Notices
Results 1 to 97 of 97
Like Tree27Likes
  • 1 Post By Lucifer
  • 2 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 2 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 2 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 1 Post By KJW
  • 2 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 2 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 2 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By cosmictraveler
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By KJW
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 2 Post By Schneibster
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: If you don't believe in BB, what are the alternatives?

  1. #1 If you don't believe in BB, what are the alternatives? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I get the impression that BB stands largely because the other theories have even more flaws in them than it does. It's like it's preferred because it's the least of all evils.

    So, if we were to list them, what are all the alternatives? It's not necessary to explain everything in one theory, because some things may actually be independent of each other ( like Hubble's Red Shift may have nothing to do with the CMBR, for example)

    I'm just curious. Maybe someone could elaborate on some other theories like steady state?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    BB cosmology is not just a "lesser evil", but also is the one more coherent with data and the most supported with data. All alternate cosmologies make even bolder assumptions supported with even less data. Occam's razor is very explicit under this circunstances.


    umbradiago likes this.
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    Occam's razor is very explicit under this circunstances.
    However, Occam's razor is a utilitarian guide, not an immutable law.
    nnunn and umbradiago like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    BB has lots of evidence - why do you have an impression that it's just the best of the worst? It's just the early billionth of a billionth of a second where BB breaks down and that doesn't mean that the whole theory is in crisis as a result. It just means that the BB doesn't really address the period of t=0 or the first moment after.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    BB cosmology is not just a "lesser evil", but also is the one more coherent with data and the most supported with data. All alternate cosmologies make even bolder assumptions supported with even less data. Occam's razor is very explicit under this circunstances.
    In other words: It's the lesser evil.

    It's the most coherent with data and most supported with data of a whole slew of theories that have very poor data/evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I'm not following why that makes it a lesser evil. Evolution doesn't address biogenesis, does that make it invalid? Every theory has a domain over which it is applicable.
    Edit: oops I answered as if you were replying to me. No biggie
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Evolution doesn't require as much conjecture as BB. With BB, you need to believe in ftl travel (during the first few seconds), some kind of dark energy (to account for some observed accelerations), and still be left hanging as to what caused a big bang to occur.

    That last part's the one that really gets me wondering. Doesn't occam's razor require that a theory answer more questions than it creates? Wouldn't we want the questions it creates to be smaller than the questions it addresses?

    The predicted phenomena are more spectacular than the observed phenomena those predictions are based on.
    nnunn likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Well the Big bang has nothing to do with FTL - why is the expansion of space subject to the limitations of objects within the universe? Besides being a fallacy of composition it's just not an applicable argument. From wiki:
    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if comoving distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies. However, in general relativity, velocity is a local notion, so velocity calculated using comoving coordinates does not have any simple relation to velocity calculated locally. In other words, the galaxies (or more accurately, galaxy clusters) do not physically move away from each other. Rather, the fabric of spacetime between them expands. This also explains the inflationary epoch during the Big Bang, when a volume of the universe a hundred billion times smaller than a proton expanded to approximately one hundred million light years in diameter in just 10-32 seconds
    So definitely no problem there from a physics standpoint best I can tell.

    Dark energy to my knowledge is required if you accept GR, to explain the observations that the expansion is accelerating - I mean if you want to reject the BB on the basis of dark energy it seems to me you must reject either GR itself, or claim faulty observations. Doesn't make sense to single out the BB.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Neutrino - if velocity due to the expansion of space somehow doesn't count as an actual velocity, then how would it cause a redshift?

    Treating velocity as "a local notion" is all well and good, but under GR the velocity of light is the same for all references. The light from those galaxies would never reach us, then.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    What Ed Hubble observed in 1929-32, was from about 4 billion light years out and what COBE and The Hubble are said to confirm are from up to 14.2 BLYO. In either case the BBT Today), suggest expansion from BB, is not over but close to C. What was seen by Ed Hubble and said expanding is slower than the outer observation giving the idea expansion increases as you get closer to what were original conditions. That is, settled down.
    Light that we can observed is independent from the source. Once sent be the source going 1/2C or 2C (if possible) would be limited to C speed and what we pick up through computerized imaging. What we do see as 14.2 by old, is from something long gone, whether by 14.2 by travel or natural death. I am sure there is a great deal in observable space which we do not see, which has formed and the light yet to reach us....

    My understanding &/or opinion....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Neutrino - if velocity due to the expansion of space somehow doesn't count as an actual velocity, then how would it cause a redshift?

    Treating velocity as "a local notion" is all well and good, but under GR the velocity of light is the same for all references. The light from those galaxies would never reach us, then.
    Not sure I'm getting your point. I don't think I said it "doesn't count", I accept that the universe is expanding and that it causes a redshift. There's a redshift because light has more space to traverse before reaching us. I'm just saying you can't go "nothing can be FTL so the BB is false" because that rule doesn't necessarily apply to the expansion of space. SR tells us that objects/information cannot travel through space FTL. It doesn't put that same requirement on the expansion of space itself.

    I just found this from an article in scientific american:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sci. American on Big Bang misconceptions
    Receding Faster Than Light
    Another set of misconceptions involves the quantitative description of expansion. The rate at which the distance between galaxies increases follows a distinctive pattern discovered by American astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1929: the recession velocity of a galaxy away from us (v) is directly proportional to its distance from us (d), or v = Hd. The proportionality constant, H, is known as the Hubble constant and quantifies how fast space is stretching--not just around us but around any observer in the universe.

    Some people get confused by the fact that some galaxies do not obey Hubble's law. Andromeda, our nearest large galactic neighbor, is actually moving toward us, not away. Such exceptions arise because Hubble's law describes only the average behavior of galaxies. Galaxies can also have modest local motions as they mill around and gravitationally pull on one another--as the Milky Way and Andromeda are doing. Distant galaxies also have small local velocities, but from our perspective (at large values of d) these random velocities are swamped by large recession velocities (v). Thus, for those galaxies, Hubble's law holds with good precision.

    Notice that, according to Hubble's law, the universe does not expand at a single speed. Some galaxies recede from us at 1,000 kilometers per second, others (those twice as distant) at 2,000 km/s, and so on. In fact, Hubble's law predicts that galaxies beyond a certain distance, known as the Hubble distance, recede faster than the speed of light. For the measured value of the Hubble constant, this distance is about 14 billion light-years.
    Does this prediction of faster-than-light galaxies mean that Hubble's law is wrong? Doesn't Einstein's special theory of relativity say that nothing can have a velocity exceeding that of light? This question has confused generations of students. The solution is that special relativity applies only to "normal" velocities--motion through space. The velocity in Hubble's law is a recession velocity caused by the expansion of space, not a motion through space. It is a general relativistic effect and is not bound by the special relativistic limit. Having a recession velocity greater than the speed of light does not violate special relativity. It is still true that nothing ever overtakes a light beam.
    Full Article

    The part in bold is what I was trying to say. There's no FTL problem with the Big Bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    If the redshift is due to the expansion of space and not the velocities of the objects emitting the light....... then that would indicate that it's quite possible that distant objects aren't receding any faster than near objects. The light simply passes through a larger amount of expanding space.

    Still, this doesn't address the problem of constant acceleration. According to the BB objects are not only drifting away from us. They're accelerating. (Because as they move farther away from the expansion of space, their rate of movement away from us goes up)

    One possibility I don't see considered very often: What if instead of space expanding, time is speeding up? Distant objects are then redshifted because at the time the light was emitted, time itself was slower. That might allow for a universe that is unchanging, perhaps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: If you don't believe in BB, what are the alternatives? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I get the impression that BB stands largely because the other theories have even more flaws in them than it does. It's like it's preferred because it's the least of all evils.
    Yes and no.

    Yes, there is no other theories around with as much acceptability.

    No, the BB has a very prominant, blatant flaw: it is based on an infinite universe!
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Evolution doesn't require as much conjecture as BB. With BB, you need to believe in ftl travel (during the first few seconds), some kind of dark energy (to account for some observed accelerations), and still be left hanging as to what caused a big bang to occur.
    Put more simply, the preamble must be correct, and this, IMHO, says there is no Infinity.

    1. 'CHANGE'. Anything subject to change cannot be infinite. Whatever it was the previous instant ago, does not exist anymore - meaning the future instant transcended it, thereby rendering it a lesser value than another finite instant. Can one's great grand deseased ancester be infinite - why not?

    2. Scientifically and mathematically, where the parts are finite - the whole is finite. The derivitive parts best represent the attributes embedded in the whole (its host), and cannot transcend it; this is true even where accumulative attributes of value are secured and posited: here there is even less possibility to find infinite values elsewhere than the host; the same also holds true of a self-generating, gradual increment to effect infinity: here we are deflecting a greater value to another, outside entity than the host, meaning the host was never infinite to begin with, being lesser than its own produce, or any other available elsewhere. Can one add $5 to an infinite number of $ - why not?

    The above two factors say nothing within the universe can be infinite - because everything seen is finite: stars, life forms and everything else are subject to 'change' and also die and manifest they are finite.

    Any premise which is resting on an infinity, and which cannot subsist otherwise - must be discarded. It is not science or maths. Here, one must ask if the BBT and TOE can still subsist in a finite universe. The answer is: NEGATIVE. Both Einstein and Newton subsist here; some sections of Darwin's Theories do not.

    There is a realm where math does not exist; and math can only exist in a physical reality.

    Math, science and history does not/cannot exist in a pre-universe scenario - they become superfluous, which violates the universe structures. Just as we cannot evoke history of the wheel before the wheel existed, so too we cannot speak of math before anything exists to measure and define: can a ruler measure inches where inches do not exist; can a can-opener open a can which does not exist? Negative. Math, science and history are only applicable *THIS* side of the universe, and do not apply in a non-physical, non-corporeal realm. The reason for pre- and multi-universe scenarios is an attempt to escape this problem - but it only pushes the goal post further back and never attempting to confront it.


    In fact, there is no actual, independent, freestanding 'zero' (as a value) anywhere within the universe. Does anyone care to point me to an example of it any place in physicality, aside from the academic?
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Joe; First, its nice to see you at this forum. Will be interesting to see you and NS, go at it again...

    Since your opinion is Infinity does not exist, are you suggesting the universe is inside some undefinable shell? If so wouldn't it be probable that that shell is then inside space which by logic should have no end?
    BBT, or some who promote, suggest space is expanding and will do so indefinitely. Whether space or that nothingness suggested or some other not suggested entity (thing) distance to an actual end should not be and I will take this to either larger or smaller to our understanding...

    Kojax; Visualize your self at 3-6-9-12 o'clock from earth, 14.2 billions light years away, but in todays time and with todays technology. Why would anything be different than we clearly see a couple billion LY away, even whats seen, from where you came from look as we see 14.2 BL away. The same would be true, 50 years ago, a hundred or a thousand years ago. Everything is based on what we have to work with, current understandings and accepted principles. Also keep in mind, many do not think expansion does happen and others feel much slower than others. What we learn in a few years, with Hubble's replacement may give an entirely different understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Joe; First, its nice to see you at this forum. Will be interesting to see you and NS, go at it again...

    Since your opinion is Infinity does not exist, are you suggesting the universe is inside some undefinable shell? If so wouldn't it be probable that that shell is then inside space which by logic should have no end?
    BBT, or some who promote, suggest space is expanding and will do so indefinitely. Whether space or that nothingness suggested or some other not suggested entity (thing) distance to an actual end should not be and I will take this to either larger or smaller to our understanding...
    Hi Jackson. Yes, the pre-universe can only be in some undefinable 'pre-universe' realm. There is no alternative to this, and it can become clearer when the whole universe is seen as a single entity. Not being based on infinity, requires that all what is 'within the universe' now be seen as not 'without the universe' - thus the undefinable applies. This means that physicality is out/outside, as is science, math, history, time, life, etc. If we identify any of the within-universe items, then we are also not talking about a pre-universe scenario.

    It is varied from asking what is a pre-life position, and nominating the host parent or gasses (carbon, nitrogen, etc), which is referring to a past which is also finite, as opposed an infinite past or future; instead, the question becomes, what is 'pre-life in a universe'? We are not asking about the universe's known components, which are identified as post-universe; post BB; etc. What is within cannot be without also - else we are only talking about pre-universes, and will arrive at the same brick wall down the track.

    I nominated Light as a potential conduit factor, but this may be something else, like a program or thought. The difficulty arises when factors such as science and maths do not apply, which means our current thoughts do not either. Else we would have long figured this out by now. Maths, for example, becoes superfluous when there is nithing to add or subtract. The infinity factor cannot apply here - it is escapist, and not an answer. This is fine when we consider we do not know the actual origin of anything. What is a car - where the car metals, its menufacturing details and car maker does not apply?
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    To All

    Since I posted an article on the SSU, I kinda ignored this post. But as I said before, the only REAL solution to the universe is the SSU as I described it because it complies with all the Laws of Physics, its experiments and observations.

    I also posted the flaws of the BBU with my article entitled 'BBU Erroneous?

    See below:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Stead...850f2e9d2fa62e

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Big-B...eous-6874t.php

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    IMO; The universe IS finite or ends in all directions. Using gravity and velocity for cause I also feel its spherical. Additionally I feel our location is no where near any center and the limits to what is U are well above current theory. Where I get off the boat is in where this Universe is placed in what I fell space is. Speculations of multi-universe or other possibilities are worth nothing, but our universe IMO is a speck in the total of what open space is, then beyond this, what ever that distance something else exist. Hard to explain, but just look around the room your in. As one complex object ends, space with all its micro particles take you to the next complex object, then on to some form of infinity, even if a real total nothingness.

    You know, I can't buy light as a trigger for anything, being simple EME which happen to visualize a reaction. There is a study going on where Gamma Ray sight is and some feel a slight mutation could start a chain reaction increasing visual concept. Personally here I feel its the reverse and has evolved out of humans. As for program or thought waves, your taking me back to a lecture I attended in the 50's. The persons name or qualifications, I have long forgotten, but during the questioning period some one asked "whats your theory for us" and he replied "anything is possible and we could even be part of some lab experiment".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    our universe IMO is a speck in the total of what open space is, then beyond this, what ever that distance something else exist.
    Making space the transcendent factor, and condoning infinity, also renders space as a greater force than the universe and anything it can contain. If the universe, or any part of it, is derived from space - this negates any infinity there (if the parts are finite, the whole is finite).

    If the universe structures and actions display any inteligent workings, such as gravity, then it seems reasonable it would cater to a space bed. There is no big mystery here, even man can create a spacebed when needed and where there is none: like those war tanks which leave a battleship, by the tanks laying a ground before it as it moves. Space can thus be created whenever it is needed, as the universe expands. Space is matter - a universe contained component, and should not be seen as an outside entity.

    The issues concerning a pre-universe scenario have been attempted by scientific postulations. This may not suffice, because the science and math we use may not be applicable pre-universe. Consider that there is no matter outside the universe; it would be non-corporeal.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    To All

    Since I posted an article on the SSU, I kinda ignored this post. But as I said before, the only REAL solution to the universe is the SSU as I described it because it complies with all the Laws of Physics, its experiments and observations.

    I also posted the flaws of the BBU with my article entitled 'BBU Erroneous?

    See below:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Stead...850f2e9d2fa62e

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Big-B...eous-6874t.php

    NS
    Re:
    The next reason that is also very important is that we are portrayed as being in the center of
    the Universe and they say that we would be in the center regardless of where we would be in this Universe The reason for this is the equal expansion of the redshift in all directions from one point of view that would obviously make us appear to be in the center.
    They use two dimensional spherical space as proof of this hypothesis. This is a false analogy. Three dimensional cubic space can not be compared to two dimensional space. You will notice that all three dimensional bodies have a single point source of gravity. This is the center of those three dimensional bodies. Since our current Universe is a three dimensional structure, the only possible center to this Universe can only be the point source of the initial expansion.

    However, the ‘expansion of the light waves (EoLW) would create the same illusion that the BB’ers use for the EoS, so this would eliminate the idea that the universe is expanding and can actually be a flat universe with no expansion or contraction. A Steady State Universe?

    It seems to me, a centre is encumbent even with a 3-D structure; I am confused what phenomenon applies for a centreless structure, and how a centreless or all-centre structure aids the BBT.

    However, if the BBT has credibility, than the starting point must be the centre - specially so if the universe is expanding harmogeniously, in all directions: it is then expanding from and all around the starting point, eventually making it the only viable centre. here, the expansion directions become irrelevent. Yes/no?
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    IMO; The universe IS finite or ends in all directions. Using gravity and velocity for cause I also feel its spherical. Additionally I feel our location is no where near any center and the limits to what is U are well above current theory
    This is one area where I would have to disagree. Why do we discuss "space" as though it were a substance? I mean: is it a thing, or is it just what happens when there's nothing?

    What would we call the coordinates that lie outside this area? What do you do when you reach the edge? Start over on the other side? Run into a wall? Disappear?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    IMO; The universe IS finite or ends in all directions. Using gravity and velocity for cause I also feel its spherical. Additionally I feel our location is no where near any center and the limits to what is U are well above current theory
    This is one area where I would have to disagree. Why do we discuss "space" as though it were a substance? I mean: is it a thing, or is it just what happens when there's nothing?

    What would we call the coordinates that lie outside this area? What do you do when you reach the edge? Start over on the other side? Run into a wall? Disappear?
    I don't believe 'nothingness' exists in the universe, nor infinity. Space is a definite thing, made of matter, and impacts itself on everything, including light which bends through and within space. If space was not a form of matter, gravity would'nt be possible to function.

    The issue of what lies outside the universe is for a science which has not yet come of age, and perhaps a new path of study from science may have to emerge. This requires different thought processes, because science itself may not apply. However, that we cannot know how things work in a realm outside the universe, which may mean outside of our science, math & history base, does not mean we must conclude assumptions wrongly.

    Presently, there are no tools at our disposal to contemplate a scenario devoid of science and math, but this appears what is required. Perhaps some new ideas may come from Sci-Fi, which is not as shakled by rigid barriers as is science.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So what do you believe lies on the outside of space? Something else? It seems pretty circular to only reason so far out, and then just start a new thing once you reach the edge of the first thing you started with.

    This is why I'm against creationism as an explanation for the universe. We only go as far back as an initial "beginning", and then we start a new question. (Where did this god come from? Did he exist since infinity ago?)


    Come to think of it, that's a problem I see with the BB too. We create a whole new question by saying a BB started it all.

    Old questions BB eliminates:

    1) - Why is light from distant galaxies red shifted in the amount predicted by Hubble's law?

    2)- Why is there a CMB, and why is it so uniform?

    3)- Why do quasars only appear a very far distance out into space away from us?


    New questions BB creates:

    1)- What could have caused the BB, and what existed before it?

    2)- How is it possible for a thing like "space" itself to expand?

    3)- How did matter initially move faster than the speed of light? (There seem to be many questions about the first few seconds)

    Myself, I'm happy just wondering why light is redshifted as it arrives from distant galaxies. I think there might be a very interesting answer, one which could lead to a new technology if we actually ever solved it. But some people are just too eager to get a thing explained as fast as possible, so they can put to rest their suspense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So what do you believe lies on the outside of space? Something else? It seems pretty circular to only reason so far out, and then just start a new thing once you reach the edge of the first thing you started with.
    While I concur with you the universe is finite, the reason I discount 'nothingness' is because we don't know what this is or what constitutes such; also, a nothingness per se would contradict everything because it would be superflous - 'nothing' is more difficult to create than 'something'.

    This is why I'm against creationism as an explanation for the universe. We only go as far back as an initial "beginning", and then we start a new question. (Where did this god come from? Did he exist since infinity ago?)
    Not so, Genesis caters to the pre-beginning in its first 4 words: "IN THE BEGINNING GD' - meaning at one time only the Creator existed.

    Re where did Gd come from - it is logic that the buck would have to stop somewhere - else Creationism has no meaning. Here, genesis says, creation was the result of a Creator [cause & effect], and that the creator must be - at least - transcendent of his created creation (bona fide). While proof of this is correctly not possible - for or against - because we are in the less transcendent sector - the sound premise must prevail.

    I don't wnt to deviate into theology in a science thread, but if I can submit a theological premise in a scientific mode, then we are also told more about where and how a Creator can exist, with the only definition credible of infinity, namely that it is not subject to change (I am the Lrd I have not changed/Ex). There is nothing in the universe which is not subject to change, and there is no other definition for infinity. Here the text says an Infinite source created the universe, and that there is no infinity elsewhere. This is a logical, scientific statement, based on a sound premise, as opposed proof; it is more than a theory; it has never been disproven of itself, or countered with another feasable premise.

    Come to think of it, that's a problem I see with the BB too. We create a whole new question by saying a BB started it all.
    There you are! Anything based on infinity is not science; anything based on finity will come to a point where it becomes cyclical - an array of never-ending brick walls becomes the conclusion, as does the BBT - again, this is not science, and not based on any verifiable examples.

    I am still reading your thesis, and will interact on your BB shortcomings shortly.

    Cheers.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I guess it's the infinity vs. finity thing we disagree on, then. I'm comfortable with the idea of a universe that always existed, and reaches outward to an infinite distance.

    I don't know why infinity should seem impossible to you. Infinitely small dimensions can exist, so why not infinitely large ones?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Kojax:

    New questions BB creates:

    1)- What could have caused the BB, and what existed before it?

    2)- How is it possible for a thing like "space" itself to expand?

    3)- How did matter initially move faster than the speed of light? (There seem to be many questions about the first few seconds)
    1) Theres a few theories here, such as String Theory, or the Big Bounce. Though as far as I understand it we're waiting till somebody unifies gravity with quantum mechanics to fully explain it. In the mean time we're throwing out scientific theories to account for it. Or Biblical ones. That's if its even explainable.

    2) Space was unified with time through Einstien to give us spacetime which is a four-dimensional 'fabric' that the universe of matter (and darkmatter) is in. I like to visualise space as a big rubber sheet that is expanding in all directions, which only accounts for a visualisation of the three space dimensions, admitedly; time to my understanding is just the progression of events (possibly the expansion of space itself) and can only be visualised through change). As for why it's expanding, the prevailing opinion now is dark energy, though what that is is being investigated.

    3) Far as I'm lead to believe the inflation addition to traditional big bang theory is the answer here.
    In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation is the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation


    As far as I understand it there is no problem with before the big bang. Time is a part of space and only sprung into existence with the big bang. Most people I think concieve of the universe existing in time instead of conceiving the universe as space and time combined


    IamJoseph:
    Not so, Genesis caters to the pre-beginning in its first 4 words: "IN THE BEGINNING GD' - meaning at one time only the Creator existed.

    Re where did Gd come from - it is logic that the buck would have to stop somewhere - else Creationism has no meaning. Here, genesis says, creation was the result of a Creator [cause & effect], and that the creator must be - at least - transcendent of his created creation (bona fide). While proof of this is correctly not possible - for or against - because we are in the less transcendent sector - the sound premise must prevail.

    I don't wnt to deviate into theology in a science thread, but if I can submit a theological premise in a scientific mode, then we are also told more about where and how a Creator can exist, with the only definition credible of infinity, namely that it is not subject to change (I am the Lrd I have not changed/Ex). There is nothing in the universe which is not subject to change, and there is no other definition for infinity.
    Convoluted logic maybe.

    Firstly, I suppose we can agree that genesis was written by a man, named Moses (which may or may not be entirely true), who lived (if he did live) anytime between 1500BCE and 1300BCE.

    Secondly, God revealed his 'special' knowledge to him through communicating it to him, not by directly controlling his body to write anything down.

    Thirdly, everybody will agree that humans are falliable. We make mistakes, we misunderstand things, we experience sensory errors, our brains can be 'miswired' causing mental illnesses, we can alter our consciousness with natural (and not natural) products.

    How do we know that Moses was accurately percieving God? How do we God choose to reveal himself to Moses? Because Moses tells us so in Genesis. This is circular.

    Now, I suppose you can claim that the bible makes enough claims that are 'true' (of course absolute truth is only capable of God, humans by definition (of being falliable) cannot experience absolute truth) and as such the rest can be swallowed hook, line and sinker. I'll admit freely that there are some truths contained in the Bible, like large swaths of Jewish History, the fact that a man named Jesus preached and taught in Galilee and that he was crucified. But just because some of the bible is historically accurate it doesn't follow that other parts are, like the contents of Genesis. The majority of scientists disagree with a special creation 6000 yrs ago and a global flood.

    Here the text says an Infinite source created the universe, and that there is no infinity elsewhere. This is a logical, scientific statement, based on a sound premise, as opposed proof; it is more than a theory; it has never been disproven of itself, or countered with another feasable premise
    It is not a logical, scientific statement and certainly not based on a sound premise.

    Firstly it is circular logic. It is based on the text which we only know to be true because the text says so itself.

    Secondly it is not scientific. A scientific statement is an interpretation of the data that is observable, experimental and falsifiable.

    What do you mean by a sound premise? A sound premise is typically understood to be a conclusion that is logically derived through the premises and all premises are true. And saying "as opposed proof" is astounding. How do you think the premises become true? By offering proof that supports them. All sound statements have to be based on proof.

    The reason God cannot be disproven is because it is unfalsifiable. Just like asserting that an invisible elephant lives in kenya. And it has been countered with other feasible premises (such as Stringtheory, multiverse big crunch), it's just that none of them should be accepted without reservations (cause the evidence is still out, or leaning against), whereas belief in God is encouraged to be accepted with no reservations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Also the reasons that most of the alternatives are discarded (except for biblical God orientated ones) is because of the current measurement of expansion being that it is accelerating. This implies really only one end (the Big Rip) unless something changes (which it could, the universe is gonna be around an awefully long time and we're here only for the b of the word blip relative to it).

    If this figure changes then I think we can only have either the big crunch with maybe a bounce, or something that eventually resembles a steady state universe where gravity and the expansion is balanced.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Flip McWho
    Also the reasons that most of the alternatives are discarded (except for biblical God orientated ones) is because of the current measurement of expansion being that it is accelerating. This implies really only one end (the Big Rip) unless something changes (which it could, the universe is gonna be around an awefully long time and we're here only for the b of the word blip relative to it).

    If this figure changes then I think we can only have either the big crunch with maybe a bounce, or something that eventually resembles a steady state universe where gravity and the expansion is balanced.
    This 'dark energy' problem is not credible because of the huge variations in the temperatures of the white dwarf stars.
    The masses of these WD stars are also variable.
    With these huge variations, how can you consider them as reliable distance candles?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Flip McWho
    As far as I understand it there is no problem with before the big bang. Time is a part of space and only sprung into existence with the big bang. Most people I think concieve of the universe existing in time instead of conceiving the universe as space and time combined
    These claims always kind of bother me because I think we're confusing a theoretical concern with a practical one. Theoretically, time itself cannot begin or end.

    Even if we go all the way back to the supposed "beggining" of time, we could still discuss time before that. It's like if you're looking at a map of a city that only goes out to the city limits. You can still discuss distances that fall outside of those limits, and off of your map. Theoretically, they're still part of that spacial dimension, even if they don't exist in a practical sense.

    Unless you're going to argue that time approaches infinite slowness as we get nearer and nearer to the BB singularity, so I can go on expanding my "map" of time as far as I want without reaching it, I'm not going to buy the claim that "time itself" started with the BB.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman Inevitablelity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    What Ed Hubble observed in 1929-32, was from about 4 billion light years out and what COBE and The Hubble are said to confirm are from up to 14.2 BLYO. In either case the BBT Today), suggest expansion from BB, is not over but close to C. ....
    Will u guys stop that outdated age of universe, its really irritating to see that repeated over and over again.

    Get updated, http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_040524.html

    I am waiting for someone to calculate the size of the universe 1 trillion years ago considering the speed and acceleration of expansion of universe. Seems all those greate scientist are too busy in their personal dogma oops i mean theories.
    - Insuperable Singularity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Think you meant size (Not Age), so will go with size.

    The thread is alternative to BBT. You apparent opinion, certainly that of the article are for BBT. If this theory is someday substantiated (which I doubt possible) or that BB did occur 14.2 BYA then your assumptions are probably correct. However Ed Hubble, could see just so far with his equipment and BBT itself was nothing like most of if not all of todays accepted BBT theory.

    As for size under SSU or any theory other than BB, the size is not currently material. Personally I feel its no less than your 156BLY across and quite possibly much larger. I base this on an opinion, we are or should not be centered in the Universe, which every conclusive observance today indicates.

    Your last comment reflects my general opinion on much of *Scientific Knowledge* today. ITS VIRTUALLY NEW, to the human mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Kojax:

    These claims always kind of bother me because I think we're confusing a theoretical concern with a practical one.
    Practically speaking our view of time is evolved from the day night cycle which is localised to this planet in this solar system. Spacetime/universe is largely a theoritical construct describing the reality we find ourselves in. Space being the obvious three dimensions of height, length and width, with the fourth being time which I understand to be the change between states.

    Unless you're going to argue that time approaches infinite slowness as we get nearer and nearer to the BB singularity, so I can go on expanding my "map" of time as far as I want without reaching it, I'm not going to buy the claim that "time itself" started with the BB.
    It all depends on how you view time. If you think time is something absolute that everything necessarily has to exist within then you won't get time having a starting point. I understand time as the dimension that change takes place in so can have a beginning, which is the first change that takes place.

    If space is expanding then what is it expanding into? Must space necessarily have an absolute version of itself as well?

    We can't discuss time before "time" started, but we can ask what caused the big bang to initialise spacetime. This is not the same thing because that first cause is also time starting.

    Unless you're going to argue that time approaches infinite slowness as we get nearer and nearer to the BB singularity
    Which it does if we accept that the big bang started from a singularity.

    ITS VIRTUALLY NEW, to the human mind.
    Exactly, dealing with concepts that are virtually uncomprehendable by our evolved minds. Such as four dimensions (at least), wave/particle duality, singularities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Unless you're going to argue that time approaches infinite slowness as we get nearer and nearer to the BB singularity
    Which it does if we accept that the big bang started from a singularity.
    I suppose that does answer my question. I guess you're suggesting that, what we would experience if we went backwards through time toward that single starting point is there never being a begginning, because no matter how far back we go, time just slows more and more?

    Sort of like how a parabolic or hyperbolic curve approaches a line without ever reaching it. It just gets closer and closer, forever.

    It makes you wonder a few things:

    1) - Is it possible the BB actually isn't spatial at all, just temporal, and light from distant objects is only redshifted because it was emitted back when time was moving more slowly?

    2) - Is it possible that the shift in temporal perspective cancels the shift in spatial perspective to the point where objects actually never become any more distant from each other than they were when it all started?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    I don't know why infinity should seem impossible to you. Infinitely small dimensions can exist, so why not infinitely large ones?
    I don't think so. Infinitely small dimensions - and small dimensions - are two different things. Finite cannot embody an infinite.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Flip McWho

    1) Theres a few theories here, such as String Theory, or the Big Bounce. Though as far as I understand it we're waiting till somebody unifies gravity with quantum mechanics to fully explain it. In the mean time we're throwing out scientific theories to account for it. Or Biblical ones. That's if its even explainable.
    Go back - wrong way. String, theory, big, bounce, waiting, gravity, QM, bible, etc - are *THIS* side of the universe. These do not exist outside nor explain it - the reason we cannot grow universes in water puddles and labs - the factors inside the universe does not explain yet this side of the universe. We still do not know the origin of anything! But I will say this: its not the fault of our minds. Its very suspicious - all doors and crevices being so fastidiously shut cannot be a random accident - the odds for not knowing anything about anything in its essence are too great to accept. It appears very contrived and purposeful. We're being locked out!




    Firstly, I suppose we can agree that genesis was written by a man, named Moses (which may or may not be entirely true), who lived (if he did live) anytime between 1500BCE and 1300BCE.
    Yes, certainly. This is in the given texts.


    Secondly, God revealed his 'special' knowledge to him through communicating it to him, not by directly controlling his body to write anything down.
    Correct. It says 'Presence to Presence', while also stating, 'No man shall see me and live'. Its not a contradiction. On a lesser scale, all humans experience a similar phenomenon. We're always talking to someone/some phenomenon out there and in there. We refer to it by different terms [consciousness, psyche, etc], but we cannot deny some interaction. Also, after examning the OT, it is very difficult to condone it from the mind of a human/s, and it appears different in kind than degree from all else written.

    Now we cannot prove anything, this is a given. I pay attention to the OT because, relatively, its the only thing which makes any sense. Its a process of elimination. The 'sound premise' has to prevail.


    Thirdly, everybody will agree that humans are falliable. We make mistakes, we misunderstand things, we experience sensory errors, our brains can be 'miswired' causing mental illnesses, we can alter our consciousness with natural (and not natural) products.

    How do we know that Moses was accurately percieving God? How do we God choose to reveal himself to Moses? Because Moses tells us so in Genesis. This is circular.
    No, its not circular. While Moses is presented as a falliable human, one who even commited murder, there is a bold injunction, NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THESE FIVE BOOKS. This is subject to great risks - time can render any advocated constant falliable; even MC2 has been modified. But the laws in the OT, which is advocated as The book of Laws, has stood the test of time, through stromy waves of wars and the advent of science and advanced civilization. All 613 laws of the OT have prevailed - exclusively; not a single religion, prophet, philosopher or ideology produced a single new law the world has accepted - and not already contained in the OT. It is not correct that science is transcendent of moral/ethical laws, which must be relevent to all generations of man, in all curcumstances. Science is equal to math, history and other paths of reasoning.

    The majority of scientists disagree with a special creation 6000 yrs ago and a global flood.
    Science was introduced via the OT, so was medicine. Today's science sectors have an agenda, and any disputing scientist would never have a career or grant. Science cannot reject what it cannot replace or answer. I see no alternative to Creator/Creationism, and have not been turned by the best of today's science of non-creationism, which is far more deficient. I found not a single conclusion derived by Darwin's theory to be credible; while darwin's research is good - the conclusions derived from it are unscientific, unsustainable and beyond all odds which science allows. The issue is: where/who/what's the alternative? This is the fulcrum issue - and there is none. Resorting to infinity, random and the millions of years scenario are escapisms, not sciences. But if a credible and believable alternative emerges - I will harken to it.

    Here the text says an Infinite source created the universe, and that there is no infinity elsewhere. This is a logical, scientific statement, based on a sound premise, as opposed proof; it is more than a theory; it has never been disproven of itself, or countered with another feasable premise
    It is not a logical, scientific statement and certainly not based on a sound premise.

    Firstly it is circular logic. It is based on the text which we only know to be true because the text says so itself.
    It should not be based on texts, but what the text evidences, which makes it a sound premise. There is no question that ultimately, an Infinite source applies; the self-accumulating and self-elevating path signifies only that it is fed by a greater source than it is, which arrives back to an infinite source. Non-creational science has only grabbed a byte from Genesis and called it its own - as it did with evolution - this too first appears in Genesis. The space, time or matter being the infinite source just does not cut it: these are proven finite factors inside this universe: space does not create cars; time does not create clocks; matter does not create mobile phones. So the only issue for debate is, the correct identification of an infinite source. This makes genesis half right! And at a time when this was an observation more powerful than MC2 today. Monotheism and creationism are absolute scientific premises.

    Secondly it is not scientific. A scientific statement is an interpretation of the data that is observable, experimental and falsifiable.

    What do you mean by a sound premise? A sound premise is typically understood to be a conclusion that is logically derived through the premises and all premises are true. And saying "as opposed proof" is astounding. How do you think the premises become true? By offering proof that supports them. All sound statements have to be based on proof.
    A sound premise is one which is sound, but not provable. If a car is discovered in one's bedroom one morning - there are a number of sound premises which can be concluded - even without proof. There is no proof how the universe emerged - all we can do is surmise it with sound premises. 'Cause and effect' is one such factor; random is not a cause for an effect of complexity. There must be a car maker of the car in one's bedroom, because we see cars all around, and we know they are manufactured. Of course, we cannot see the Creator creating universes all over the place - but the sound premise, more than not, says so, with no alternative in sight. The car did not appear by itself - a sound premise even when we never saw it happened.




    The reason God cannot be disproven is because it is unfalsifiable. Just like asserting that an invisible elephant lives in kenya. And it has been countered with other feasible premises (such as Stringtheory, multiverse big crunch), it's just that none of them should be accepted without reservations (cause the evidence is still out, or leaning against), whereas belief in God is encouraged to be accepted with no reservations.
    Blind belief des not have much merit. String and MV do NOT even come close in proving the universe origins. This is the problem - we are pushed into corrupted science as an escape. Better to uphold a sound premise, and wait some more evidence and new knowledge before screaming Eureka!

    THE FIRST STEP TO KNOWLEDGE IS ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    The thread is alternative to BBT.
    This factor of infinity negates the BBT premise. A true definition of the BB or any alternative, if done via science, can only do so if the infinity factor is discarded entirely. Else we are saying nothing.

    Whatever attributes we condone to the BB, and its first action, becomes mute if it is backed by infinity. This would occur if, for example, infinity was the foundation how a car emerged; it ceases to be automotive engineering anymore. Infinity is escapism, when we arrive at a brick wall.

    If we say, for example, one pregnant particle swelled and burst open to result in the universe - we cannot also say that particle was anyway infinite: this would not explain that particle's actions. On the other hand, if we do condone infinity - then who needs a BBT?

    All definitions fail - and they all depend in the infinite escapism as their savior - and their demise. The problem is even worse, when we consider that infinity is being allocated to factors which we know are universe contained and finite! This is a contrived science, borne of NO CREDIBLE ANSWERS. Why not admit this, and see where we end up - is there a sound premise in sight?
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Inevitablelity
    Will u guys stop that outdated age of universe, its really irritating to see that repeated over and over again.

    Get updated, http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_040524.html

    I am waiting for someone to calculate the size of the universe 1 trillion years ago considering the speed and acceleration of expansion of universe. Seems all those greate scientist are too busy in their personal dogma oops i mean theories.
    One trillion years ago? Ha Ha.

    That article in that website sounds like science fiction to me.

    First of all, the BB is portrayed as having no center. So having a radius is ludicrous.
    It is also portrayed as being flat as far as the expansion is concerned because it is a uniform expansion.
    The real source of the CMBR is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that says 'heat will flow in only one direction from hot to cold'.

    There is more evidence to refute the BB.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    First of all, the BB is portrayed as having no center.
    Everything has a centre - even multi-dimentional structures. The centre of the universe is its beginning - all else extended from and around this point - harmogeniously. And a centre signifies finity - one cannot have a beginning and no end.

    I too have wondered why the size of the universe has not been calculated/estimated. The mapping of the universe, starting with the known and projected universe, is a fundamental task for humanity. Because one day, we're going to be able t travel digitally, as opposed the current analogue process.

    It will start, IMHO, with non-human cargo digital transmissions - whereby it will arrive without corruption - same as we click and send a photograph or piece of music: 20 years ago this could not be fathomed. Similarly, humans will be transported without corruption. IOW, we will be able to transport to any point on a digitalised mapped matrix - just like a CD, as opposed to phonograph records. Just say, beam me up, Scottie.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Well, part of why we don't calculate the size of the universe is because even the best telescopes can't see all the way to the edge. How do you calculate the size of something you can only see a small speck of?

    Quote Originally Posted by iamjoseph
    Its very suspicious - all doors and crevices being so fastidiously shut cannot be a random accident - the odds for not knowing anything about anything in its essence are too great to accept. It appears very contrived and purposeful. We're being locked out!
    People of all generations have been in a position to make that same argument. Then, however many years later it takes, someone somewhere makes a breakthrough. I'm sure ancient man never thought they'd be using electricity to light their homes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Well, part of why we don't calculate the size of the universe is because even the best telescopes can't see all the way to the edge. How do you calculate the size of something you can only see a small speck of?
    I was referring to the size of what we are at presently, not the future boundary. This requires an estimation of the past, which can be effected by the guessmatics of the BB point in time, and the accelerated expansion since then.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    The thread is alternative to BBT.
    This factor of infinity negates the BBT premise. A true definition of the BB or any alternative, if done via science, can only do so if the infinity factor is discarded entirely. Else we are saying nothing.

    Whatever attributes we condone to the BB, and its first action, becomes mute if it is backed by infinity. This would occur if, for example, infinity was the foundation how a car emerged; it ceases to be automotive engineering anymore. Infinity is escapism, when we arrive at a brick wall.

    If we say, for example, one pregnant particle swelled and burst open to result in the universe - we cannot also say that particle was anyway infinite: this would not explain that particle's actions. On the other hand, if we do condone infinity - then who needs a BBT?

    All definitions fail - and they all depend in the infinite escapism as their savior - and their demise. The problem is even worse, when we consider that infinity is being allocated to factors which we know are universe contained and finite! This is a contrived science, borne of NO CREDIBLE ANSWERS. Why not admit this, and see where we end up - is there a sound premise in sight?
    Where exactly does the BBT invoke infinity? If your answer is the singularity, your problem should be with GR rather than the BBT as the BBT is based on observation and the singularity is predicted by GR.
    The BB to my understanding is a description of the early universe based on observation and backed by evidence, and not an explanation for the universe - anyone who has a problem with the singularity needs to complain about our theoretical framework being insufficient, not the BBT.
    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[19] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang",[20] and is considered the "birth" of our universe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Go back - wrong way. String, theory, big, bounce, waiting, gravity, QM, bible, etc - are *THIS* side of the universe. These do not exist outside nor explain it - the reason we cannot grow universes in water puddles and labs - the factors inside the universe does not explain yet this side of the universe. We still do not know the origin of anything! But I will say this: its not the fault of our minds. Its very suspicious - all doors and crevices being so fastidiously shut cannot be a random accident - the odds for not knowing anything about anything in its essence are too great to accept. It appears very contrived and purposeful. We're being locked out!
    I apologise for the bluntness of the following comment. That is largely meaningless babble. I agree we do not know the origin of life or the universe, we have good guesses backed up by some alright/shaky evidence. Though just because we don't know how something originated doesn't mean that the doors are purposefully shut against us. You're already begging the question (and the answer of God) of what is making it so hard for us to know these things by using this metaphor. I'd prefer the metaphor of being shut in a dark cave and waiting for our eyes to adjust to the lower level of light available or alternatively inventing light.

    No, its not circular. While Moses is presented as a falliable human, one who even commited murder, there is a bold injunction, NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING FROM THESE FIVE BOOKS. This is subject to great risks - time can render any advocated constant falliable; even MC2 has been modified.
    You have missed the point of what I wrote. How do we know that Moses hasn't added or subtracted from the five books? Because Moses told us so. Everything, that is EVERYTHING written in the five books was written by Moses. Thus any assertions made in there were written by Moses, including any assertions that may appear to come from God, Such as not to add or substract. Thus it is circular. We have to trust/believe that Moses was accurately portraying what he witnessed not just interpreting his own opinion through the sociocultural context of his time.

    But the laws in the OT, which is advocated as The book of Laws, has stood the test of time, through stromy waves of wars and the advent of science and advanced civilization. All 613 laws of the OT have prevailed - exclusively; not a single religion, prophet, philosopher or ideology produced a single new law the world has accepted - and not already contained in the OT. It is not correct that science is transcendent of moral/ethical laws, which must be relevent to all generations of man, in all curcumstances. Science is equal to math, history and other paths of reasoning.
    This is not evidence that God actually exists. At best it indicates that Moses was a good social/political and religious philosopher. Also, many of those 613 laws from the OT have been discarded by Christianity (for example circumcision). And I do not state that science is transcendent of moral/ethical laws though science can help fuel the debates over what is ethical/moral behaviour.

    Science was introduced via the OT, so was medicine. Today's science sectors have an agenda, and any disputing scientist would never have a career or grant. Science cannot reject what it cannot replace or answer. I see no alternative to Creator/Creationism, and have not been turned by the best of today's science of non-creationism, which is far more deficient. I found not a single conclusion derived by Darwin's theory to be credible; while darwin's research is good - the conclusions derived from it are unscientific, unsustainable and beyond all odds which science allows. The issue is: where/who/what's the alternative? This is the fulcrum issue - and there is none. Resorting to infinity, random and the millions of years scenario are escapisms, not sciences. But if a credible and believable alternative emerges - I will harken to it.
    This I will dare suggest is because science and scientist aren't afraid of saying "we don't know". Sure science has many a theory backed to varying degrees by differing pieces of evidence, but none of these can be thought of as an absolute truth. Science does not deal in absolutes because absolutes DO NOT exist (at least from a human frame of referene). Science can and does reject theories that do not interpret the evidence in any meaningful way or rejects theories that posit extra factors that are proven to either not be needed or were never there in the first place.

    It should not be based on texts, but what the text evidences, which makes it a sound premise. There is no question that ultimately, an Infinite source applies; the self-accumulating and self-elevating path signifies only that it is fed by a greater source than it is, which arrives back to an infinite source. Non-creational science has only grabbed a byte from Genesis and called it its own - as it did with evolution - this too first appears in Genesis. The space, time or matter being the infinite source just does not cut it: these are proven finite factors inside this universe: space does not create cars; time does not create clocks; matter does not create mobile phones. So the only issue for debate is, the correct identification of an infinite source. This makes genesis half right! And at a time when this was an observation more powerful than MC2 today. Monotheism and creationism are absolute scientific premises.
    I'm sorry but this is more meaningless text on a page. First you have no idea what a sound premise is. The second sentence makes no sense. The third is flat out wrong as I can't see how the big bang is in the bible nor how evolution is, considering genesis deals exclusively with a six day creation 6000 years ago. The fourth is correct and not meaningless though too obvious. The conclusion is a non-sequitur. The second to last is an assertion that just doesn't mean anything, more powerful than what, and how can you compare a worldview 4500 years old when everything that lead to einstien formulating MC2 wasn't observable or knowable?

    A sound premise is one which is sound, but not provable.
    Oh very good, a sound premise is one that's sound. So a dog can be defined by saying a dog is a dog? Say hello to circular logic. A sound premise is a statement that is both valid and all the supporting premises are proven true. Wiki soundness if you don't believe me.

    If a car is discovered in one's bedroom one morning - there are a number of sound premises which can be concluded - even without proof. There is no proof how the universe emerged - all we can do is surmise it with sound premises. 'Cause and effect' is one such factor; random is not a cause for an effect of complexity. There must be a car maker of the car in one's bedroom, because we see cars all around, and we know they are manufactured. Of course, we cannot see the Creator creating universes all over the place - but the sound premise, more than not, says so, with no alternative in sight. The car did not appear by itself - a sound premise even when we never saw it happened.
    Incorrect. First there is only one sound premise which can be concluded from the car being in your room and that is:
    There is a car in my room.
    This is a statement that is both valid and all the premises are true. Premise one being a car and premise two being in my room.
    There are a number of statements I can make about how that car got into my room some of which may be valid, some of which may not.

    There is proof of how the universe emerged. That proof is the universe we are living in now. If somebodies scientific theory that explained how the universe exists meant that the universe as it is now could not exist then that theory is useless because it doesn't match the evidence. It is true that we are only around for a very brief blink of an eye and as such our theories can only get better as we (collective as a specie) stick around long enough to verify observations and experiments over longer periods of time.

    The car analogy is false. We know the car is made by an intelligence because the car is built from synthetic materials and constructed for a specific purpose. Humans are not on both counts.

    Blind belief des not have much merit. String and MV do NOT even come close in proving the universe origins. This is the problem - we are pushed into corrupted science as an escape. Better to uphold a sound premise, and wait some more evidence and new knowledge before screaming Eureka!

    THE FIRST STEP TO KNOWLEDGE IS ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW.
    My recommendation is that you first learn what a sound statement is as well as what a premise is. Secondly I would recommend that you find out what a scientific theory is, it is not a theory that claims to be an absolute explanation of something, science claims are falsifiable. I would also recommend your own capslocked quote for you to consider.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I guess religion is where all these kinds of discussion go eventually, because creationism is *technically* an available alternative to the BB....... :wink:


    I think the area really to focus on, however, is what possible explanations are available for the uniform redshifting of light from distant galaxies. Even creationism doesn't have any answers for that.

    We're left deciding between either:

    A) - Trying to come to terms with the idea that light is getting redshifted in a way we don't understand or aren't familiar with. (rejecting the BB)

    or

    B) - Trying to come to terms with the idea that space itself, and the matter in it, is being carried outward in a way we don't understand and aren't familiar with. (accepting the BB)

    Both options are pretty daunting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino

    Where exactly does the BBT invoke infinity?
    The BBT obviously does not specify infinity, in its backtracking of the evidences of an expanding universe and its residual radiation imprints. However, all theories emanating thereafter or in parallel of the BBT, have resorted to pre-, multi-, and para-universes. This seems to be invoked because theories such as evolution as per darwin, do not vindicate themselves to verify a starting point causative factor; thus infinite is used as escapism.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino

    Where exactly does the BBT invoke infinity?
    The BBT obviously does not specify infinity, in its backtracking of the evidences of an expanding universe and its residual radiation imprints. However, all theories emanating thereafter or in parallel of the BBT, have resorted to pre-, multi-, and para-universes. This seems to be invoked because theories such as evolution as per darwin, do not vindicate themselves to verify a starting point causative factor; thus infinite is used as escapism.
    The "starting point" is outside the scope of the theory, in both the cases of the BB and evolution. Every theory has an applicable domain and you can't ask more of a theory than what's contained within that domain. You are doing so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino

    The "starting point" is outside the scope of the theory, in both the cases of the BB and evolution. Every theory has an applicable domain and you can't ask more of a theory than what's contained within that domain. You are doing so.
    What you say is fine and not contested. In this way, science is acting honestly and correctly.

    I was referring to extensions derived from the current premise, when infinity is clung to, and assumed this is a valid scientific conclusion alligned with the BBT. The status quo of being in limbo is, ultimately, unacceptable for humanity, and a great burden - the reason infinity is condoned. Here, both denying and condoning infinity does not help, and takes science in a sort of dead end.

    IMHO, the origins of everything appears outside the domain of science and maths - at least, this does not seem possible voluntarilly or with the current path of thinking. Perhaps a new science will emerge, which can give a new path, aside from and transcendent of, the infinity/finity paradigm. We have come to the limits of the current scientific domain. I am on the constant watch for a new scientific observation - this must be around the corner.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I guess religion is where all these kinds of discussion go eventually, because creationism is *technically* an available alternative to the BB....... :wink:
    With all the state of art science considered, there is currently no alternative to creationism. This is a sound premise, where proof is not available either way, for or against. It is a logical conclusion, without having anything to do with religion.

    I think the area really to focus on, however, is what possible explanations are available for the uniform redshifting of light from distant galaxies. Even creationism doesn't have any answers for that.
    Light is a key factor, being the oldest and ageless entity. It has a spectrum of sectional grads, incorporating all the colors except black. We know that colors become changed or effected when mixed; certain impacts intensify certain colors, while diminshing others - and one such impacting factor is velocity direction.

    This may be caused by a factor as yet unknown, but it is similar to a magnet pointing north. Ultimately, the red shift is caused by speed direction, and which also indicates there is a reference point which light is corresponding to - such as a point which forms a geometrical equation between the position of a ray of light and its direction angle, which may be two factors responding to another reference point. I say this because there must be another factor which the red shift and the impacting directional velosity are responding to!
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Yeah. I guess the redshift is religion-neutral. It doesn't conflict with, nor confirm, the existence of God or a creator.


    The BBT obviously does not specify infinity, in its backtracking of the evidences of an expanding universe and its residual radiation imprints. However, all theories emanating thereafter or in parallel of the BBT, have resorted to pre-, multi-, and para-universes. This seems to be invoked because theories such as evolution as per darwin, do not vindicate themselves to verify a starting point causative factor; thus infinite is used as escapism.
    The problem with creationism is that it invokes infinity just as much. God is the infinity factor. He either always existed, or spontaneously sprang into existence, or was himself created by something.

    Or my favorite annoying nonsense claim: He exists "outside of time" - whatever that's supposed to mean. The question that begs is: did he always exists outside of time, or did he begin existing outside of time at some point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    The problem with creationism is that it invokes infinity just as much. God is the infinity factor. He either always existed, or spontaneously sprang into existence, or was himself created by something.

    Or my favorite annoying nonsense claim: He exists "outside of time" - whatever that's supposed to mean. The question that begs is: did he always exists outside of time, or did he begin existing outside of time at some point?
    True, and correctly so. There must be an infinite factor at the bottom of all things existing within the universe. However, this infinity must be independent and transcendent of the universe, not equal to or part of the universe - meaning space and time cannot be the infinite factors, as these are universe contained.

    This premise is logical without having any religious attachments or connotations; if anything it is exploited by religions, and this syndrome is also seen in sectors of neo science today. The reasoning behind it is its a safe path - proof is not required for it being a sound premise.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Why must this infinity be independent and transcendent of the universe? Why couldn't it *be* the universe?

    Why does the universe have to have ever not existed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why must this infinity be independent and transcendent of the universe? Why couldn't it *be* the universe?

    Why does the universe have to have ever not existed?
    This is based on the universe components being finite, which means the whole is finite. The uni is expanding - and one cannot add or subtract from infinity.

    Q: How much will result when $5 is added to an infinite number of $'s?

    A: There was no infinite dollars in the first place.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    This is based on the universe components being finite, which means the whole is finite.
    Say what now? Let me give 2 replies:

    1) The set of all natural numbers is infinite. Each and every component however is finite.
    2) Fallacy of Composition
    A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Aye, I recently read in a Cosmos I think it was that we cannot be entirely sure that space is expanding everywhere, it may only be this quadrant of the universe that is undergoing expansion.

    Cosmology is based largely on the assumptions that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

    I guess religion is where all these kinds of discussion go eventually, because creationism is *technically* an available alternative to the BB.......
    Yeah it is unfortunately, it can hardly be called a scientific alternative.

    The biggest problem with any form of special creation is that it requires some form of divine revelation, commonly thought to be the bible in those cultures that use the Old Testament as its [theological] basis. The problem with the bible is that it is a human creation of 3500 years ago and this is a most optimistic date. Assuming the special creation 6000 years ago is correct there isn't enough time in that amount of time for all the starlight to have travelled the distance it has, assuming that the speed of light has always been constant. The best answer to this so far is white hole cosmology as found here:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
    which to me is essentially the BBT just occuring much more recently.

    We're left deciding between either:

    A) - Trying to come to terms with the idea that light is getting redshifted in a way we don't understand or aren't familiar with. (rejecting the BB)

    or

    B) - Trying to come to terms with the idea that space itself, and the matter in it, is being carried outward in a way we don't understand and aren't familiar with. (accepting the BB)

    Both options are pretty daunting.
    Agreed. All in all, we can not say anything about the first little passage of time in the big bang. Inflation is the best theory that explains both the CMBR and space expanding is the best to explain the red shift phenomena. Quantum Mechanics appears to be the newest arena in science that may hopefully offer some insight into the still remaining questions in cosmology, especially considering that the big bang initiated in something on the quantum level.

    Cosmology is based on physics and the standard model of physics is pretty well entrenched and besides gravity the large scale of cosmology is like the small scale of physics in operation. I also find it handy to keep in mind that our brains evolved to deal with scales and perspectives in the arena of millimetres to kilometres and seconds to less than a hundred years, it's hardly surprising that with scales of billions of light years and the equivalent of distance and time that we'd have a little trouble wrapping our heads around it.



    The reasoning behind it is its a safe path - proof is not required for it being a sound premise.
    Please, I beg of you to you use your terminology correctly.

    A premise is a supporting argument, it is the proof you mention just after your dash.
    ref: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/premise

    A sound conclusion (which can become a premise if it is used in support of another conclusion) is a statement that is both valid, meaning that it is logically correct, and that each premise is also factually true. If a premise is unable to be proven true or not true then that premise will destroy the soundness of the conclusion, afterall to be considered sound every premise must be factually true. The conclusion can be valid but it may not be sound, depending on the truth value of each premise.
    ref: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soundness

    Proof (of each premise) is a necessary component of any conclusion that wants to be considered sound. There is no way around this without redefining what you mean by sound.

    An assertion requires no proof. This is an example of an assertion:
    This is based on the universe components being finite, which means the whole is finite.
    As Neutrino has pointed out it is not based on sound reasoning and is therefore an assertion.
    ref:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assertion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    This is based on the universe components being finite, which means the whole is finite.
    Say what now? Let me give 2 replies:

    1) The set of all natural numbers is infinite. Each and every component however is finite.
    This says, the number '2' is forever '2' [infinite]. Its like saying infinity is infinite. Its limited to the academic.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Flip McWho
    Aye, I recently read in a Cosmos I think it was that we cannot be entirely sure that space is expanding everywhere, it may only be this quadrant of the universe that is undergoing expansion.
    This is an interesting premise I have not encountered. It can be significant, but ultimately it says that the uni is finite.


    Yeah it is unfortunately, it can hardly be called a scientific alternative.

    The biggest problem with any form of special creation is that it requires some form of divine revelation, commonly thought to be the bible in those cultures that use the Old Testament as its [theological] basis. The problem with the bible is that it is a human creation of 3500 years ago and this is a most optimistic date. Assuming the special creation 6000 years ago is correct there isn't enough time in that amount of time for all the starlight to have travelled the distance it has, assuming that the speed of light has always been constant. The best answer to this so far is white hole cosmology as found here:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp
    which to me is essentially the BBT just occuring much more recently.
    Equally, the OT is also misrepped by incorrect understandings, being spread via christianity and islam for 2000 years, according to its own preferences, thereby inculcating a walt disney like quality to it which has stuck. It is thus dismissed because it is alligned with religion generically. There is also much science in Genesis when it is examined scientifically, instead of theologically.

    Mythology is Zeus - which is devoid of verifiable historicity, laws, statutes, dates, names and numbers - and these are pervasive only in one scripture - at a juncture far ahead of its spacetime.

    Monotheism is a 100% scientific theory, which introduced science, medicine, evolution, democracy, alphabetical books, Creationism, and all the laws and statutes which turns the world today: this contradicts the myth factor. Controversial new premises like ID are inclinations towards Creationism and its science of Cause & Effect, and a clear dis-incline of Random. Science does not prevail with Random - nor the absolute acceptance of Creationism - these are dead ends for knowledge expansions.

    Creationism is akin to MC2 - the first scientific [away from occultism] ponderings of the universe. The BBT emerged from the first pointer the universe began at a beginning point [it is finite]; in cosmic days [epochs of time; the 6000 year only applies to speech endowed humans, which remains a viable, vindicated, bold declaration!]; a chronological protocol applies in the universe's emergence; life came at the finale of 'The Table is Set' premise - ushering speech endowed humans with awareness being the final act of creation - vindicated; and that all new creation is ceased - vindicated - there has not been any new life forms. These are reasonable, not mythical, premises. There is actually nothing like Genesis elsewhere in any scriptures - it is a standout treatise, and one which is the only counterpart to all current scientific premises debated in cosmology in the net.






    Please, I beg of you to you use your terminology correctly.

    A premise is a supporting argument, it is the proof you mention just after your dash.

    I referred to the million year scenario for proof, which a host of scientific premises rely on, and which are part of the premise when posited as its proof. Let's be fair here - there is clearly the safety net of an unverifiable time factor here, thus it can be a safety net. Its not much different from referring the matter to a Creator.

    A sound conclusion (which can become a premise if it is used in support of another conclusion) is a statement that is both valid, meaning that it is logically correct, and that each premise is also factually true. If a premise is unable to be proven true or not true then that premise will destroy the soundness of the conclusion, afterall to be considered sound every premise must be factually true. The conclusion can be valid but it may not be sound, depending on the truth value of each premise.
    ref: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soundness

    Proof (of each premise) is a necessary component of any conclusion that wants to be considered sound. There is no way around this without redefining what you mean by sound.

    An assertion requires no proof. This is an example of an assertion:
    This is based on the universe components being finite, which means the whole is finite.
    As Neutrino has pointed out it is not based on sound reasoning and is therefore an assertion.
    ref:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assertion
    What happens when we are dealing with issues which cannot be proven - either way? Here, determinations are possible only via alternative reasonings which are provable - such as cause & effect, meaning a causative factor must apply, and one which denotes a mind rather than a random particle, because the resultant factors [such as complex equations of Gravity] - do not subscribe to random, which can be seen as escapism.

    'A COMPLEXITY SHOULD REASONABLY DENOTE A COMPLEX CAPABILITY AT ITS FOUNDATION' - Prof Roger Penrose/Author.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Iamjoseph
    This says, the number '2' is forever '2' [infinite]. Its like saying infinity is infinite. Its limited to the academic.
    Matter and energy are forever as well [infinite]. The universe is composed of these things, and maybe some kind of substance we call "space" which, though it may expand, is also a forever.

    Only the BB proposes that there was ever a time when the matter, energy, and space that currently exist, ever didn't exist, or ever might go out of existence. Outside that theory, we might see the universe and all matter in it as being perfectly without beggining and without end.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Iamjoseph
    This says, the number '2' is forever '2' [infinite]. Its like saying infinity is infinite. Its limited to the academic.
    Matter and energy are forever as well [infinite]. The universe is composed of these things, and maybe some kind of substance we call "space" which, though it may expand, is also a forever.

    Only the BB proposes that there was ever a time when the matter, energy, and space that currently exist, ever didn't exist, or ever might go out of existence. Outside that theory, we might see the universe and all matter in it as being perfectly without beggining and without end.
    I agree that we have to 'assume' it is infinite, as a placebo, to leap over the inexplicable. Otherwise, everything either stops at a dead end, or culminates in creationism, and again nothing further need be said. But logically, the infinite premise is false, or it is not acceptable as a reality or answer to the universe origins.

    The infinite premise is resultant from a lack of any other alternative factors; we cannot imagine or percieve anything which would justify how not just matter and space came about, but also the awesome, complex enginnerings which uphold everything together - compounded by no one out there to give any indication of it. Allow me to make an analogy what humanity confronts.

    Its like we know what a human voice and speech is, with no possibility of confusing this with anything else. Imagine that we hear a voice in space, which signifies a human out there - but we cannot track or capture it. IOW, we see definitive and unmistakable 'design' in the universe, but no 'designer' anywhere. We become forced to see it as a math equation out there - and a real reflection when we look at ourselves. It is a human made voice here - but not so out there; it is a human made design here - but not out there. Everything is finite - but it cannot be finite, because then we have to track and capture the finite point - and if we cannot do this, we have no choice but to adopt the next thought, even if it is not reasonable. The 'no choice' factor dictates this conclusion, more so than reasoning and evidence.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Creationist theories aside: The law of the conservation of matter/energy has never, to my knowledge, been shown in any experiment to have a limit.

    If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, at least as far as anyone knows, then what more proof do you need that they're eternal?

    Even BB theorists don't try and claim that new energy/matter can come out of nowhere, or that old energy/matter can simply stop existing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Monotheism is a 100% scientific theory, which introduced science, medicine, evolution, democracy, alphabetical books, Creationism, and all the laws and statutes which turns the world today: this contradicts the myth factor.
    Incorrect, you are forgetting about such counter examples as the chinese, japanese, roman, persian and egyptian empires which all had science, books, medicine, laws etc in their empires. A large contingent of western philosophy is based on the Greeks who weren't monotheists. Also the upsurge in scientific thought occurred with the renaissance which was a resurgence in greek/roman literature.

    Monotheism isn't a scientific theory because it is unfalsifiable, untestable, unobservable, the opposite of which are benchmarks of a scientific theory.

    Controversial new premises like ID are inclinations towards Creationism and its science of Cause & Effect, and a clear dis-incline of Random. Science does not prevail with Random - nor the absolute acceptance of Creationism - these are dead ends for knowledge expansions.
    Creationism does not give you causality. Causality comes from our everyday living. I do contend that causality [and induction) are both presuppositions that cannot be proved without using itself to prove itself, which is circular logic. Random is not the opposite of determinism, it is probability. I recommend you read up on Quantum Mechanics.

    I will contend that there is something that caused the BB to initiate, it seems to me that this must be the case, however what that was is a discovery that will come in the future of the human specie, not a few thousand years in the past.

    Creationism is akin to MC2 - the first scientific [away from occultism] ponderings of the universe. The BBT emerged from the first pointer the universe began at a beginning point [it is finite]; in cosmic days [epochs of time; the 6000 year only applies to speech endowed humans, which remains a viable, vindicated, bold declaration!]; a chronological protocol applies in the universe's emergence; life came at the finale of 'The Table is Set' premise - ushering speech endowed humans with awareness being the final act of creation - vindicated; and that all new creation is ceased - vindicated - there has not been any new life forms. These are reasonable, not mythical, premises. There is actually nothing like Genesis elsewhere in any scriptures - it is a standout treatise, and one which is the only counterpart to all current scientific premises debated in cosmology in the net.
    The first sentence is incorrect. Creationism is not scientific for starters - it is not falsifiable, nor testable, nor observable, secondly MC2 was not the first ponderings of the universe - consider newton, and the ancient bablyonians and eqyptians and Chinese who all had a decent grasp of astronomy.

    The BBT emerged from the equations of GR, once a cosmological constant is removed, and the observations of Hubble, which lead to the cosmological constant being removed. There was plenty of speech prior to 6000 years ago, consider the eqyptian empire. We live in a very narrow section of time, recorded history only goes back 10000 yrs or so and archaelogical evidence only goes back slightly further. We are hardly in an authoritive position to declare that no new life forms are developed/developing.

    I referred to the million year scenario for proof, which a host of scientific premises rely on, and which are part of the premise when posited as its proof. Let's be fair here - there is clearly the safety net of an unverifiable time factor here, thus it can be a safety net. Its not much different from referring the matter to a Creator.
    The millions of year scenario has one significant proof in its favour. That is the speed of light. If we assume it is constant, which it appears to be, then barring some unproveable (the universe would appear as it does now no matter what way you interpret the past) intervention from a creator, we can 'see' 14.2 Billion light years. This is a good indication that the millions of years scenario is plausible considering that the time frame is there in the starlight. The thing with the millions of years is it makes more sense then a creation point at what ever point in time you desire to make it.

    What happens when we are dealing with issues which cannot be proven - either way?
    This depends on you definition and requirements of proof. Some presuppositions are by necessity unproveable, such as causality and induction. Others exist because we have no good reason to believe otherwise, such as uniformitarianism, homogenous and isotropic.

    EDIT: It may appear that I'm saying that nothing can be a sound statement as certain suppositions are unproveable, however, a statement within a particular presuppositional framework can be sound because the presuppositions present the basis on which the evidence is rested on. For example the presupposition of uniformitarianism leads to such things as the age of the earth being 4.5 billion yrs because of the assumption that the physical laws in observation today are the same as those in observation throughout the history of the universe. Once uniformitarianism is assumed then the factual truthness of the premises behind carbon-14 being used as a dating method become much more likely thereby lending to the soundness of conclusions the carbon-14 is used as a premise for.

    such as cause & effect, meaning a causative factor must apply,
    That is non-sequitur. It cannot be proven that a causative factor must apply without using causaulity to prove so which renders your argument as circular.

    we see definitive and unmistakable 'design'
    I would say the opposite. You only assume it is because that is what you wish to read into the universe based on the almost insurmountable problem posed by consciousness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Creationist theories aside: The law of the conservation of matter/energy has never, to my knowledge, been shown in any experiment to have a limit.

    If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, at least as far as anyone knows, then what more proof do you need that they're eternal?

    Even BB theorists don't try and claim that new energy/matter can come out of nowhere, or that old energy/matter can simply stop existing.
    Yes, you posit a good point, and i too used this same arguement, namely because matter only changes its state, it points to infinite properties. Howver, this not the case.

    The correct meaning of infinity is it is not subject to changes. This does not mean that the thing cannot change per se, but that it is not subject to the effects of anything - and that it is transcendent to the components and forces in the universe. It can change voluntarilly, not according to the impacts of outside forces. Whereas if a blunt axe can change the nature of a car - that car is not infinite - regardless that it changes to another format; it is less transcendent of the axe effects.

    Humans are not infinite - even when they become as dust and grass after death; they are human evermore. The dust and grass are what they were - but the human is not. The particles which make all matter and life - are also short existence lifespans, and new particles which have not existed before come forst from a place we don't know of or understand - they are not made of any known components. How this impact in science?

    If we examine quarks, once thought of the smallest particle known, we find it contains an electron and a nucleus. New, 'virtual' particles are produced, which have 'never existed before', and are said to be activated by wave vibrartions. This says that there is no infinity...at the bottom of everything, new particles come and go - from nowhere! This is what caused speculation about para and multi universes.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Flip McWho
    [

    Incorrect, you are forgetting about such counter examples as the chinese, japanese, roman, persian and egyptian empires which all had science, books, medicine, laws etc in their empires. A large contingent of western philosophy is based on the Greeks who weren't monotheists. Also the upsurge in scientific thought occurred with the renaissance which was a resurgence in greek/roman literature.
    My point was not to negate any ancient cultures, I know that China achieved many advancements, independently from the rest of the world, and that there is wisdom in all nations. However, with the advent of science, for which medicine is its forerunner, this comes from the OT. The medicine before this time was not science based, but occult and herbal based. The first separation of the occult and medicine is the identification and treatment of contagious and infectious deseases such as leprosy, which calls for an examination of the hair [if it is white], if it extends under the skin, etc, and if positive, the person is isolated, his possessions burnt.


    Monotheism isn't a scientific theory because it is unfalsifiable, untestable, unobservable, the opposite of which are benchmarks of a scientific theory.
    This is incorrect, IMHO. Here, its not monotheism which is not verifiable, but the original causation factor - be this Creator or any other notion held. Science is about verifying a thesis, and explaining how things work, but this is not a reasonable condition for the ultimate original cause of the universe. Aside from this, Monotheism is scientific and logical, meaning whatever the ultimate cause may be - it has to stop with one singular entity or factor. This makes monotheism fully scientific in its premise.


    Creationism does not give you causality. Causality comes from our everyday living. I do contend that causality [and induction) are both presuppositions that cannot be proved without using itself to prove itself, which is circular logic. Random is not the opposite of determinism, it is probability. I recommend you read up on Quantum Mechanics.
    How does causality come from daily living, when its premise is precedent of life, and directed to the causation of the universe? There is no such thing as random - even what appears an accident, is based on specific actions which it corresponds to. Quantumn is not based on Random; its probability tresholds are specific, repeatable and predictable. I have read many QM books some years ago, and its now passe, awaiting further new developments in science - namely a new, paradigm shift advancement [akin to Newton's old world changing science], because the current science has reached it stretch point and cannot answer further. Currently, we are bouncing to and fro with para- and multi- universes, because we cannot figure out what is the bottom of the universal structures; infinity is not science but an escape from it - because we do not know enough, and have no vocab based on the current science status. We know from history, every 200 years, a major breakthrough occurs, catapulting humanity in a new direction and mindset: this should occur around the corner. terrorism and world conflicts have stopped us from having our BEAM ME UP SCOTTIES!

    I will contend that there is something that caused the BB to initiate, it seems to me that this must be the case, however what that was is a discovery that will come in the future of the human specie, not a few thousand years in the past.
    Exactly, my feelings too. There is no need to seccumb to random or infinity just because we cannot figure things out today. IMHO, the premise of a greater complexity behind a complexity is not negotiable.


    The first sentence is incorrect. Creationism is not scientific for starters - it is not falsifiable, nor testable, nor observable,
    Why not? The testability cannot apply here, not for or against; we have to rely on a sound premise only. I can see no alternative here, but will change my mind when there is one. I don't agree with accumulated, self-generating creation - this is the leaast scientific premise, and here's my reasoning, without going into the nuts and bolts of minutae equtions and maths.

    There must be a preamble:

    1. That the universe is an 'intergrated' system. Meaning, all its structures are interconnected; the sun, moon and earth movements are not independent of each other; life and H2O are not either. This says, a particle which reacts to another particle, to result in a specific, determinable sequence, is not random. Why? Because both particles are receptive to each other, same as a lock and key. This means, those two particles were pre-wired to be that way! The same particles would behave differently against other partciles which do not share this receptibility to each other. We call this as qualities and attributes, or values and properties, but a better conclusion is, INTERGRATION.

    2. What we call random, is an anomoly. Take any example you wish, and examine all the actions here, and you find a factor unaccounted for in the equation. If you look at the graduation of life, as per darwin's evolution, we find such premises as the cells of a life form reacting to changes - namely external, outside changes. Here, we cannot allocate evolution to that life form: what happens if that same life was on Mars, and no changes impact it? It is more scientific and logical here, to denote that the impacting external changes are fully synced [as per the 'intergration' factor in 1 above]. The impacting factor is not random - it is critical and specific, applicable only to what it is impacting. Examine gravity with the same criteria: this planet does not sustain life because of a random fluke that the distances and sizes of earth to sun ratio is ideal; in fact they are all an intergrated system, and the result show that the probability of a random in this multi-structure construct is absolutely nil and zero from a scientific view. We allocate it as random because our current vocab is deficient, compounded by the current negation of anything which may resemble or countenance a theology.

    So here, we cannot say Creationism is not scientifically allowable. Its alternative is unscientific. All we are doing with science, is figuring out how the process works - not how it is caused or by who or by what factor. its like figuring how a car works - that is science [engineering]; but this does not tell us all the factors behind the creation of the car, from metals of certain properties, to hands, minds and energy - and who or what made all the factors that have been used for the creation of the car. The bottom line is a void, thus we have no choice but to allocate a placebo, such as nature/random/infinity - to leap over the inexplicable. This is fine and intelligent, as long as we understand what and why we do so.



    secondly MC2 was not the first ponderings of the universe - consider newton, and the ancient bablyonians and eqyptians and Chinese who all had a decent grasp of astronomy.
    I never said this. I said that Monotheism was the equivalent of MC2, considering the spacetimes these were discovered. We don't realise that in ancient times, the human mindset was not condusive to monotheism - each village and culture had their own deities, and negating this was exactly equivalent to today's premise of heresy and blasphemy, namely mandated death, and far worse than with Galeleo, which came 3,500 years after Abraham. It only looks obvious retrospectively, but monotheism changed the world, and is ultimately connected with science, and cause and effect. It said that someone caused everything, which is not much different than saying something [a scientific equation] caused everything. As Einstein had to flee Germany, so did Abraham had to flee his hometown, community and nation, with a death sentence upon him and his family.

    There was plenty of speech prior to 6000 years ago, consider the eqyptian empire. We live in a very narrow section of time, recorded history only goes back 10000 yrs or so and archaelogical evidence only goes back slightly further. We are hardly in an authoritive position to declare that no new life forms are developed/developing.
    Recorded history does not go more than 5,500 years; speech is less than 6000. Babylon, 5,500 years old, predates Egypt. I know there are some sites under google which talk of 10K year writings, but you will find upon closer examination, they are based on terms such as 'IT IS BELIEVED', 'INDICATIONS ARE', etc. There are no hard-copy proofs, as per the relics and finds in the M/E. Harappa is presented by the same criteria; Sanskrit is supposedly older than Hebrew and Sumerian - but where is the equivalent proof? We should see 1000s of sanskrit books before 5000 years - not one exists older than 2000 years, neither are they alphabetical, nor are they books - a multi-page, narrative story! carbon dating is fine - but ultimately, it has to vindicate on the ground and in our midst back-up, or at least, it must not contradict these.




    The millions of year scenario has one significant proof in its favour. That is the speed of light. If we assume it is constant, which it appears to be, then barring some unproveable (the universe would appear as it does now no matter what way you interpret the past) intervention from a creator, we can 'see' 14.2 Billion light years. This is a good indication that the millions of years scenario is plausible considering that the time frame is there in the starlight. The thing with the millions of years is it makes more sense then a creation point at what ever point in time you desire to make it.
    I have no reason to doubt the age of the universe, derived from light velocity and radiation imprints; it is finite. How does this change anything? I am not negating science, this is the closest we have to truth, thus it is a sacred institution. But I do have problems with the conclusions derived of certain scienfic findings. The conclusion and process determinations are separate paradigms.




    This depends on you definition and requirements of proof. Some presuppositions are by necessity unproveable, such as causality and induction. Others exist because we have no good reason to believe otherwise, such as uniformitarianism, homogenous and isotropic.
    I mostly agree. But not being able to secure the required proof, for or against, does not allow unsound premises in its stead. Random to complex is unsound, even at its base micro levels.



    For example the presupposition of uniformitarianism leads to such things as the age of the earth being 4.5 billion yrs because of the assumption that the physical laws in observation today are the same as those in observation throughout the history of the universe. Once uniformitarianism is assumed then the factual truthness of the premises behind carbon-14 being used as a dating method become much more likely thereby lending to the soundness of conclusions the carbon-14 is used as a premise for.
    Fine. But this has no impact on creationism or anything else. I agree with your premise, and I use it to show that there is no life outside earth. I base this on the uniformity of the known universe - which shows no life imprints for 4.5 B years, and that the unknown is more likely as the known, than not so. The universe as 15 B years is not contested, based on our current science knowledge; as well, that all the universal structures and its awesome engineerings - do not appear random in any wise.



    That is non-sequitur. It cannot be proven that a causative factor must apply without using causaulity to prove so which renders your argument as circular.
    The reverse is the case. Not allocating a cause is the circular arguement; denoting a cause allows a conclusion.


    I would say the opposite. You only assume it is because that is what you wish to read into the universe based on the almost insurmountable problem posed by consciousness.
    There would be greater problems without consciousness. We would have no PCs, in fact we would have no defense with other life forms and nature.

    Cheers.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I get the impression that BB stands largely because the other theories have even more flaws in them than it does. It's like it's preferred because it's the least of all evils.

    So, if we were to list them, what are all the alternatives? It's not necessary to explain everything in one theory, because some things may actually be independent of each other ( like Hubble's Red Shift may have nothing to do with the CMBR, for example)

    I'm just curious. Maybe someone could elaborate on some other theories like steady state?
    One must first give a preamble which universe they are discussing. There are two kinds: a finite and an infinite kind.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    One must first give a preamble which universe they are discussing. There are two kinds: a finite and an infinite kind.
    How is that relevant?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    How is that relevant?
    Because he has to decide which particular brand of bullshit he's going to peddle.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Not to put too fine a point on it there are only cranks and noncomformists objecting to the BB today. The evidence is too comprehensive. The CMBR, the supernovae, the quasars, the Populations of stars, it's just too comprehensive. There's nowhere to hide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    166
    Does anyone belive the concept of a Multiverse ?
    Can a Multiverse be dismissed,and if so How ?
    I would have a greater understanding of the expansion of Our universe if we were part of a Multiverse.
    For example if the Universe started with a BIG BANG surely the universe would be more messy and not as smooth as it is.
    I agree Our Universe is expanding but could this be explained in a Multiverse. ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    7 years since your last reply, Joseph. You really know how to keep 'em waiting.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    166
    Hi Flick Things have moved on in the last 7 years, Got to update
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    Does anyone belive the concept of a Multiverse ?
    Can a Multiverse be dismissed,and if so How ?
    There is a lot of speculation but little science.

    I would have a greater understanding of the expansion of Our universe if we were part of a Multiverse.
    For example if the Universe started with a BIG BANG surely the universe would be more messy and not as smooth as it is.
    I agree Our Universe is expanding but could this be explained in a Multiverse. ?
    It makes no difference.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Really, the BBT is a greasy brylcream premise: if the universe is expanding this-away, it must have come from that-away. It was accepted after the space was determined to be expanding - a most obvious deduction. However, it cannot be that simple, because it is a generic, harmonious expansion, namely, the universe is not expanding from a certain point - it is expanding from wherever one locates in the universe. This says the expansion is democratic and every point is the first point. Even the expanding balloon analogy fails here, namely because the balloon, unlike the universe, does have only one beginning. There is extraordinary engineering with the universe which is yet not in human knowledge status quo. The situation becomes more complicated if it is accepted the universe is finite.

    The other issue with the BBT is that it expanded without an external or separate force that impacted, yet we know for a fact an expansion, or any action, requires an external or arms length force to interact. Its only other alternative is the expansion was triggered by a pre-BB expansion - and what that is remains the future quest/enigma/paradox. Mostly, we are reluctant to include a Creator force here, and are in angst that t only points that way. In any case, Creationism may be frowned upon, but it remains the only alternative we have: it was always one of only two possibilities, namely a Creator produced universe or a self-produced universe w/o a universe producer. I would gladly accept any alternatives.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    One must first give a preamble which universe they are discussing. There are two kinds: a finite and an infinite kind.
    How is that relevant?
    A finite universe cannot emerge of itself. This is accepted by both Newton and Einstein. All of science goes south when this is rejected. String, MV & Para-universes are a direct result of inventing spins to negate the finite factor - 'BECAUSE"!
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,746
    Yeah, more ignorant bullshit.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    7 years since your last reply, Joseph. You really know how to keep 'em waiting.
    Yes sir. Got diverted into movie production: www.benhur2.com; Emanation, etc, etc.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Yeah, more ignorant bullshit.
    Not knowing the cause does not negate cause & effect.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,746
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Yeah, more ignorant bullshit.
    Not knowing the cause does not negate cause & effect.
    Yeah, and ignorance coupled with unsupported claims and a pre-formed (also unsupported) belief doesn't make science.

    Ignore list with the rest of the nutcases.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,746
    Double post.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    I would gladly accept any alternatives.
    Consider the Einstein field equations :



    In standard GR both the Einstein tensor on the left and the energy-momentum tensor on the right ( as well as the metric tensor, the components of which the equations are solved for ) are symmetrical in their indices, because the connection that is used is the Levi-Civita connection. The defining characteristic of that connection is that it is torsion-free, i.e. its only principle invariant is curvature. BBT is based on this theory, being classical General Relativity.

    Now, the obvious way to generalise this is to allow the use of a connection other than Levi-Civita, i.e. a connection that features torsion as well as curvature in space-time. The resulting theory is called Einstein-Cartan Gravity, the defining characteristic being that the torsion tensor in this model no longer identically vanishes. At first glance it looks deceptively similar to standard GR, however, on close examination it turns out that there are important differences, most notably :

    - Fermions are no longer point-like, but spatially extended particles
    - The Dirac equation becomes non-linear
    - There are no gravitational or cosmological singularities
    - You get gravitational spin-orbit coupling as a natural consequence of the theory
    - The Big Bang is replaced by a "Big Bounce"

    Take special note of the last point - the initial state of expansion is no longer a singularity, but a "Big Bounce", i.e. it is the end result of a previous collapse. This avoids any philosophical issues with BB singularities, and provides a natural explanation for the initial state of the universe. As such, it is the most obvious and straightforward alternative to standard BBT.

    The other issue with the BBT is that it expanded without an external or separate force that impacted, yet we know for a fact an expansion, or any action, requires an external or arms length force to interact.
    No, you are misunderstanding this. Metric expansion is an intrinsic geometric property of space-time, it does not require any "forces". In fact, GR as a whole is a purely geometric theory which does not incorporate or deal with the Newtonian concept of "forces" at all. The above argument you give is thus meaningless - you are attempting to apply Newtonian principles to a model of geometrodynamics, which of course doesn't work.

    if the universe is expanding this-away, it must have come from that-away.
    Again, you are trying to apply Newtonian ideas to a non-Newtonian model. The expansion of the universe is intrinsic - notions such as "this-way" and "that-way" are meaningless.

    In any case, Creationism may be frowned upon, but it remains the only alternative we have
    That is quite simply not true. To give just one example - space-time itself could be regarded as an emergent phenomenon of an underlying system of degrees of freedom which is not in itself spatio-temporal in nature. The initial state of the universe would then have been a phase transition, much like ice emerges from liquid water through a phase transition. Such models can be described through the use of conformal field theory, and do not require singularities or the questionable notion of "outside influence".

    Other examples would include the quantisation of space-time in terms of 4-simplexes ( as done in Causal Dynamical Triangulations ), or pre-geometric approaches such as spin networks ( as done in Loop Quantum Gravity ). Each of these provide viable models for the initial state of the BB, at least on a conceptual basis. It is now a matter of investigating the mathematical properties of these models, to determine which, if any, is a good model for the universe we observe.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; March 15th, 2014 at 03:45 AM.
    umbradiago and Schneibster like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    The situation becomes more complicated if it is accepted the universe is finite.
    I am not sure why you would think that. Geometrically, the only difference between a finite and an infinite universe is the sign of the curvature scalar. The geometrodynamic law applies equally in all cases, and in all cases the expansions starts with infinitely many points separated by zero distance. That is the meaning of a cosmological singularity - you have infinitely many points, and if you randomly pick any two of them, their separation in space-time will always be zero. As the universe starts to expand intrinsically, this ceases to be the case, and the non-singular metric will return a finite and well defined distance between any two points, which will be dependent on an affine parameter.
    Schneibster likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    it was always one of only two possibilities, namely a Creator produced universe or a self-produced universe w/o a universe producer. I would gladly accept any alternatives.
    There are other possibilities. For example, the universe has always existed (in some form). There are several variants of this. The most intuitively obvious is perhaps the "big bounce". Current evidence appears to rule that out. But there are certainly alternatives.

    You seem to have fixated on only one, presumably based on your irrational beliefs (and an almost total lack of knowledge of the relevant science).
    Schneibster likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    it was always one of only two possibilities, namely a Creator produced universe or a self-produced universe w/o a universe producer. I would gladly accept any alternatives.
    There are other possibilities. For example, the universe has always existed (in some form). There are several variants of this. The most intuitively obvious is perhaps the "big bounce". Current evidence appears to rule that out. But there are certainly alternatives.

    You seem to have fixated on only one, presumably based on your irrational beliefs (and an almost total lack of knowledge of the relevant science).
    It is incumbent to examine both scenarios and see which fits existing theories best. This universe is real; other universes are not. The issue is: what applies with an absolutely finite universe - an inescapable question.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    It is incumbent to examine both scenarios and see which fits existing theories best. This universe is real; other universes are not. The issue is: what applies with an absolutely finite universe - an inescapable question.
    The geometrodynamic law does not constrain the global topology of the universe ( only its geometry ), hence all of the aforementioned models are compatible with both finite and infinite scenarios. As I said, the only difference is the sign of the curvature scalar.
    Schneibster likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    Really, the BBT is a greasy brylcream premise: if the universe is expanding this-away, it must have come from that-away. It was accepted after the space was determined to be expanding - a most obvious deduction. However, it cannot be that simple, because it is a generic, harmonious expansion, namely, the universe is not expanding from a certain point - it is expanding from wherever one locates in the universe. This says the expansion is democratic and every point is the first point. Even the expanding balloon analogy fails here, namely because the balloon, unlike the universe, does have only one beginning.
    Try to forget any notions of the universe expanding RELATIVE to anything else and there is no problem here. Near the beginning, all parts of the universe were close together. Today, those parts are far apart. At the larger scales, everything is becoming more distant from everything else. At any place in the universe, when you track the recession of the rest of the universe backwards, it all comes back towards you. This is the very simple concept that is illustrated by the balloon analogy and your explanation as to why you think it fails is based on your trying to place all this action relative to a system of coordinates outside the universe, whereupon you cannot find only "one beginning" unless you ascribe the universe with a centre point.

    You are thinking in terms of the universe expanding THROUGH space, whereas the actual cosmology includes no such thing. In the actual cosmology you are trying to describe, the universe does not expand through space, but space simply increases in size between all the points in the universe. There is a big difference between the two concepts.
    Markus Hanke and Schneibster like this.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,473
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    This universe is real; other universes are not. The issue is: what applies with an absolutely finite universe - an inescapable question.
    We know that the actual universe is bigger that the observable universe. Therefore, you can't take just the observed universe to assume that the universe must be finite.
    Schneibster likes this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    The upshot of all of this is quite simple :

    1. Available data is consistent with both finite and infinite models of the universe
    2. The geometrodynamic field equations have both finite and infinite global solutions
    3. There is no known law of physics which rules out an infinite universe

    It therefore follows that based on available data and currently understood physics it cannot be ruled out that we live in an infinite universe.
    SpeedFreek and Schneibster like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I'd also like to mention that it is possible to conjure up topological constructs which are closed, yet still infinite. Whether or not it is possible to construct a viable cosmological model from these, I don't know; I am certainly not aware of any such model, but it is a fascinating yet highly non-intuitive concept.
    Schneibster likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    This universe is real; other universes are not. The issue is: what applies with an absolutely finite universe - an inescapable question.
    We know that the actual universe is bigger that the observable universe. Therefore, you can't take just the observed universe to assume that the universe must be finite.
    Citation needed?

    Citation supplied!

    [astro-ph/0604616] Extending the WMAP Bound on the Size of the Universe

    Clues to the shape of our Universe can be found by searching the CMB for matching circles of temperature patterns. A full sky search of the CMB, mapped extremely accurately by NASA's WMAP satellite, returned no detection of such matching circles and placed a lower bound on the size of the Universe at 24 Gpc. This lower bound can be extended by optimally filtering the WMAP power spectrum. More stringent bounds can be placed on specific candidate topologies by using a a combination statistic. We use optimal filtering and the combination statistic to rule out the infamous "soccer ball universe'' model.
    Also, note the following in the introduction:

    While it is certainly possible that the Universe extends infinitely in each spatial direction, many physicists and philosophers are uncomfortable with the notion of a universe that is infinite in extent. It is possible instead that our three dimensional Universe has a finite volume without having an edge, just as the two dimensional surface of the Earth is finite but has no edge. In such a universe, it is possible that a straight path in one direction could eventually lead back to where it started. For a short enough closed path, we expect to be able to detect an observational signature revealing the specific topology of our Universe.
    The team found no observational signature that the universe is smaller than our observable portion of it and wraps around such that we see the same distant places in different directions. This means we have observational evidence that the whole universe is at least as large as our observable portion of it. Which means we cannot preclude the universe from being infinite.
    KJW and Schneibster like this.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Personally, I'd be much more interested to know whether the global topology of the universe is singly or multiply connected. But then again, that's why I'm a nerd
    RedPanda and Schneibster like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    There are parallel universes which are the same that are interconnected by black holes when they explode and send a singularity through into one of those other universes. The power of the black hole exploding is so great that it "punches" a hole into another parallel universes make it come alive with new formations of celestial things as we have in our universe.
    Schneibster likes this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,910
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    There are may be parallel universes ...
    Fixed it for you.
    Schneibster likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,473
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    There are may be parallel universes ...
    Fixed it for you.
    I think it requires a little more than that to fix it.
    Strange and Schneibster like this.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I'd also like to mention that it is possible to conjure up topological constructs which are closed, yet still infinite. Whether or not it is possible to construct a viable cosmological model from these, I don't know; I am certainly not aware of any such model, but it is a fascinating yet highly non-intuitive concept.
    It's not possible in FRW cosmologies. I don't know if that rules such a model out, but because we're so close to the "flat" FRW space, if we're in such a topology it's far too big for us to ever see. In other words we might be in such a space but because of the 14 gigalightyear horizon, never be able to differentiate it from flat.

    For the non-astronomers, the 24 gigaparsecs in Speed's quote is about 73 billion light years. And that's the absolute minimum.

    You're funny, cosmic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Hey, that's just another idea about how things are and I'm happy to see someone see the jocularity of it all. Thanks for the fix!
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    166
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
    One must first give a preamble which universe they are discussing. There are two kinds: a finite and an infinite kind.
    How is that relevant?
    A finite universe cannot emerge of itself. This is accepted by both Newton and Einstein. All of science goes south when this is rejected. String, MV & Para-universes are a direct result of inventing spins to negate the finite factor - 'BECAUSE"!
    What if Our Universe was expanding from the colapse of another Universe,Universe,s What if Multiverse was like a bubbles in the bath, and the only way to penertrate the bubble
    was a Black hole, A force so strong it can penertrate and distorte time and space, Break through the very fabric of space. What if these Bubble universe,s had, Inlet, out Outlet port holes, where they bled into and out of others, No big bang but expansion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Did anyone mention ekpyrotic theory? Where two universe membranes collide, and make a Big Bang over all the space where they touch for a brief moment? That's an alternative to the traditional BB and to the ΛCDM theory, isn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Did anyone mention ekpyrotic theory? Where two universe membranes collide, and make a Big Bang over all the space where they touch for a brief moment? That's an alternative to the traditional BB and to the ΛCDM theory, isn't it?
    Not really an alternative to the standard ΛCDM theory, it is just a precursor to it, but it is an alternative to Alan Guth's cosmic inflation. It gives a different kind of bang to the Big Bang, after which ΛCDM continues as currently described.
    Schneibster likes this.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    Did anyone mention ekpyrotic theory? Where two universe membranes collide, and make a Big Bang over all the space where they touch for a brief moment? That's an alternative to the traditional BB and to the ΛCDM theory, isn't it?
    Not really an alternative to the standard ΛCDM theory, it is just a precursor to it, but it is an alternative to Alan Guth's cosmic inflation. It gives a different kind of bang to the Big Bang, after which ΛCDM continues as currently described.
    Still, if we're doing alternative theories let's bring in the kitchen sink.
    SpeedFreek and Robittybob1 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    It's not possible in FRW cosmologies.
    It's certainly not a FLRW scenario, but the real question is whether it is a valid solution to the Einstein field equations, and if so, under what circumstances, and whether it matches observation even just in principle. I suppose one of these days I'll have to get down and dirty and see if I can put some maths around it. I'm thinking of a manifold that has the global topology of a 4-dimensional Menger cube as a starting point, but have no idea how to make an ansatz for a metric. I have to do some more research, but my initial suspicion is that such a manifold is everywhere smooth, but nowhere differentiable, which is obviously a problem.

    A little project for a rainy weekend
    Schneibster likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •