-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Big bang theory dismissed
- Thread starter Scott Russell
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But "assumption" does not work in regards to the basic principle of the BB since there's sufficient evidence at this point to know it really did happened. What may have caused it to happen we obviously do not know, and it one suggests that they do, then they are the one's basing it on "assumption". Cosmologists and physicists do have various hypotheses on causation, but hypotheses are not assumptions.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Exactly, and this is why the Steady-State Theory has been discounted as a possibility.
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
Yes. Although most accounts of the Big Bang describe something similar to an explosion,
my algorithms demonstrate that mathematically the 'seed' from which our universe originated
would have to have split apart due to it spinning, which is why all celestial structures have
a uniformity to them. If the 'seed' had exploded all would be entropy, even given exptremely
unlikely possibilities that planets by chance could form after an explosion, the planets would be orbiting most likely
in opposite directions to one another, or more likely at right angles or other angles. That is only a spinning origin
can give an ecliptic plane. Moreover an 'exploded' universe would never yield spiral galaxies,
only elliptical (non-uniform) galaxies.
This is precisely why I have reworked the cosmology and called it:
tarantarahhhh
THE BIG UNWIND
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/big-unwind.htm
And Scott is correct.
It would have to be a creation
for the reasons he espouses so clearly.
MountainPine
Deuteronomy 30:16
Real science is the law of conservation of energy and the law of angular momentum, both of which the Big Bang theory contradicts. The laws of physics of this universe don't allow for it.
You need stars before you can have planets. Where do you think the heavy elements that comprise them came from?
The mass accretes by universal gravitation, any masses not spinning would simply fall into the star. The only remaining masses were those revolving around the star.
So why do physicists believe in the Big Bang?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As particles and mega-matter expands, the momentum is neither uniform nor is the direction. On top of that, mega-matter has properties of attraction, which automatically will cause rotation. Nor does the BB contradict the laws of the conservation of energy and matter.
In today's world, it would be very hard to find a cosmologist of physicist who would conclude that the BB didn't likely happen.
To that point, here's an article about one pair of researchers who do: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
While it's entirely theoretical at this point, it represents an attempt to make sense out of what we know, following the known laws of physics into the uncertain realm of quantum. Expect there to be further discussion as others review the referenced work, they continue with their effort, and others try to nullify their conclusions.
Also note the 2015 date for this story...it's been out there for awhile...Of course, what they actually claim is that, because of quantum effects, no singularity was necessary, not that there was no Big Bang...
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But here's from your same article:
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
IOW, they're still dealing with the issue of the expansion, plus what we now know about q.m. is that it simply does not behave in the same way mega-matter does. What they don't know at this time is what caused the BB plus exactly how did the q.m. process exactly operate in that context. There are numerous hypotheses that are floating around out there dealing with causation and specifics, but there really is no question that the BB did happen-- the only real questions are how and why?
BTW, most cosmologists do believe that infinity is most likely involved as do I. To put it another way, I'm not a fan of uncaused effects.
Yes, there are still lots of issues; I don't expect them to be resolved anytime soon. This particular study represents a step towards including quantum effects where they haven't been seriously looked at before, but even this was just the first step. All their findings do is suggest that there doesn't need to be a singularity at the beginning.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I think it's likely that there was singularity because of the general, although not perfect, pattern of expansion, but I strongly doubt that our minute universe was the only singularity in "town".
MountainPine
Deuteronomy 30:16
I would like a source for this "mega-matter". I talked to my scientist friend and he is not familiar with this term.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
All matter consists of sub-atomic particles, but the line between them and matter itself is actually quite obscure. I am not certain where I picked up the term from, but I do know it was either from one of the cosmologists or physicists I've read.
So, "mega-matter" is what we normally would refer to as "matter", thus not including sub-atomic particles. This difference is more than cosmetic since we now know that q.m. allows for differences in the "behavior" of both.
Scott Russell
Member
However we got here...the fact that we are here is amazing.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yep, we're not doing bad for naked apes.
Scott Russell
Member
It's crazy right....
Scott Russell
Member
Middle of the universe....food growing out of the ground.....eyeballs...teeth...
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
The big bang does not attempt to explain existence, only the existence of our universe. How is that hard to understand?
MountainPine
Deuteronomy 30:16
This is what my friend says:
First of all, it's no less difficult to find someone who has a PhD in any field of science who isn't also wrong about much or even most of what they believe, who is simultaneously unaware that what he believes is not a matter of fact but of what he believes. You wouldn't believe what kind of truly uninspired people pass for scientists these days, or how little proactive effort it takes to get the top grades in the most difficult university science courses. I won't explain why this is the case, but it is, and there are institutional protections which ensure that it remains so. What really matters at the end of the day is not what people believe or accept, but what the truth is. You've probably seen quotes from famous scientists like Maxwell and Planck and Bohr to that end. I would remind you that such people are rare not because there are few scientist capable of thinking outside the box, but that the more genius it takes to comprehend an idea, the less people will comprehend it, and the more isolated such people are from other such people, the less likely you'll know they ever existed. Based on the few of your statements I read, I would know you're an American (infer what you wil from this), without your having self-identified as a Yooper.
Secondly, it's not actually hard; it's just that "scientists" are actually human beings, so it is very uncommon for someone who is both intelligent and ambitious enough to put in the effort to get through grad school, essentially locking himself into the career track of either teaching or conducting research according to the very strict parameters of an extremely dogmatic groupthink paradigm which makes no tolerance or allowance for progressing thinking or inquiry, who will then throw away the career he has chosen and experience the adverse consequences to his family by simply stating that his private beliefs don't match his public acceptance. My brother (who teaches chemistry at a university in the Midwest) and I used to joke about how any "educated" person could put any stock in the Big Bang Theory, or in the Theory of Evolution. Yet neither of us would discuss our misgivings about bad science with colleagues, on account of having much to lose and nothing to gain from it. This is a common characteristic of individual adherence to propaganda and groupthink; social psychological research has shown that a wide gap exists between private acceptance and public overtures in many areas. In my experience there is no issue more divisive among thinking people than the one in question. That the new scientific paradigm, being a human endeavor, and humans being subject to all kinds of passions and extrinsic interests, is not the only exception to the rule that every attempt which humans have made to understand nature has been wrought with fallibility and errors, ought to be clearly understood by anyone objective enough to fancy himself a proper scientist. Yet in spite of this, the paradigm is not without is share of vocal critics, who are evidently never met with reasonable responses to their serious objections, and who have historically been vindicated again and again by experimentation and no less acceptance of their positions than the hostility they incurred. I know the mentality of these rogue pioneers, and the vast majority of them would have scoffed at the BBT not for its attempt at answering a difficult problem (that of--forgive me for being overly simplistic here, but--reducing existence to effect without cause, i.e. philosophical naturalism, atheism), but for the acceptance which it has gained in spite of having had its underlying assumptions shot to pieces again and again. Some less capable scientists aren't even recognized as such because they do take the hard road and forfeit their careers, and wind up on the creationism lecture circuit or wherever, where they continue to have their credentials put into question and other such ad hominem attacks. I'm reminded of Kent Hovind, who, being innocent of his charges and they being trumped up because he was recognized as an enemy of the establishment (a heretic), had a judge tell him, on the public record, that what he was teaching was the reason she was sending him to prison. In other words, we haven't made much progress since Socrates drank the hemlock. I don't know about you, but that's not exactly the kind of world I want to live in. It is, however, the consensus which you're appealing to. I would also add that while such a consensus generally does exist, there is no consensus as to the how we know what we claim to know. Case in point: how many Darwin-loving biologists do you know that would call On the Origin of Species a scientific reference manual? And you've also got to realize that the consensus was artificially induced in academia and the public consciousness in the early 60s as Cold War scare tactic, that every since then there has been a deliberate and routine cover-up as well as willful ignorance of research conducted outside the US and UK or without government funding because it doesn't fit the government paradigm (do some investigation of the safety of GMOs or of the neurotoxicity of vaccines and you'll see what I mean), and of such things as scientists reneging on positions which they have popularized due to widely disseminated and politically motivated agendas driven by financial interests (e.g. Out of Africa hypothesis). Again, this has always been the case since the dawn of Man, and yet those of the new scientific paradigm pretend like all that's changed since the speed of light was last officially changed in 1972. Really, guys?
Either you don't understand the first principles of science (the philosophical assumptions that go into the composition of laws, not the secondary principles, which are the laws themselves), or else you're misinformed by someone who has tried to explain them away in a vain attempt to outwit them and rewrite the matter-of-fact history of the universe, presumably in order to justify an irrational and rather absurd religious sentiment (atheism), which itself is the mere rejection of another religious sentiment and not actually anything rooted in empirical observation. I imagine the explanation goes like this: "BBT isn't rejected by these laws because it doesn't claim anything came into existence," while failing to remark on the inevitable implication that it hasn't answered anything relevant to the origin of the matter/energy, and has only therefore complicated the matter and thus rendered itself an unscientific as well as unsubstantiated hypothesis. Simple question: If the BBT isn't being tauted as a valid alternative to the view that the universe was created by an intelligent being or other outside mechanism, as is its original and sole purpose, then what good is it? And I know people here (atheists) will read about half of the first sentence of what I've typed, ignore the rest, and then chime in about how I've allegedly got something wrong with me, etc., etc. I couldn't care less. In any case, it's remarks like this, bare assertions in response to valid objections or refutations, and unwillingness to provide references for unsubstantiated claims, which make scientists generally unwilling and uninterested in arguing with laymen, or listening to whatever they have to say. And while you might reasonably infer that you don't need to care about their views to any extent or engage them in such discourse, according to their terms or the universal rules of logic and argumentation, it is a bit hypocritical to obliquely cite an unnamed cosmologist you might have once read as a means of persuasion in support of a hypothesis you have about something which is pertinent to scientific investigation.
First of all, it's no less difficult to find someone who has a PhD in any field of science who isn't also wrong about much or even most of what they believe, who is simultaneously unaware that what he believes is not a matter of fact but of what he believes. You wouldn't believe what kind of truly uninspired people pass for scientists these days, or how little proactive effort it takes to get the top grades in the most difficult university science courses. I won't explain why this is the case, but it is, and there are institutional protections which ensure that it remains so. What really matters at the end of the day is not what people believe or accept, but what the truth is. You've probably seen quotes from famous scientists like Maxwell and Planck and Bohr to that end. I would remind you that such people are rare not because there are few scientist capable of thinking outside the box, but that the more genius it takes to comprehend an idea, the less people will comprehend it, and the more isolated such people are from other such people, the less likely you'll know they ever existed. Based on the few of your statements I read, I would know you're an American (infer what you wil from this), without your having self-identified as a Yooper.
Secondly, it's not actually hard; it's just that "scientists" are actually human beings, so it is very uncommon for someone who is both intelligent and ambitious enough to put in the effort to get through grad school, essentially locking himself into the career track of either teaching or conducting research according to the very strict parameters of an extremely dogmatic groupthink paradigm which makes no tolerance or allowance for progressing thinking or inquiry, who will then throw away the career he has chosen and experience the adverse consequences to his family by simply stating that his private beliefs don't match his public acceptance. My brother (who teaches chemistry at a university in the Midwest) and I used to joke about how any "educated" person could put any stock in the Big Bang Theory, or in the Theory of Evolution. Yet neither of us would discuss our misgivings about bad science with colleagues, on account of having much to lose and nothing to gain from it. This is a common characteristic of individual adherence to propaganda and groupthink; social psychological research has shown that a wide gap exists between private acceptance and public overtures in many areas. In my experience there is no issue more divisive among thinking people than the one in question. That the new scientific paradigm, being a human endeavor, and humans being subject to all kinds of passions and extrinsic interests, is not the only exception to the rule that every attempt which humans have made to understand nature has been wrought with fallibility and errors, ought to be clearly understood by anyone objective enough to fancy himself a proper scientist. Yet in spite of this, the paradigm is not without is share of vocal critics, who are evidently never met with reasonable responses to their serious objections, and who have historically been vindicated again and again by experimentation and no less acceptance of their positions than the hostility they incurred. I know the mentality of these rogue pioneers, and the vast majority of them would have scoffed at the BBT not for its attempt at answering a difficult problem (that of--forgive me for being overly simplistic here, but--reducing existence to effect without cause, i.e. philosophical naturalism, atheism), but for the acceptance which it has gained in spite of having had its underlying assumptions shot to pieces again and again. Some less capable scientists aren't even recognized as such because they do take the hard road and forfeit their careers, and wind up on the creationism lecture circuit or wherever, where they continue to have their credentials put into question and other such ad hominem attacks. I'm reminded of Kent Hovind, who, being innocent of his charges and they being trumped up because he was recognized as an enemy of the establishment (a heretic), had a judge tell him, on the public record, that what he was teaching was the reason she was sending him to prison. In other words, we haven't made much progress since Socrates drank the hemlock. I don't know about you, but that's not exactly the kind of world I want to live in. It is, however, the consensus which you're appealing to. I would also add that while such a consensus generally does exist, there is no consensus as to the how we know what we claim to know. Case in point: how many Darwin-loving biologists do you know that would call On the Origin of Species a scientific reference manual? And you've also got to realize that the consensus was artificially induced in academia and the public consciousness in the early 60s as Cold War scare tactic, that every since then there has been a deliberate and routine cover-up as well as willful ignorance of research conducted outside the US and UK or without government funding because it doesn't fit the government paradigm (do some investigation of the safety of GMOs or of the neurotoxicity of vaccines and you'll see what I mean), and of such things as scientists reneging on positions which they have popularized due to widely disseminated and politically motivated agendas driven by financial interests (e.g. Out of Africa hypothesis). Again, this has always been the case since the dawn of Man, and yet those of the new scientific paradigm pretend like all that's changed since the speed of light was last officially changed in 1972. Really, guys?
Either you don't understand the first principles of science (the philosophical assumptions that go into the composition of laws, not the secondary principles, which are the laws themselves), or else you're misinformed by someone who has tried to explain them away in a vain attempt to outwit them and rewrite the matter-of-fact history of the universe, presumably in order to justify an irrational and rather absurd religious sentiment (atheism), which itself is the mere rejection of another religious sentiment and not actually anything rooted in empirical observation. I imagine the explanation goes like this: "BBT isn't rejected by these laws because it doesn't claim anything came into existence," while failing to remark on the inevitable implication that it hasn't answered anything relevant to the origin of the matter/energy, and has only therefore complicated the matter and thus rendered itself an unscientific as well as unsubstantiated hypothesis. Simple question: If the BBT isn't being tauted as a valid alternative to the view that the universe was created by an intelligent being or other outside mechanism, as is its original and sole purpose, then what good is it? And I know people here (atheists) will read about half of the first sentence of what I've typed, ignore the rest, and then chime in about how I've allegedly got something wrong with me, etc., etc. I couldn't care less. In any case, it's remarks like this, bare assertions in response to valid objections or refutations, and unwillingness to provide references for unsubstantiated claims, which make scientists generally unwilling and uninterested in arguing with laymen, or listening to whatever they have to say. And while you might reasonably infer that you don't need to care about their views to any extent or engage them in such discourse, according to their terms or the universal rules of logic and argumentation, it is a bit hypocritical to obliquely cite an unnamed cosmologist you might have once read as a means of persuasion in support of a hypothesis you have about something which is pertinent to scientific investigation.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Just to let you know that I did not read the above simply because of the volume, as my long experience is that there's no way to respond to such an essay. If you want to dramatically shorten it and get to the point, I'll read it.
BTW, I'm a retired scientist (anthropologist).