"We had to come from somewhere."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2013, 05:06 PM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(07-12-2013 12:14 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Ummm....sorry but big bang theory doesn't say anything like that. Big Bang theory basically says the universe was hotter and more dense in the past and has since expanded. It doesn't say anything about what banged or why it banged.

"Singularity" is just a made up term to act as a place holder for ignorance. If you believe in some primordial singularity exploding into the universe today....you are believing in a thing which has no scientific evidence whatsoever to support it. Your belief is simply a matter of faith.

Yes, singularity is a made up term. Just like every other word in every language ever spoken to date.

I understand it is used (by the physicists who have written the books I have read, namely Brian Greene) to explain a set of phenomena that can't be accurately described by the current laws of physics. A black hole, a tear in spacetime, the initial moment of the big bang. These are all singularities.

We know the universe was more dense in the past, right up to the point where our theories (GR and QM, because of their inability to commingle) can no longer reliably explain what particle/energy interactions were like. The use of the term singularity is entirely justified.

-------------------

In regards to the OP question, maybe it really doesn't make sense to ask what was before the big bang. As you go down to higher energy densities the four separate forces are thought to have been one, only under lower energy densities do they appear as separate. Maybe the same is true of space and time. They are clearly still related, but perhaps they were indistinguishable in the initial moments of the big bang.

I find this hard to wrap my head around, I still think the most likely scenario is a multiverse. When there can be at least one, why would there only be one. We have continued to increase of horizons since the time of Galileo. Everything was thought to orbit us, then we thought we were the only solar system with planets, and the only galaxy. We are continually amazed by the vastness of existence. I don't suspect there was ever a time when existence was absent.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
09-12-2013, 01:22 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(08-12-2013 05:06 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  Yes, singularity is a made up term. Just like every other word in every language ever spoken to date.

I understand it is used (by the physicists who have written the books I have read, namely Brian Greene) to explain a set of phenomena that can't be accurately described by the current laws of physics. A black hole, a tear in spacetime, the initial moment of the big bang. These are all singularities.

Read what you wrote again...."explain a set of phenomena that can't be described". If it can't be described it can't be explained. So singularity is used to explain what can't be explained....right? "Singularity" is equivalent to "God works in mysterious ways"....it doesn't explain anything. It is a place holder for ignorance.

A lot of people think a singularity is a scientific concept. It isn't. As you point out it isn't even a specific thing.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 02:37 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
Read properly!

Quote:can't be accurately described by the current laws of physics

Can't be described, can't be explained. Such a huuuuuuuuge fallacy!

1) it can't be described accurately: The available description has an error
2) by current laws of physics: The current physical models are not good enough to explain these phenomena. Future models need to be developed which can.

You redefine words as it suits you, but understanding the general meaning of common words is out of your capabilities? Or are "accurately" and "current" such difficult words to know?

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 02:40 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(09-12-2013 01:22 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Read what you wrote again...."explain a set of phenomena that can't be described". If it can't be described it can't be explained. So singularity is used to explain what can't be explained....right? "Singularity" is equivalent to "God works in mysterious ways"....it doesn't explain anything. It is a place holder for ignorance.

A lot of people think a singularity is a scientific concept. It isn't. As you point out it isn't even a specific thing.

Bad wording. It is the set of things our physics theories fail to describe accurately, the point where they break down. Because of this we are ignorant of what occurs in singularities.

It's not one specific thing.

A point of infinite density is an example of a singularity, it is a concept in need of an explanation. Although, it doesn't need to be infinite, a extremely high energy density would do. Enough for gravity to play a substantial role in particle evolution over small scales. And we know such a state existed in the early universe.

We're fine with admitting ignorance, it's much better than pretending to have an answer.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
09-12-2013, 02:45 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(09-12-2013 02:37 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Can't be described, can't be explained. Such a huuuuuuuuge fallacy!

1) it can't be described accurately: The available description has an error
2) by current laws of physics: The current physical models are not good enough to explain these phenomena. Future models need to be developed which can.

You redefine words as it suits you, but understanding the general meaning of common words is out of your capabilities? Or are "accurately" and "current" such difficult words to know?

You just don't get it Youkay. There is no scientific description of a "singularity". A consequence of being indescribable in scientific terms is that it has no explanatory powers. It is a place holder for ignorance.

I am beginning to seriously doubt that you are a scientist. Internet crackpot is starting to seem more likely.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 02:54 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2013 02:58 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(09-12-2013 02:40 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  We're fine with admitting ignorance, it's much better than pretending to have an answer.

I don't have a problem with anything you've said in this thread. My problem is with people who claim a "singularity" is an answer.....it isn't any more answer than "God dunnit" or "God works in mysterious ways", etc. Why is that when scientist admit they don't have an answer using place holders of ignorance such as "Singularity" they get a pass.....but when religious people use such place holders of ignorance....they get criticized for not having an explanation?

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 02:54 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
I have begun to doubt your intelligence and perception of reality long ago. Not offended by your doubts...

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Youkay's post
09-12-2013, 03:08 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(09-12-2013 02:45 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You just don't get it Youkay. There is no scientific description of a "singularity". A consequence of being indescribable in scientific terms is that it has no explanatory powers. It is a place holder for ignorance.

I am beginning to seriously doubt that you are a scientist. Internet crackpot is starting to seem more likely.

Coming from the guy you uses laboratory created bacteria as evidence for his belief in Irreducible Complexity, that is a fucking riot. Dodgy

[Image: qce9oP7.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 03:11 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(09-12-2013 03:08 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Coming from the guy you uses laboratory created bacteria as evidence for his belief in Irreducible Complexity, that is a fucking riot. Dodgy

You believe in Irreducible complexity too.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 03:13 AM
RE: "We had to come from somewhere."
(09-12-2013 02:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 02:40 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  We're fine with admitting ignorance, it's much better than pretending to have an answer.

I don't have a problem with anything you've said in this thread. My problem is with people who claim a "singularity" is an answer.....it isn't any more answer than "God dunnit" or "God works in mysterious ways", etc. Why is that when scientist admit they don't have an answer using place holders of ignorance such as "Singularity" they get a pass.....but when religious people use such place holders of ignorance....they get criticized for not having an explanation?

The presupposition that god exists is required to make any sense of "god dunnit" and "god works in mysterious ways".

Singularities, dark energy, and dark matter are all tied in with observations.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: