Sitting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2013, 02:37 PM
RE: Sitting
(26-11-2013 12:18 PM)ALMASSAH Wrote:  God created the universe through the Big Bang AND EVOLUTION.

And the moon is made of green cheese.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-11-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: Sitting
(26-11-2013 02:20 PM)Impulse Wrote:  I see. When all else fails, call the other argument "nonsense". Dodgy

So then you know exactly how the universe was created? Consider

I didn't think so... Rolleyes

... which means "I don't know" is the only intellectually honest position. There is nothing wrong with saying "there is strong evidence for", but that's different than saying space and time did originate from the big bang.

I'm not going to keep spending time on this. As HoC pointed out, it's trivial and I agree. But it bothers me when people insert an explanation into an "I don't know" situation whether that explanation is god, the big bang, or anything else and that's why I started this tangent. The big bang is far better than god as an explanation because at least that has a lot of supporting evidence. But extending that to say the big bang not only created the universe, but actually started everything is a huge leap (speaking of nonsense).

I would call an argument nonsense because it fails to be sensical, is infused with a tad bit of ignorance, and screams of not knowing the basics of science.

According to your line of thought, there could be absolutely no event that science could say this is the way it happened.

So instead of saying the earth revolves around the sun, we should say 'there is strong evidence for the earth revolving around the sun, but we don't know for sure.'
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2013, 03:36 PM
RE: Sitting
(26-11-2013 02:44 PM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  
(26-11-2013 02:20 PM)Impulse Wrote:  I see. When all else fails, call the other argument "nonsense". Dodgy

So then you know exactly how the universe was created? Consider

I didn't think so... Rolleyes

... which means "I don't know" is the only intellectually honest position. There is nothing wrong with saying "there is strong evidence for", but that's different than saying space and time did originate from the big bang.

I'm not going to keep spending time on this. As HoC pointed out, it's trivial and I agree. But it bothers me when people insert an explanation into an "I don't know" situation whether that explanation is god, the big bang, or anything else and that's why I started this tangent. The big bang is far better than god as an explanation because at least that has a lot of supporting evidence. But extending that to say the big bang not only created the universe, but actually started everything is a huge leap (speaking of nonsense).

I would call an argument nonsense because it fails to be sensical, is infused with a tad bit of ignorance, and screams of not knowing the basics of science.

According to your line of thought, there could be absolutely no event that science could say this is the way it happened.

So instead of saying the earth revolves around the sun, we should say 'there is strong evidence for the earth revolving around the sun, but we don't know for sure.'
No, you're misunderstanding me or else I'm not making myself clear enough.

I haven't been discussing all of science, but only this particular part - the big bang theory. Of course I'm aware that sufficient evidence in science becomes treated like proof at least until such time as additional evidence modifies it. But I'm questioning the "sufficient evidence" part specifically about big bang.

Furthermore, we're not just discussing big bang. I haven't once questioned the validity of that. I fully agree that there is sufficient evidence that the big bang occurred and that it is the beginning of the universe.

What I've been disagreeing with is regarding what was before that. You seem to think there is sufficient evidence that time and space themselves started with the big bang. I disagree. In fact, that technically isn't even what the theory says. It says that the universe emerged from a singularity such that it is completely independent from anything that happened before it. Therefore, since the universe depends on nothing before it, we may as well treat it as though time itself started then. However, that really means time for this universe started then. Time itself, as I have been saying, is a whole other matter.

If you understand what the theory says, it says that the laws of physics would break down in the singularity and therefore the universe after the big bang would not depend on anything before it. There is nothing pre-big bang that directly resulted in anything post-big bang. However, it wouldn't make sense to say that the universe didn't depend on the existence of the singularity itself. Without the singularity, there would have been no big bang. So the true origin of this universe goes back before the big bang to all the factors leading up to the existence of that singularity. That's what we have insufficient knowledge about.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
26-11-2013, 03:44 PM
RE: Sitting
(26-11-2013 03:36 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(26-11-2013 02:44 PM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  I would call an argument nonsense because it fails to be sensical, is infused with a tad bit of ignorance, and screams of not knowing the basics of science.

According to your line of thought, there could be absolutely no event that science could say this is the way it happened.

So instead of saying the earth revolves around the sun, we should say 'there is strong evidence for the earth revolving around the sun, but we don't know for sure.'
No, you're misunderstanding me or else I'm not making myself clear enough.

I haven't been discussing all of science, but only this particular part - the big bang theory. Of course I'm aware that sufficient evidence in science becomes treated like proof at least until such time as additional evidence modifies it. But I'm questioning the "sufficient evidence" part specifically about big bang.

Furthermore, we're not just discussing big bang. I haven't once questioned the validity of that. I fully agree that there is sufficient evidence that the big bang occurred and that it is the beginning of the universe.

What I've been disagreeing with is regarding what was before that. You seem to think there is sufficient evidence that time and space themselves started with the big bang. I disagree. In fact, that technically isn't even what the theory says. It says that the universe emerged from a singularity such that it is completely independent from anything that happened before it. Therefore, since the universe depends on nothing before it, we may as well treat it as though time itself started then. However, that really means time for this universe started then. Time itself, as I have been saying, is a whole other matter.

If you understand what the theory says, it says that the laws of physics would break down in the singularity and therefore the universe after the big bang would not depend on anything before it. There is nothing pre-big bang that directly resulted in anything post-big bang. However, it wouldn't make sense to say that the universe didn't depend on the existence of the singularity itself. Without the singularity, there would have been no big bang. So the true origin of this universe goes back before the big bang to all the factors leading up to the existence of that singularity. That's what we have insufficient knowledge about.

Actually that's not true. We don't know, at this point, if there was a "before" the BB. All we know at this point, is that space-time exists (only) in this universe. There is no "before" (space)time.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-11-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: Sitting
This thread isnt about sitting....
I should have known, you guys never discuss anything interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
26-11-2013, 03:55 PM
RE: Sitting
(26-11-2013 03:36 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(26-11-2013 02:44 PM)jaguar3030 Wrote:  I would call an argument nonsense because it fails to be sensical, is infused with a tad bit of ignorance, and screams of not knowing the basics of science.

According to your line of thought, there could be absolutely no event that science could say this is the way it happened.

So instead of saying the earth revolves around the sun, we should say 'there is strong evidence for the earth revolving around the sun, but we don't know for sure.'
No, you're misunderstanding me or else I'm not making myself clear enough.

I haven't been discussing all of science, but only this particular part - the big bang theory. Of course I'm aware that sufficient evidence in science becomes treated like proof at least until such time as additional evidence modifies it. But I'm questioning the "sufficient evidence" part specifically about big bang.

Furthermore, we're not just discussing big bang. I haven't once questioned the validity of that. I fully agree that there is sufficient evidence that the big bang occurred and that it is the beginning of the universe.

What I've been disagreeing with is regarding what was before that. You seem to think there is sufficient evidence that time and space themselves started with the big bang. I disagree. In fact, that technically isn't even what the theory says. It says that the universe emerged from a singularity such that it is completely independent from anything that happened before it. Therefore, since the universe depends on nothing before it, we may as well treat it as though time itself started then. However, that really means time for this universe started then. Time itself, as I have been saying, is a whole other matter.

If you understand what the theory says, it says that the laws of physics would break down in the singularity and therefore the universe after the big bang would not depend on anything before it. There is nothing pre-big bang that directly resulted in anything post-big bang. However, it wouldn't make sense to say that the universe didn't depend on the existence of the singularity itself. Without the singularity, there would have been no big bang. So the true origin of this universe goes back before the big bang to all the factors leading up to the existence of that singularity. That's what we have insufficient knowledge about.

I agree with Impulse on this point.
Time is the concept of change. Change of what is what we are discussing.
When we talk about the beginning of the expansion or inversely calculating the motion of our universe in reverse, we arrive at a singular point. A singularity.

If that singularity experiences change, then there is time.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
26-11-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: Sitting
(26-11-2013 02:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And the moon is made of green cheese.

.... but.... the moon.... isn't green?

... eh, what the hell, if I can suspend disbelief long enough to even consider the claim that an infinitely just God cursed ALL of humanity for the sins of two of its ancestors, but cursed women more than men, despite both women and men being equally descended from Eve.... playing make-believe that the moon is green is actually easier.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
26-11-2013, 04:30 PM
RE: Sitting
(26-11-2013 03:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-11-2013 03:36 PM)Impulse Wrote:  No, you're misunderstanding me or else I'm not making myself clear enough.

I haven't been discussing all of science, but only this particular part - the big bang theory. Of course I'm aware that sufficient evidence in science becomes treated like proof at least until such time as additional evidence modifies it. But I'm questioning the "sufficient evidence" part specifically about big bang.

Furthermore, we're not just discussing big bang. I haven't once questioned the validity of that. I fully agree that there is sufficient evidence that the big bang occurred and that it is the beginning of the universe.

What I've been disagreeing with is regarding what was before that. You seem to think there is sufficient evidence that time and space themselves started with the big bang. I disagree. In fact, that technically isn't even what the theory says. It says that the universe emerged from a singularity such that it is completely independent from anything that happened before it. Therefore, since the universe depends on nothing before it, we may as well treat it as though time itself started then. However, that really means time for this universe started then. Time itself, as I have been saying, is a whole other matter.

If you understand what the theory says, it says that the laws of physics would break down in the singularity and therefore the universe after the big bang would not depend on anything before it. There is nothing pre-big bang that directly resulted in anything post-big bang. However, it wouldn't make sense to say that the universe didn't depend on the existence of the singularity itself. Without the singularity, there would have been no big bang. So the true origin of this universe goes back before the big bang to all the factors leading up to the existence of that singularity. That's what we have insufficient knowledge about.

Actually that's not true. We don't know, at this point, if there was a "before" the BB. All we know at this point, is that space-time exists (only) in this universe. There is no "before" (space)time.
I think it logically follows IF the big bang theory is accurate, but "we don't know" was the main point I have been making all along anyway.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2013, 04:36 PM
RE: Sitting
(26-11-2013 04:00 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(26-11-2013 02:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And the moon is made of green cheese.

.... but.... the moon.... isn't green?

... eh, what the hell, if I can suspend disbelief long enough to even consider the claim that an infinitely just God cursed ALL of humanity for the sins of two of its ancestors, but cursed women more than men, despite both women and men being equally descended from Eve.... playing make-believe that the moon is green is actually easier.

You might be unaware that 'green' in this context means 'unripened'. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2013, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2013 06:12 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Sitting
(26-11-2013 03:36 PM)Impulse Wrote:  So the true origin of this universe goes back before the big bang to all the factors leading up to the existence of that singularity.

[Image: image_zpsffa92a6b.jpg]

Note the "round and round" part. Big Grin

Nature of Space and Time - A 61 page PDF by everyone's favorite S. W. Hawking.

What happened before the Big Bang? - a decent little io9 piece.

Quote:The only well tested theory of gravity we have right now is general relativity (GR). In models based on GR, time and space only exist for t>0.

This raises the question of what caused the big bang. In relativity, we use the term "event" to mean a certain position in space at a certain time. The big bang is not an event, because there is no time t=0. If you want to find a cause for some event happening at a given time t>0, there is always some earlier t′, with 0<t′<t, that can supply that cause. So in this sense, the big bang doesn't require a cause, because only events require causes, and GR doesn't describe the big bang as an event.

We also have fundamental reasons to believe that GR is inaccurate under the very dense and hot conditions at t< 10−43 s (known as the Planck time), because of quantum-mechanical effects. If we had a theory of quantum gravity that worked under those conditions, then it might turn out that the singularity at t=0 was not real, and events at t>0 could be explained in terms of causes at t<0. This is what seems to happen, for example, in loop quantum cosmology. However, nobody has a theory of quantum gravity that works and has been tested against experiment, so we don't really know.


^An answer from the physics stack exchange that shows how Impulse and I are both correct.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: