nature of the real universe.

So, in other words, you haven't ACTUALLY examined Hawking's proof, and therefore, you have no basis for doubting its integrity, except as it exists within the category of mathematical proofs generally, which you generally disbelieve.  So, in other words, you can't actually identify any particular problem with THIS mathematical proof.  Since you understand it so well, though, would you mind, for the benefit of others that aren't as familiar with Hawking's "evidence" (aka Hawking's mathematical proof), just going over the broad strokes of the approach of his proof and maybe touching on a few spots that you feel might exhibit some of the deviation from real, physical world that you claim runs throughout the mathematical world?  Let's pretend for a moment that you wanted to go a step above mindlessly running your mouth and actually back your shit up.  Since you understand these sorts of things so well, surely, you would have no problem elaborating on the specifics of the problems with Hawking's proof, right?  Please, let us glory in your understanding for a few precious moments, hideousmonster.  Let's pretend that someone here actually believed for so much as a single nanosecond that you weren't just utterly full of shit and actually believed that you understood the evidence for the Big Bang well enough to develop a coherent critique of it.  Can you, using Hawking's proof as the background, sort of give them some talking points of where to begin on dismantling this mathematical proof?

And ultimately proof is observer-dependent.

Actually, it isn't.  That's the difference between proof and evidence.  Proof is proof.  We establish the assumption (that general relativity as described by Einstein holds) and the proof follows inexorably from there.  But you understand the evidence, and are prepared to, here and now, demonstrate your understanding and fluency with the state of the science of cosmology by explaining the jist of the problems with the proof in terms accessible to a person of above-average intelligence and some familiarity with the field, right?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: hideousmonster on November 25, 2008, 08:34:25 PM
Let's pretend for a moment that you wanted to go a step above mindlessly running your mouth and actually back your s**t up.  Since you understand these sorts of things so well, surely, you would have no problem elaborating on the specifics of the problems with Hawking's proof, right?
No, I'd rather not bother backing up a doubt. My opinion is what it is, and I don't believe explanation is necessary to express it. 

Quote
And ultimately proof is observer-dependent.
Actually, it isn't.  That's the difference between proof and evidence.  Proof is proof.  We establish the assumption (that general relativity as described by Einstein holds) and the proof follows inexorably from there.  But you understand the evidence, and are prepared to, here and now, demonstrate your understanding and fluency with the state of the science of cosmology by explaining the jist of the problems with the proof in terms accessible to a person of above-average intelligence and some familiarity with the field, right?

I disagree with that. From what I can tell, proof is observer dependent, and evidence is real. Take our court system, for instance. The prosecution can present all the evidence it wants, but it isn't proof unless the jury decides it so. Witness testimony is evidence, but if it were proof, there would be a lot less atheists like me in the world. Proof is simply convincing evidence. Without a convincee, there is no proof. Proof does not mean something is true, it means you have decided to believe it's true, given your own personal faith in the evidence presented. I have faith in our mathematics when using it to program computers, and design buildings and machines, but for explaining how galaxies and subatomic particles interact with one another? How time interacts with space, and light interacts with matter, magnetism, and gravity? Not so much. I'm not even convinced that the red shift of light from far-off galaxies is caused by the principals we think cause it. Human beings have had to redesign our mathematics to better describe what we observe many times in our history. And if history is any indicator, I would not be surprised if our current system is pointing us in yet another wrong direction.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Ambassador Pony on November 26, 2008, 06:52:47 AM
LOL
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: bahramthered on November 26, 2008, 07:27:20 AM
:LOL

It's like alfrady got some grammar and manners...
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on November 26, 2008, 11:25:58 AM
No, I'd rather not bother backing up a doubt. My opinion is what it is, and I don't believe explanation is necessary to express it. 

So, now mathematical proofs aren't even worth refuting?!  Again, hideousmonster, how far-reaching is this big math lie?  Is Euclidean geometry out?  Do you think that the theorem stating the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180* is not really an accurate picture of real life triangles?  Ballpark, how far off are we on pi?  Does 1+1=2 misrepresent the reality of having one orange and then obtaining another one?  At what point are you willing to grant math's applicability to real life and where do you stop and why?

And again, I'll ask you, why not throw potential supporters a bone?  Why not grant them the ability to understand the nature of your doubt?  If it deserves to be doubted, why not explain why?  Why not help someone who might also have doubts, but that lacks the understanding you have to pinpoint where the breakdown occurs?  You could help them with some talking points.  Otherwise, what's the point of you posting here at all?  This is a forum.  It's supposed to be interactive.  If you don't like answering questions about the things you post, why post?  Just to troll the thread?  It adds nothing to to conversation to have you come in and simply say, "I'm not convinced and you'll never know why and you'll never convince me because I refuse to talk about the topic of this thread at all."

Proof is simply convincing evidence.

Not in mathematics.  You saying that you blindly disbelieve a mathematical proof does not at all affect the proof.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Deus ex Machina on November 26, 2008, 12:37:39 PM
Maybe Marshall Brain needs a sister site, entitled "Why Do Tinfoil Hats Do Sweet F**k All?"
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: hideousmonster on November 26, 2008, 07:05:08 PM
So, now mathematical proofs aren't even worth refuting?!  Again, hideousmonster, how far-reaching is this big math lie?  Is Euclidean geometry out?  Do you think that the theorem stating the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180* is not really an accurate picture of real life triangles? Ballpark, how far off are we on pi?
Triangles and circles aren't physical objects, dude. They're another part of math. Your asking me whether math accurately describes itself. Sure. Maybe it does. But when you translate that to real life space, time, matter, and energy, you only have rough approximations, and even those are based only on our own point of view, too large to see the details of the super-subatomic world, and too small to see the mechanics of a galaxy.

Quote
Does 1+1=2 misrepresent the reality of having one orange and then obtaining another one?  At what point are you willing to grant math's applicability to real life and where do you stop and why?
You're asking me to explain why I don't consider 1+1=2 enough to convince me that human-invented mathematics does not perfectly describe the physical world?  If you don't understand by now, then I won't ever be able to explain it to you. To answer your question, in math 1=1, but in reality, one orange does not equal another orange. In fact, one orange may not even equal the same orange a day later.

Quote
And again, I'll ask you, why not throw potential supporters a bone? Why not grant them the ability to understand the nature of your doubt?  If it deserves to be doubted, why not explain why?  Why not help someone who might also have doubts, but that lacks the understanding you have to pinpoint where the breakdown occurs?  You could help them with some talking points. Otherwise, what's the point of you posting here at all?  This is a forum.  It's supposed to be interactive. If you don't like answering questions about the things you post, why post?  Just to troll the thread?  It adds nothing to to conversation to have you come in and simply say, "I'm not convinced and you'll never know why and you'll never convince me because I refuse to talk about the topic of this thread at all."
"Troll the thread?" My friend, trolling the thread would be telling people they are wrong. I never told anybody they were wrong. I said I doubt they are right. It's not even an expression of an opinion... if anything it's an expression of a lack of faith. Faith in our reality-measuring abilities. I've spent years online explaining my doubts about the existence of god, and there were no "potential supporters" to be found there. They were all either totally dogmatically devoted to their conclusions, or they already agreed with me.  In my experience, the only thing you get when you present reason for doubt is a flood of arguments that you're mistaken, no matter how unfounded, or circular the logic. So you ask me why I don't explain my doubts? I simply have no interest in convincing anybody that I'm right to doubt.

Quote
Proof is simply convincing evidence.
Not in mathematics.  You saying that you blindly disbelieve a mathematical proof does not at all affect the proof.
Look, when people start tossing around words like "blindly" and "proof" in a discussion, the only thing it looks like to me is sensationalized dogmatism. It's evangelical arguing, and it indicates a person who just wants to defend their faith, and attack those who doubt it. In mathematics, proof means something solid. It can be used to perfectly describe math itself. But in the real world, proof is just an opinion. A decision to believe something given the evidence presented.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: yoski on November 26, 2008, 07:16:23 PM
SOMETHING FROM NOTHING:

Well, the matter was already there, according to the Big Bang.  So already existing matter just created new forms of matter.

Space is nothing.

Time is nothing.

These are the two nothings that were created out of nothing.  Not something from nothing; nothing from nothing.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: nihilanth on November 27, 2008, 12:31:30 AM
Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?

Maybe that's just how "something"s are formed.

Unlikely.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Vynn on November 27, 2008, 12:53:08 AM
Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?

Maybe that's just how "something"s are formed.

Unlikely.


LOL!! That's your reply?!?

How perfect. May i use that in my debates and discussions? I mean, what can beat that?!? It's the karate kid crane kick, isn't it?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: JackWhitehead1 on November 27, 2008, 07:02:29 AM
Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?

Maybe that's just how "something"s are formed.

Unlikely.


Actually davedave's statement is not unlikely at all.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: nihilanth on November 27, 2008, 06:31:46 PM
It is impossible to get something from nothing therefore there has to be a perminent somethng that created everythng.

Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Azdgari on November 27, 2008, 06:32:41 PM
When refuted, repeat it again.  It'll work one of these times, nihilanth.  Just have faith.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: bahramthered on November 27, 2008, 06:59:37 PM
nihilanth: Admin posted science showing it can.

Just because we can't do it doesn't mean it's impossible. If that was true; flight, brain surgery, supersonic flight, space flight, cars, nukes, breaking the sound barrier on land, etc would all be impossible. I have quotes from experts in all those fields (or the revelant precursors) saying they where impossible.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: yoski on November 27, 2008, 09:15:30 PM
SOMETHING FROM NOTHING:

Well, the matter was already there, according to the Big Bang.  So already existing matter just created new forms of matter.

Space is nothing.

Time is nothing.

These are the two nothings that were created out of nothing.  Not something from nothing; nothing from nothing.

Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Hermes on November 27, 2008, 10:22:00 PM
It is impossible to get something from nothing therefore there has to be a perminent somethng that created everythng.

Two comments;

1. If 'there has to be a permanent^^ something that created everything' then there must be another something that created the other something.  It's turtles all the way down. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)

2. A hundred years ago, if someone said that matter can be made out of a sunbeam they would be considered a bit nutty.  Yet, the universe was once matterless, our sun and other stars convert matter and energy and with particle accelerators we routinely do as well; E=mc2 (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html).

Yet, a hundred years ago, who would have considered such things? 

Our -- or your -- current level of understanding of the universe does not limit what it is in reality.  The physicists and cosmologists have shown that they can expand our knowledge and correct our mistakes about what we used to know.  They methodically come to an agreement on complex issues on a regular basis.  Theologians and priests make grand statements with no backing in reality ... because if they did have any backing, there would be no contradictory dogmas.  They lack the humility and thoughtfulness of a physicist.



^^. You don't really want to go and try and support the 'permanent' part, do you?  If you do, you need only show me why the 'permanent' part you identified doesn't have a precursor.  Turtles turtles turtles.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: bahramthered on November 27, 2008, 11:32:38 PM
SOMETHING FROM NOTHING:

Well, the matter was already there, according to the Big Bang.  So already existing matter just created new forms of matter.

Space is nothing.

Time is nothing.

These are the two nothings that were created out of nothing.  Not something from nothing; nothing from nothing.


THAT"S YOUR ANSWER!!!!!!

Dam Your Pathetic. You retract all simpliance of an argument. If it was up to me I'd ban you right now. You have no intrest in debating your points just hiding behind them.

Shame. I thought you had a brain before now.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: yoski on November 28, 2008, 02:25:08 AM
SOMETHING FROM NOTHING:

Well, the matter was already there, according to the Big Bang.  So already existing matter just created new forms of matter.

Space is nothing.

Time is nothing.

These are the two nothings that were created out of nothing.  Not something from nothing; nothing from nothing.


THAT"S YOUR ANSWER!!!!!!

Dam Your Pathetic. You retract all simpliance of an argument. If it was up to me I'd ban you right now. You have no intrest in debating your points just hiding behind them.

Shame. I thought you had a brain before now.

My point is that there is nothing to debate with the "something out of nothing" argument.  There is no something out of nothing (with regards to matter).

And by the way, it's spelled Damn.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: nihilanth on November 28, 2008, 12:01:58 PM
Hawking said "We can now determine that the universe spontaneously formed from nothng."

How can something form from nothing?

Maybe that's just how "something"s are formed.

Unlikely.


LOL!! That's your reply?!?

How perfect. May i use that in my debates and discussions? I mean, what can beat that?!? It's the karate kid crane kick, isn't it?


Why water is down with a bunch of useless tripe when I can answer with one word that completely makes sence.

It is VERY UNLIKELY that "somethings" are formed by nothing. Anybody with a normal functioning brain in their head knows that getting something physical from nothing is impossible.

Why don't you go ahead and make something out of nothing Vynn. When you accomplish that task, then you can come back here and let us all know how you miraculously performed such an impossible task.

Untill then, keep sitting in the peanut gallery.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Vynn on November 28, 2008, 01:05:25 PM
It is VERY UNLIKELY that "somethings" are formed by nothing.


The fact that you keep stating this doesn't make it any more likely to be true. If i'm in the peanut gallery, you're just an empty peanut shell.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on December 01, 2008, 11:32:05 AM
...

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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: yoski on December 02, 2008, 02:26:52 AM
The big band does not claim that matter was created out of nothing.  The big bang claims that a singularity of VERY DENSE MASS (i.e., all the matter was there to begin with!!! and everything that is matter now!!!) spread out and created time and space. 

No New Matter Was Created Or Destroyed.

This is the law:  matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

...not:  no new things can be made from this matter.

There was not SOMETHING CREATED OUT OF NOTHING!!!!!

There was NEW THINGS CREATED OUT TO OLD THINGS!!!!!!!!

....jesus christ....



Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: yoski on December 02, 2008, 02:57:27 AM
If you take two apples that are touching and spread them apart, have you created anything?

No and yes.

No:  there are no new apples (or anything that makes up apples except for the things that aren't apples {i.e., space/distance/time}).
Yes:  there is space and time between them.

Time = the distance between two objects.
Space = the time it takes to get from one object to another.

same stuff.

no new stuff; just stuff in different places.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Cycle4Fun on December 02, 2008, 10:19:33 AM
This is the law:  matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

This is no longer a law when talking about cosmology.  The new law is energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change in form.  When not dealing with relativity your law still holds.

edit: wrote wrong theory.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Cycle4Fun on December 02, 2008, 10:37:45 AM
Time = the distance between two objects.
Space = the time it takes to get from one object to another.

No.

Time:
Time depends on the reference frame of the observer and the relative motion between when the event took place and the observer who sees the results of that event.

Einstein defined time as:
"Two events taking place at the points A and B of a system K are simultaneous if they appear at the same instant when observed from the middle point, M, of the interval AB. Time is then defined as the ensemble of the indications of similar clocks, at rest relatively to K, which register the same simultaneously."

Time is most definitely not the distance between two objects.  The motion of the objects, the motion of the observer, and the location of all three play into the measure of time.

Space:
You mean distance.  Something very different from space.  Distance is measured as the time it takes light to get from one point to another.

Space is no longer just 3D.  It is now considered 4D space-time.  Read below for a very very good introduction to these concepts.

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/index.html (http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/index.html)
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 on December 02, 2008, 11:29:35 AM
Stephen Hawking mathematically proved Big Bang, assuming general relativity.  1971.  Thirty-seven years ago.

Assuming general relativity being the operative phrase.  I basically find myself siding with hideousmonster here.  The notion of singularity simply implies that the mathematics has fallen apart.  By the time Hawking put out A Brief History of Time, he'd said, "Oops, never mind!"  Dave, you said something similar over a year ago, and never got back to this reply of mine:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=20ba4fc13fd20adcc8103cdb65092841&topic=13517.msg320569#msg320569
Quote
Quote from: Davedave on September 14, 2007, 11:04:05 AM
In 1971, Stephen Hawking mathematically proved that, assuming that Einstein's theory of general relativity is correct, space-time must have had come from a singularity.  General Relativity is still widely regarded as a true and correct theory, so the answer to your question is yes.  Stephen Hawking proved Big Bang, given general relativity.  It's not really a matter of still.


I only managed to read A Brief History of Time a few months ago, and pretend no expertise, but it sounds like there's much more involved here than just Hawking's theorems from almost four decades ago.  In fact the mainstream consensus, Hawking included, holds that general relativity is incomplete.  I personally have serious doubts about the overall validity of general relativity, http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=3475.msg51303#msg51303, and strongly suspect that if it is ever made whole, it will no longer be recognizable as general relativity. 

Here are a few relevant excerpts from A Brief History of Time:

...The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem. So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account...

... As experimental and theoretical evidence mounted, it became more and more clear that the universe must have had a beginning in time, until in 1970 this was finally proved by Penrose and myself, on the basis of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. That proof showed that general relativity is only an incomplete theory: it cannot tell us how the universe started off, because it predicts that all physical theories, including itself, break down at the beginning of the universe. However, general relativity claims to be only a partial theory, so what the singularity theorems really show is that there must have been a time in the very early universe when the universe was so small that one could no longer ignore the small-scale effects of the other great partial theory of the twentieth century, quantum mechanics. At the start of the 1970s, then, we were forced to turn our search for an understanding of the universe from our theory of the extraordinarily vast to our theory of the extraordinarily tiny...


So it would almost seem that to speak with confidence of a singularity at or near the beginning of our universe we need first a complete theory of gravity.  And apparently it would be helpful to be able to observe all of the matter in the universe.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 on December 02, 2008, 11:37:25 AM
The big band does not claim that matter was created out of nothing.

In my opinion Benny Goodman was created out of nothing.  Or at any rate his big band plagiarized the much better, original New Orleans black jazz sound, while the commercially successful white cracker Manhattan bands were a Zionist self-promotion created essentially out of nothingness.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: velkyn 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. 
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: hideousmonster 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: hideousmonster 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave 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?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Irish 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: hideousmonster 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Hermes on December 04, 2008, 06:38:15 AM
Just learn what the term "scientific theory" means and save everyone some grief.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: velkyn 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. 
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 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." 
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 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. 
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: hideousmonster 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: cruguru 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?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: hideousmonster 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Hermes on December 04, 2008, 06:55:11 PM
trustno1, UFOs and ESP aren't scientific theories.  Neither are gods.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: hideousmonster 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: spider 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 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
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Hermes 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.)
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: velkyn 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? 
 
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Cycle4Fun 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 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.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 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? 
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Hermes on December 06, 2008, 04:02:59 PM
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? 

I'll let those who  know those fields answer for themselves. 

My question to you still  remains.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: voodoo child on December 06, 2008, 07:53:23 PM
I dont think I will put a time line on this just a clean way of thinking how this all might have happened.
        In 1995 NASA and the good old bubble telescope made some interesting discoveries as to the theory of the big bang. as one might try to imagine the universe was very hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions as it began to cool at around  10^-43 seconds after the BB there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter as all of these materials are created together they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us there was an asymmetry in favour of matter.

Using the astro-2 observatory they were also able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe. They were able to detect primordial helium. Oh great I just opened a can of worms for jokes.  Hydrogen and helium. :-* :D
 
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 on December 07, 2008, 05:02:06 AM
I'll let those who  know those fields answer for themselves...

And again I'll let the modern world of theoretical physics speak for itself insofar as what it chooses to freely label legitimate "scientific theory":  Modern theoretical physics (but because the field and its practitioners so often have so little direct connection with empirical reality, I view it and them respectively as "mathematical philosophy" and "mathematical philosophers") is patently happy to label as "theory" a succession of unevidenced, nonpredictive and endlessly malleable speculations, such as general relativity theory, Kaluza-Klein theory, String theory, M-theory and now of course Bubble theory.

This is the terminology we're stuck with, cutesy, specialized pedagogical definitions of "scientific theory" aside. 
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Hermes on December 07, 2008, 10:08:21 AM
I'll let those who  know those fields answer for themselves...

And again I'll let the modern world of theoretical physics speak for itself insofar as what it chooses to freely label legitimate "scientific theory":  Modern theoretical physics (but because the field and its practitioners so often have so little direct connection with empirical reality, I view it and them respectively as "mathematical philosophy" and "mathematical philosophers") is patently happy to label as "theory" a succession of unevidenced, nonpredictive and endlessly malleable speculations, such as general relativity theory, Kaluza-Klein theory, String theory, M-theory and now of course Bubble theory.

This is the terminology we're stuck with, cutesy, specialized pedagogical definitions of "scientific theory" aside. 

The definition of a scientific theory is clear. 

Your not answering my question shows that you are unwilling to admit that your previous comments were wrong.

Why compound the error with this screed?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Cycle4Fun on December 07, 2008, 11:55:18 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.

All scientific theories change when new discoveries are made.  This is true in every field of science.  Classical mechanics, organic chemistry, quantum mechanics, electricity and magnetism, general relativity, evolution have been continually modified to better fit the observations since they were first proposed.  This is a good thing.

General relativity is the best theory yet devised on the way the universe behaves on a big scale.  You need to go take some college level science classes.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Azdgari on December 07, 2008, 01:21:56 PM
Trustno1, how is the definition of "scientific theory" that you've described any different from that of "a guess"?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: bahramthered on December 07, 2008, 04:56:24 PM
Can I ask the doubters here to answer if the big bang didn't happen then how do they explain Lithium?

For those who don't know Lithium is a very common element (In the grand scheme of things). But it is universally spread, and can not be created by any know means. In fact stars find this element to be very fragile and as a result tasty (they break it down to use it's parts in other reactions) and they don't make it. Current logic says it was created in the big bang, since it's on a dowward spiral to elemental exinction.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: none on December 07, 2008, 06:27:32 PM
thanks for the post Admin 1.
this article is obviously an argument for creation.
I cannot reconcile this argument, unfortunately.
wave-particle duality and the record of time stored with particles (?communication?) precludes my stubbornness.(notice the plural usage)
this article assumes that all the properties of the universe were known which flies in the face of wave-particle duality.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Cyberia on December 07, 2008, 10:48:38 PM
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? 

String Theory makes many predictions, but most of them are not yet (or in the foreseeable future) verifiable in a technological sense.  The strings themselves could be directly observed, theoretically, but that is farrrrrrrr beyond our current technological ability.  ST is also quite complex in that it speaks of the most minuscule quanta for which science is not yet able to understand the theory in enough detail to say "ah, if that's so, then [easily verifiable test] can be empirically tested". 

Nevertheless, we can be sure it makes some predictions that CAN be tested.  The LHC should be able to test supersymmetry (a necessary component of ST) and verify if a) supersymmetry exists, and b) if the electroweak force decouples at the predicted energies (predicted by both ST and AdS/CFT.)

There are also testable implications of ST, and while these tests would not verify ST, they could falsify it.  For example: Gravitons according to ST are closed-loop particles, which means that they are NOT bound to our spacetime.  If that is true, then that explains why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces...it's actually NOT as weak, it's just that we only perceive gravity within our spacetime plane.  This is testable, because at extremely small distances gravity would appear much stronger.  Gravitons leaving our plane would still have a radius of interaction, even if they were slightly off our plane.  Test for this effect are currently underway.

There are probably MANY more tests that can be performed on ST, once it is better understood and constrained.  No test, no observation yet performed has indicated that ST is NOT true.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on December 09, 2008, 12:04:40 PM
I'll go ahead and remind the world that hideousmonster is too chickenshit to correct his own mistake, that I pointed out to him most recently here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=2485.msg59645#msg59645).  He won't correct himself when he's wrong, even when it is pointed out to him and the mistake is clear as can be.  This is Day 14.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 on December 10, 2008, 10:00:48 AM
I'll go ahead and remind the world that hideousmonster is too chickens**t to correct his own mistake, that I pointed out to him most recently here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=2485.msg59645#msg59645).  He won't correct himself when he's wrong, even when it is pointed out to him and the mistake is clear as can be.  This is Day 14.

I actually revert to quick skimming when confronted by long posts written in the ad hominem mode, Davedave, so I don't know about and don't care what sort of cowardice you're accusing HM of.  But I think he explained his position well enough on several fronts.  When things devolve to personal attacks it's quite probably the wise person who drops out.  It would have been wise of everyone to just drop out of that long long fag thread at old WWGHA.  And another point:  It takes zero courage and zero background knowledge to defend pop culture myths such as the deification of overt plagiarist Albert Einstein, and it takes zero courage or knowledge to defend unevidenced many-angels-dancing-on-pinheads imaginings such as we find in string theory, with its multiple dimensions comprised of curled up, massless black holes.  Again, it isn't necessary that we all learn the calculus of tensors to speak intelligently of the weak physical/epistemological foundation of general relativity and its poor record of prediction, in spite of the endorsement of the pop press and most pop science anthologies. 

...only recently have we even realized that the apparent expansion of the area of space which immediately surrounds 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?...
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on December 10, 2008, 11:01:02 AM
Again, it isn't necessary that we all learn the calculus of tensors to speak intelligently of the weak physical/epistemological foundation of general relativity and its poor record of prediction, in spite of the endorsement of the pop press and most pop science anthologies. 

trustno1,

It is necessary to do that it you specifically claim to understand the evidence.  Doubt of Big Bang is not the issue here.  It is that he claimed he understood the evidence for it.  He doesn't actually understand the evidence for it.  In fact, he hasn't even examined the evidence for it.  That's my problem.  He shouldn't say he possesses understanding that he does not possess.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Cyberia on December 10, 2008, 07:37:26 PM
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?...

The Standard Model is .... wait for it.... a model.

It is not a theory.  It's basically a table of everything we know about subatomic particles and forces.  There have been some "predictions" generated by SM, but only in cases where there is an apparent symmetry with one type of particle "missing" it's symmetrical twin.  The SM does not make true scientific predictions.  It's not a theory.  It's just a list of things we have observed.  It's a model.

And because it's a model, it gets "reimagined" every time we discover something new.  Since it's not a scientific theory, we don't have to make it make "sense" or work out the details for it.  If we observe it, it goes in the SM.  It represents what we know to be true, even if we don't understand it.

The reason why there is much interest in String Theory, and other Theories of Everything, is so that we can understand the "why" and "how" behind the SM.  Why are there X numbers of elementary particle types and not more or less?  Why does the [elementary particle] have THIS particular charge, spin and mass?  etc, etc...

ST actually appears to offer explanations for these important questions.  Even if we don't yet understand the answers, we can see that there IS a mechanism behind the curtain.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: spider on December 10, 2008, 07:54:39 PM
Hi Cyberia - can you help explain something to me?    Is the current understanding that the universe did come from nothing?  Or that nothing never existed, and that there was no "before" in which nothing could exist?

For nothing to be defined, doesn't it require something to exist alongside it? 
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 on December 10, 2008, 10:03:28 PM
The Standard Model is .... wait for it.... a model.

It is not a theory.  It's basically a table...

Jeepers Creepers!  Or maybe I should more aptly exclaim, "Holy Einstein!"

He wasn't even talking about the Standard Model!  He was criticizing general relativity, the popular "model" or "theory" that has lead us to precisely zero technical or technological advancements over the nine decades since its introduction:

...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...
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 on December 10, 2008, 10:21:56 PM
All scientific theories change when new discoveries are made.  This is true in every field of science...

And I agree completely.  Practicing scientists use the word "theory" to refer to any tentative, evidence-based formulation potentially subject to experimental/observational confirmation, alteration or rejection, and carrying broad explanatory potential.  Yet your and my view is flatly contradicted by the Bizarro World pedagogical definition from, for instance, the National Academy of Sciences -- a very unrealistic pedagogical definition with which I take issue and which delimits "scientific theory" to that which holds consensus, is supported by and in turn supports tangibly affirmed and affirmable evidence, and is unchanging.  Again, this specialized definition only crops up in conjunction with arguments over evolution: 

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=1
Quote
...The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially...

Note that general relativity "theory" has been very plainly altered substantially through successive insertions, removals and reinsertions of an otherwise arbitrary cosmological constant thus with the desire of bringing it into approximate correspondence with the observables of the moment. 

An interesting side-issue:  Does "well established" general relativity predict gravitational waves?  Most interpretations today say that general relativity supports the existence of gravitational waves.  One of the most costly single-purpose projects of its kind ever undertaken is the half-billion dollar LIGO experiment, with a multi-billion dollar LISA in the works.  LIGO hasn't found anything yet other than earthquakes and truck traffic.  Einstein himself argued that gravitational waves do not exist:

http://www.physorg.com/news8104.html
Quote
...Einstein's frustration was in response to a paper titled "Do Gravitational Waves Exist?" that he had submitted to the Physical Review in 1936. The paper stated that gravitational waves do not exist.

The editor at the Physical Review had reservations about Einstein's theory and sent the paper to a referee. The paper was returned to Einstein with a critical review. Einstein wrote back to the editor expressing indignation, and the paper was subsequently published elsewhere...

(NB the proposal that gravitational waves do not exist is herein referred to as "Einstein's theory."  Sloppy science writers!)  A bit surprising isn't it that a "theory" so ostensibly well established as geometric gravitation could yet be so malleable and open to subjective interpretation that its own originator is somehow unclear about a fundamental prediction flowing from it two decades after its introduction?  And of course as hideousmonster and I have pointed out, it seriously dropped the ball just a decade ago with the accelerating universe. 

...You need to go take some college level science classes...

Hmm, Appeal To Authority?  Do you also recommend that we skeptics of god get our heads screwed on straight by signing up for Goddidit101 at Liberty University?  Seriously, although the pop press would have you believe that general relativity and Big Bang "theory" are secure as ever, a great deal of doubt within mainstream science has always lingered and continues to grow -- just leaf through Scientific American's coverage of MOND or its recent coverage of quantum gravity theories, for instance.  Obviously if GR and BB were sound and complete scientific laws, there'd be no need at all for the ephemeral, unevidenced and physically nonproductive "angels dancing on pinheads" (i.e. curled up, hidden spacial dimensions) speculation that we see in things like string theory.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Cyberia on December 10, 2008, 10:48:41 PM
Hi Cyberia - can you help explain something to me?    Is the current understanding that the universe did come from nothing?  Or that nothing never existed, and that there was no "before" in which nothing could exist?

We can trace time back to 10-43 seconds after the BB.  There is high confidence that we can understand events after this point, and no confidence that we can (currently) understand events prior to this.  We need a theory of Quantum Gravity to look beyond this point.  This is because during this initial period, gravitation effects were significant, if not dominant.  Gravity doesn't just affect particles within spacetime, it affects the shape of spacetime itself.  Prior to 10-43s at least two important events occurred: 1) spacetime was 'created' and 2) spacetime expanded RAPIDLY, an event known as Inflation.  BOTH of these events are related to gravity and occurred in a miniscule universe, hence: Quantum Gravity is necessary.

Now, to answer your question, we don't know.

Current understanding indicates that "time" began at the instant of the BB, T=0.  It is not though that this is a limit of our ability to look beyond this point, instead it is a literal beginning of time.  There simply was no "before", figuratively or literally.  QG will help us understand this issue.

We are also unsure if Conservation of Energy (Thermodynamics) is applicable to the BB or only after the BB.  Conservation of Energy is definitely a property of our universe, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily valid "prior" to that or "outside" our universe.  Without CoE, Nothing--->Something is most definitely possible.

He wasn't even talking about the Standard Model!  He was criticizing general relativity, the popular "model" or "theory" that has lead us to precisely zero technical or technological advancements over the nine decades since its introduction:

He said Standard Model, if he misspoke or if I misunderstood, my apologies.  

Now, for what you said, GR has brought about many technological advancements since it's introduction.  GPS is one that comes to mind.  Those satellites MUST account for relativistic effects or they will become useless within hours.  Satellite based gravity maps of Earth wouldn't exist without GR.  Communication with remote space probes is adjusted for GR, the space shuttle, the hubble telescope, earth based radar mappings of Venus and Mars must be adjusted for GR
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Azdgari on December 10, 2008, 11:02:22 PM
Trustno1, how is the definition of "scientific theory" that you've described any different from that of "a guess"?

^^ and do you suggest we use your definition, as described, or do you suggest we restrict ourselves to a narrower definition when using the term?
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Hermes on December 10, 2008, 11:07:26 PM
He wasn't even talking about the Standard Model!  He was criticizing general relativity, the popular "model" or "theory" that has lead us to precisely zero technical or technological advancements over the nine decades since its introduction:

Are you kidding?  Wow.  I don't know if it's worth responding to such stunning confident ignorance.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Cyberia on December 10, 2008, 11:07:36 PM
An interesting side-issue:  Does "well established" general relativity predict gravitational waves?  Most interpretations today say that general relativity supports the existence of gravitational waves.  One of the most costly single-purpose projects of its kind ever undertaken is the half-billion dollar LIGO experiment, with a multi-billion dollar LISA in the works.  LIGO hasn't found anything yet other than earthquakes and truck traffic.  Einstein himself argued that gravitational waves do not exist:

http://www.physorg.com/news8104.html
Quote
...Einstein's frustration was in response to a paper titled "Do Gravitational Waves Exist?" that he had submitted to the Physical Review in 1936. The paper stated that gravitational waves do not exist.
 


Gravitational Waves are predicted by GR.  As of 2008, they have not been detected directly.  LIGO is only now starting to enter the predicted range of sensitivity to detect these wave, and it's very much at the bottom edge of that range.  

There IS observational evidence that they exist however.  Astronomers have located a pair of neutron stars orbiting each other at close range.  As they orbit each other, the wavelength of the pulses varies exactly as predicted if gravitational waves exist.  Furthermore, the frequency of the pulsar is very slowly decreasing, precisely as much as predicted if the waves are carrying away energy from the system.  Hulse-Taylor binary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse-Taylor_binary)

Somewhat ironically for our discussion site here, one of these stars is possibly the "Star of Bethlehem".
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Hermes on December 10, 2008, 11:32:12 PM
FWIW ...

The (bah) Star of (humbug) Bethlehem
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/25/the-bah-star-of-humbug-bethlehem/ (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/25/the-bah-star-of-humbug-bethlehem/)
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Davedave on December 11, 2008, 11:05:21 AM
trustno1,

Are you going to acknowledge that people shouldn't lie?  hideousmonster made a specific claim, not about the validity of the Big Bang theory, but about HIS understanding of the evidence.  When it comes to light that he hasn't actually even examined the evidence at all, just the opposite, in fact, he dismissed it without ANY examination on the grounds that it is "just" a mathematical proof, I think that demonstrates that he lied.  Can you bring yourself to criticize him for being dishonest?  I am quite willing to allow evidentiary concerns and I'm also willing to listen to concerns about utility, but I must insist that you cannot say you understand the evidence for the theory if you have specifically refused to even look at it.  He cannot, even in broad strokes, offer ANY outline of the direction of the Hawking proof, much less offer specific criticism of it.  He does NOT understand the evidence.  The claim he made, I think, is incontrovertibly a lie.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: velkyn on December 11, 2008, 01:23:01 PM
He wasn't even talking about the Standard Model!  He was criticizing general relativity, the popular "model" or "theory" that has lead us to precisely zero technical or technological advancements over the nine decades since its introduction:

Are you kidding?  Wow.  I don't know if it's worth responding to such stunning confident ignorance.

that is quite amazingly sad ignorance. trust1 should have his computer taken away from him for that idiocy.  Go ahead and respond with the thought that some poor lurker is actually willing to think. 
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 on December 13, 2008, 08:24:41 AM
Here's an example sent to us by Hermes himself of practicing scientists referring to a scientific theory which yet does not at this early stage enjoy broad consensus nor is it "supported by a vast body of evidence."  Again, in the real world a scientific theory is any tentative, evidence-based formulation potentially subject to experimental/observational confirmation, alteration or rejection, and carrying broad explanatory potential:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=1509.msg62695#new
Quote
Loop Quantum Cosmology - The universe may have come from ... the universe

...The theory that the recycled universe was based on, called loop quantum cosmology (LQC)...

...Now the theory is poised to make predictions we can actually test...

...LQC is in fact the first tangible application of another theory called loop quantum gravity...

...after more feverish mathematics, Ashtekar, Singh and Pawlowski solved the problem. Early versions of the theory described the evolution of the universe in terms of quanta...

...Physicist Claus Kiefer at the University of Cologne in Germany, who has written extensively about the subject, agrees. "It is really a new perspective on how we can view the early universe," he says. "Now, you have a theory that can give you a natural explanation for a singularity-free universe." He adds that while competing theories of quantum gravity, such as string theory, have their own insights to offer cosmology, none of these theories has fully embraced quantum mechanics...

...This is the first time that a theory is able to make predictions about what was happening prior to inflation...

...might make inflation unnecessary, thus removing what has essentially always been an add-on to standard cosmological theory...

...No wonder Rovelli is looking forward to upcoming experiments that could vindicate the theory...

Please note that it isn't just the science writers but the scientists themselves who use the term theory in its broadest popular sense.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Hermes on December 13, 2008, 08:38:34 AM
I'm laughing right now.  You just don't get it.
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: trustno1 on December 13, 2008, 11:58:36 AM
...GR has brought about many technological advancements since it's introduction.  GPS is one that comes to mind...

Let's be clear:  GPS and its precursor navigation systems (Transit, Timation) were in no way inspired in their development by relativistic thinking.  They were engineered through a long steady process of conventional technical evolution as military navigation and guidance systems.

Theoretical physicists were not able to predetermine by consensus relativistic SV clock offsets ahead of the first Block 1 series of GPS satellite launches in 1977.  GR is a malleable theory and, unlike highly deterministic Newtonian dynamics, is quite open to subjective interpretation.  It was only after empirical, space-based experiments to determine actual clock rates at the new gravitational potential that a prelaunch rate offset was incorporated into each space vehicle clock.  That this offset is now said to agree with the predictions of special and general relativity is another example of legalistic dissembling wherein well-documented history is inverted and postdiction is claimed as prediction. 
Title: Re: The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space
Post by: Cyberia on December 13, 2008, 06:31:26 PM
Let's be clear:  GPS and its precursor navigation systems (Transit, Timation) were in no way inspired in their development by relativistic thinking.  They were engineered through a long steady process of conventional technical evolution as military navigation and guidance systems.
Um, so?  Somehow GR is diminished because it didn't directly inspire GPS?  Thermodynamics didn't directly inspire my water heater either.  Obviously Thermodynamics is a sham.

Theoretical physicists were not able to predetermine by consensus relativistic SV clock offsets ahead of the first Block 1 series of GPS satellite launches in 1977. 
Now who's backtracking?  First you said it has brought about no advancements, now you're changing that to "It never predicted the clock offset"  (which is FALSE anyway, it did predict the offset, it's just that the engineers didn't realize they needed GR in the first place, so they didn't bother to run the prediction.  When the satellites didn't work as expected, they troubleshot it and realized GR predicted something other that what they expected.)


GR is a malleable theory and, unlike highly deterministic Newtonian dynamics, is quite open to subjective interpretation. 
Hence the name: "Relativity".


It was only after empirical, space-based experiments to determine actual clock rates at the new gravitational potential that a prelaunch rate offset was incorporated into each space vehicle clock.  That this offset is now said to agree with the predictions of special and general relativity is another example of legalistic dissembling wherein well-documented history is inverted and postdiction is claimed as prediction. 
Those experiments verified the predicted offset of GR.  You can't have it both ways.  If they hadn't tested it, you'd claim it was an untested theory.  When they do test it, you complain that they had to empirically test their 'theory'.

Frame-dragging was predicted, and then found to actually exist.

Time-dialation was predicted, and then found to actually exist.

Black holes were predicted, and then found to actually exist.

and on and on and on.....