yea, Les is on some straight bullshit with that one.
I don't understand for the life of me why people try to put science in some box as if no feeling is ever allowed, and criticize it as if they don't use it.
How was "Space" created before the Universe
- Thread starter cb71109
- Start date
yea, Les is on some straight bullshit with that one.
I don't understand for the life of me why people try to put science in some box as if no feeling is ever allowed, and criticize it as if they don't use it.
It's called hypocrisy, then again; I suppose if you are a firm believer of most religions, especially the popular one here in the states, it wouldn't feel quite right unless it was hypocriful!
Last edited:
I bet.
I just actually saw this thread and haven't gone through it all, but I don't have high expectations.Why do you think naive is a reach? I once used to accept the BBT partly out of ignorance of its massive flaws and it being basically what the physics party-line towed. A "standard model" of sorts. And looking back now, it was rather NAIVE of me.
So, why do you think it's a reach? The source of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is one of the BBT's major arguments for "physical evidence" of the event. And even that is easily debunked. Any theory that describes phenomena that can be accounted for by simpler explanations must be abandoned for the simpler one (Occam's Razor).
a) The fact that the background radiation could come from cold matter in interstellar space means that there should be TWO sources of the cosmic background radiation, not one that is observed.
b) And the fact that 3K -- the minimum temperature that any body in space irradiated in distant star light would cool to -- is the same 3K measured as the so-called "background temperature" of the BB, implies that the simpler explanation; intergalactic matter, NOT some past complicated BB event, is the source of the background. The "background" is simply the Plank Spectrum that all bodies in the universe must emit.
Moreover, the background temperature of hydrogen gas, which we can all agree is abundant in the universe, is ... guess what? 3K. And since hydrogen gas has been well observed in the universe and its 3K Plank Spectrum measured, I c/s the theory with verifiable empirical evidence.
The above arguments are only a couple of the numerous loop-holes, inconsistencies and flaws in the BBT. If it hurts the feelings of anyone in thread, counter or deal with it.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I just think the phrase "scientific opinion" is an oxymoron. That's all.
Probably so, but you know science is opinionated. Especially when it comes to theory. I deal with that shit all the time in atmospheric science. Weather is the most opinionated physical science ever...
I bet.
Why do you think naive is a reach? I once used to accept the BBT partly out of ignorance of its massive flaws and it being basically what the physics party-line towed. A "standard model" of sorts. And looking back now, it was rather NAIVE of me.
So, why do you think it's a reach? The source of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is one of the BBT's major arguments for "physical evidence" of the event. And even that is easily debunked. Any theory that describes phenomena that can be accounted for by simpler explanations must be abandoned for the simpler one (Occam's Razor).
a) The fact that the background radiation could come from cold matter in interstellar space means that there should be TWO sources of the cosmic background radiation, not one that is observed.
b) And the fact that 3K -- the minimum temperature that any body in space irradiated in distant star light would cool to -- is the same 3K measured as the so-called "background temperature" of the BB, implies that the simpler explanation; intergalactic matter, NOT some past complicated BB event, is the source of the background. The "background" is simply the Plank Spectrum that all bodies in the universe must emit.
Moreover, the background temperature of hydrogen gas, which we can all agree is abundant in the universe, is ... guess what? 3K. And since hydrogen gas has been well observed in the universe and its 3K Plank Spectrum measured, I c/s the theory with verifiable empirical evidence.
The above arguments are only a couple of the numerous loop-holes, inconsistencies and flaws in the BBT. If it hurts the feelings of anyone in thread, counter or deal with it.
I think the main argument in this thread is the cause. The initial condition. What was the initial force that triggered the birth of the universe and where did this force come from? From your argument (correct me if I am wrong) dealt more with properties rather than cause.
I bet.
Why do you think naive is a reach? I once used to accept the BBT partly out of ignorance of its massive flaws and it being basically what the physics party-line towed. A "standard model" of sorts. And looking back now, it was rather NAIVE of me.
So, why do you think it's a reach? The source of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is one of the BBT's major arguments for "physical evidence" of the event. And even that is easily debunked. Any theory that describes phenomena that can be accounted for by simpler explanations must be abandoned for the simpler one (Occam's Razor).
a) The fact that the background radiation could come from cold matter in interstellar space means that there should be TWO sources of the cosmic background radiation, not one that is observed.
b) And the fact that 3K -- the minimum temperature that any body in space irradiated in distant star light would cool to -- is the same 3K measured as the so-called "background temperature" of the BB, implies that the simpler explanation; intergalactic matter, NOT some past complicated BB event, is the source of the background. The "background" is simply the Plank Spectrum that all bodies in the universe must emit.
Moreover, the background temperature of hydrogen gas, which we can all agree is abundant in the universe, is ... guess what? 3K. And since hydrogen gas has been well observed in the universe and its 3K Plank Spectrum measured, I c/s the theory with verifiable empirical evidence.
The above arguments are only a couple of the numerous loop-holes, inconsistencies and flaws in the BBT. If it hurts the feelings of anyone in thread, counter or deal with it.
well, I'd love to see you debate on it. That's all I'll say about that. As a scientist in whatever field you're in, I'm sure you've written a paper on it.
According to BBT, the evolution of the universe following the explosion was homogenous and as such moons of planets should orbit their respective planets in the horizontal plane as modeled after General Relativity's warped space canvas model. But vertical plane orbits and orbits at the polar ends of planets have been observed.
BBT is also founded on the universe modeled after General Relativity. And this is where many issues arise:
- Red-shift due to pseudo-Doppler Effect stretching space. Assumes absolute space which is direct conflict with reference frames of Special Relativity.
- According to BBT all stars should be made of the same kinds of elements. Not true. What's observed is a heterogeneous elemental composition of stars.
- 2nd Law of Thermodynamics hols that in a finite BBT universe would be high entropy and chaotic. Not observed.
- The singularity bullshit which violates the law of conservation of mass/energy.
just to mention a few more ...
maybe hypothesis, but established scientific facts have no room for opinion. A mole of sulfuric acid is composed of a mole of sulfur atoms. not 1.6 moles imo, or 3 moles as far as i'm concerned. this is what i mean...
Last edited:
that's not the main argument at all. Read the OP. Dude had a question about the Big Bang Model.
It turned into a debunking of the Big Bang by people unqualified to do so.
The only reply a respect in this SOMEWHAT is Sean's because I know he has a background in it, and his response at least leads to a bigger question, but even that's irrelavant, because the question was based WITHIN the model.
Those who don't buy the model, in a more lefit convo, would have to start another thread, because it' a whole other conversation.
On BGOL obviously it's different, but beware Sean, because when one comes on the side of debunking the science, you'll start having STRANGE allies in here
i know what the OP was asking. I was just addressing the integrity of what some regard as the "cause". Even though BBT describes evolution of events "after", it's still a flawed theory.
As for initial conditions, there are hypothesis and speculations, all of which are tailored after BB cosmology. So consequently, they're wrong an amount to creating something from nothing which is not only impossible but irrational.
Don't have to write no damn paper on it. The argument doesn't need a PhD to comprehend and rationalize.
According to BBT, the evolution of the universe following the explosion was homogenous and as such moons of planets should orbit their respective planets in the horizontal plane as modeled after General Relativity's warped space canvas model. But vertical plane orbits and orbits at the polar ends of planets have been observed.
BBT is also founded on the universe modeled after General Relativity. And this is where many issues arise:
.
from my understanding, this is a misrepresentation of the model. I've addressed it a bit earlier.
don't know what that is. Won't be addressing it. respect.
Again, out of my league.
I could quote you some things that argue against this, and the others, but you may already know them. Do you? Lots to do with closed and open systems, etc.
theres ideas about different "types" of singularities, but again, I assume you know these, no?
The important thing I'd like to ask YOU Sean is, are there any other models you think are plausible?
not really true, because ... well SOMETHING exists. Unless you're implying there was never a beginning, never a "nothing".
Goes back to my last question to you. I'd love to hear your ideas on it.
But if it's "I don't know", that's fine with me.
Agreed that 'established' scientific facts have no room for opinions. Facts are cool, but a lot of the time facts are hard to come by because we can not accurately measure certain things.
that's not the main argument at all. Read the OP. Dude had a question about the Big Bang Model.
It turned into a debunking of the Big Bang by people unqualified to do so.
The only reply a respect in this SOMEWHAT is Sean's because I know he has a background in it, and his response at least leads to a bigger question, but even that's irrelavant, because the question was based WITHIN the model.
Those who don't buy the model, in a more lefit convo, would have to start another thread, because it' a whole other conversation.
On BGOL obviously it's different, but beware Sean, because when one comes on the side of debunking the science, you'll start having STRANGE allies in here
The model is obviously going to be flawed. Mainly because the universe is not completely understood.
The debates are cool though. At least give kats some credit for trying...
Sean is a tough person to argue against because I have a hard time following his scientific terms
Dumb it down a little Sean.
i hear you dude, but it's not really debunking science. it's debunking a theory. which simply requires that you come up with another theory or explanation that's simpler, as or more predictive and explains shit that the one being debunked can't. Where you and I may differ a bit is that I don't think one needs an advanced degree to be qualified to do science and rationalize information. A background certainly helps though...that's not the main argument at all. Read the OP. Dude had a question about the Big Bang Model.
It turned into a debunking of the Big Bang by people unqualified to do so.
The only reply a respect in this SOMEWHAT is Sean's because I know he has a background in it, and his response at least leads to a bigger question, but even that's irrelavant, because the question was based WITHIN the model.
Those who don't buy the model, in a more lefit convo, would have to start another thread, because it' a whole other conversation.
On BGOL obviously it's different, but beware Sean, because when one comes on the side of debunking the science, you'll start having STRANGE allies in here
Something had to come from nothing...
What is closer to the answer than BB cosmology though? Although I know it is flawed in theory, but do you ever eliminate the possibility that maybe the answer is beyond what we know to be our universe's physics?
I agree. except in here you have people giving lifetimes to a religious concept, and being "skeptical" in 10 seconds of something that requires at least as much time as they gave to a myth before you can just discount something.
I can tell you've given these ideas a chance, and you've come out on the other side. Your objections at least make me go and look at the others out there, and I honestly don't know enough to even debate with you about it at any length. I'll throw out things I see.
What I like about what I see on ideas like it, are that most guys who even buy into it, readily admit there are limitations.
And I know of no better models, so from my understanding it's not TRUTH, but one with the best set of evidence backing it.
I'm more interested in seeing HOW some of these dudes arrived at their "skepticism", when the next thing that comes out of their mouths is God, aliens, or whatever. Not a lick of skepticism about that. .
And don't get me wrong, I'm cool with those ideas to, it's just that none of the stories I know of now hold up very well at all. Mostly wishful thinking.
I wouldn't be that basic with my conclusion. I know you need to have a whole lot more "background" to "rationalize the information" particularly with topics like BBT.
c/s
Admitting your limitations is ok. I admit my limitations in physics, but because I have a strong background in math -I like to debate with physicist mainly because math is needed in physics.
The problem I have is that physicist eliminates variables from equations based on the physical interpretation versus mathematicians eliminating variables by setting limits-->0. That simple transition from math to physics was really hard to grasp for me.
This BB model is just a bunch of complex equations.
oop- here comes cranky Sean
the guys who support have written papers. Foremost scholars, who deal with scrutiny about their ideas. You can just step up to the plate and say these things without the same scrutiny? wow, impressed.
If you want us to by what you're selling, you'd have to do it in the square to fully gain my respect for your arguments.
Or at least post some of your references.
And just curious- I have NO formal background in any of this, so PHD's are not necessarily what impress me, but what's your background? I'm just a person fascinated with the topics.
I think the big questions people like to have answered by religion are better answered, or at least framed and dealt with by Sciences, and Philosophy, Arts and Culture.
the op's question, like it or not is just as mind boggling as the question as to whether of not the universe is an open infinite system, or closed system.
it's mainly a problem as well because the human brain evolved to perceive the universe a certain way, so there will always be pieces of this puzzle that will be out of our reach without (or maybe even with) the use of our tools.
however tho i still find it hard to believe that the universe was started by a being that has human genders/emotions/obsessions.
it's mainly a problem as well because the human brain evolved to perceive the universe a certain way, so there will always be pieces of this puzzle that will be out of our reach without (or maybe even with) the use of our tools.
however tho i still find it hard to believe that the universe was started by a being that has human genders/emotions/obsessions.
Last edited:
I wouldn't use the term "ALWAYS" so strongly, though I do agree it's a HELL of a feat. That's one thing I'm very hopeful of that we'll figure out something like that. but imagine that... WHEW
Unfortunately, many have taken this statement to mean "Hey see i told you that science-crap is garbage!" But, how narrow their vision really is i say the fact that science can say, "Hey we were wrong about this, is their another way of looking at it?" makes it more power than any closed system could ever be! For in true science their is no such thing as a failed experiment or in this case a fail theory!
It would be difficult to model such a system. Modeling the earth atmosphere uses open boundaries (free flowing around the globe).
The universe is much more difficult because we honestly don't know the shape of the universe or the flow of the universe, so the boundaries can be open or closed. Kind of makes it difficult to argue.....
how is it a misrep? I haven't gone through the whole thread yet so I didn't see where u addressed it.
light from a source is Red-shifted when it increases proportionately in wavelength. BBT suggests that the universe is expanding and claims that the observed "red-shift" of light from distant stars is evidence of this because, following the warped space model of GR, an expanding universe is akin to stretching space itself. Like inflating a balloon that you've drawn a line on the surface with a marker. The line stretches in length proportionately with the balloon's inflation and is observed the same in all reference frames. This is in conflict with Einstein's theory of special relativity which rejects absolute space.
It 's generally agreed that the relative abundance of the various chemical elements were determined by physical conditions existing in the early universe during the earlier stages of its expansion after the BB. However, there are theories that account for the synthesis of elements in present day universe and that, unlike the BBT, can be verified. This is why different stars are composed of different elements--as observed. In a BBT universe they'd all have the same composition of elements since they were all synthesized back then. Get it?
Please quote them.
Feel free to share those ideas. Do any of them describe singularities that consist of continuous space?
And yes I subscribe to an alternative cosmological theory (not mine) that's better than the BBT. It explains what the BBT can't and fills in it's loop-holes. But that's for another thread because it's based on a model of physical matter that's NOT the standard PARTICLE model but a WAVE STRUCTURE model.
Last edited:
i'll prolly be long dead if we come anywhere even close to that type of understanding tho
(that is if we don't destroy ourselves first)
Unfortunately, many have taken this statement to mean "Hey see i told you that science-crap is garbage!" But, how narrow their vision really is i say the fact that science can say, "Hey we were wrong about this, is their another way of looking at it?" makes it more power than any closed system could ever be! For in true science their is no such thing as a failed experiment or in this case a fail theory!
I asked YOU to share if you know of any. I've seen titles, such as steady state,, Quasis state, Plasma cosmology, all that- but I don't know anything about them.
What ideas do YOU think are most plausible? I defer to you on this, because you seem to be the most learned on the board.
You know, what's been more interesting to me than the BB, but is a critical part of it's theory . . . is the concept of NOTHING.
I'm not sure what THAT is, because nothing SEEMS to be a form of something. Is it that which is absent of energy and therefore mass. Can nothing be measured? If so, it's not nothing, but a different form of something, especially IF nothing is a functioning aspect of existence.
Any thoughts?
JG
I'm not sure what THAT is, because nothing SEEMS to be a form of something. Is it that which is absent of energy and therefore mass. Can nothing be measured? If so, it's not nothing, but a different form of something, especially IF nothing is a functioning aspect of existence.
Any thoughts?
JG
i'll prolly be long dead if we come anywhere even close to that type of understanding tho
yeah- but with Kurzweils ideas on how fast technology moves, ya never know. I'm with you in that doubt though. But for the coming generations, I'm hopeful, as long as we don't DEVOLVE.
Hell I don't know, but if nothing can be measured then time has speed......It's endless! If nothing created something then where did nothing come from
something? Shit is mad weird man. That's why I like to believe in a higher dimension and say that our universe is a subset of a higher dimension (greater than the 3rd dimension). Who knows?
Awhhh Shit, back away from the keyboard.."Nothing has become Something"
Similar threads
