Bold above sounds like your approach to science with your awkward vague use of skepticism in this forum
Last edited:
-
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!
Let's not talk about the Big Bang
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
Yes, there are always unanswered questions, but nature of time/space and gravity in our universe, and the nature of time in the Quantum World are well understood You have offered nothing constructive, but static in the discussion. By the way again and again, there is no proof in science.
gnostic
The Lost One
As I said, maths are useful tools for sciences that help with explaining any physical phenomena or natural phenomena. And maths can help with finding solutions to solving problem...but if you were a scientist, you would have to above “good” with mathematician.
To give you an example.
Michael Faraday was great at solving problems and at explaining, but he was also known for being great at making experiments work. So he was a genius at explaining - both in writing & speaking - and at designing workable experiments that demonstrate electromagnetic fields work.
However, his mathematical skills is limited to only trigonometry and basic algebra.
It was Faraday’s younger contemporary, James Clerk Maxwell, who took Faraday’s electromagnetic theory to another level, with his brilliant equations that make understanding electromagnetic physics so much easier, and more importantly understanding how the equations work, allow for there to be many applications in electricity and electronics.
That’s sciences supposed to do, help with understanding.
As to the universe and cosmologies.
Many of the cosmologies relied on field equations of Albert Einstein from General Relativity.
It was Einstein’s field equations that provide the frameworks for most physical cosmologies, including the 1920s’ Expanding Universe models (before it became the Big Bang theory was coined in 1948).
Of course, his equations were modified to provide the exact solution to show the expansion of the universe (as well as the expansion of spacetime). These modifications were done by including a metric into the equations.
This metric was first formulated by Russian astrophysicist, Alexander Friedmann in 1922, while Georges Lemaître (in 1927) and Howard Percy Robertson with Arthur Jeffrey Walker (1931) came up with the same metric to be used in the field equations.
The metric became known as FLRW metric and modified field equations of Einstein became the Friedmann equations.
The original model of the Big Bang or Expanding Universe, were expanded and modified in 1948 (Hot Big Bang model), early 1980s ( Inflationary model) and the late 1990s (Lambda-CDM model), but the Friedmann equations & the redshift are still relevant today.
That’s how mathematics are relevant to the Big Bang theory. There are maths involved in each models of the Big Bang theory.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
So given there is no space without time, and no time without space, if there was a BB, space and time would come into existence simultaneously. Therefore it can be stated that the BB associated space and time came into existence out of no space and time existing, which means it unambiguously came from nothing!
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It doesn't matter what the name of the argument is. There is nothing beyond figuring skeletons and time tables that work into the theoretician's mindset about this. Nothing verifiable by actually being able to see the transfer of genetic streaming which they say causes a new clade.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We can presently observe that. We can observe the changes in generation to generation. We can test our ideas by various scientific theories and hypotheses. What is amazing is that you have absolutely no reliable evidence for your beliefs and yet you accuse others of "speculation" and other logical errors. That is an example of the pot calling the silverware black.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, you have your ways. I have mine.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You have made some totally unsupported claims about space-time and gravity at the "quantum scale" but you have totally failed to reference any evidence or current theory that supports them. You have made the claim, it is up to you to back it up.
I've been asking you to justify your claims. Something you should understand the need to do in the context of a discussion about science, especially when you are putting forward something that isn't a part of current theory.
I never claimed that there was.
Yet again "burden of proof" (onus probandi) is about whose responsibility it is to justify a claim. Obviously, in the context of science, that justification involves evidence, not absolute proof. It is a well understood term in context of logic. You really should look it up if you're not familiar.
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia
FinMasters - Master Your Finances and Reach Your Goals
Master your finances and reach your goals. We offer expert-driven advice and resources to help you earn, save and grow your money.
fallacyinlogic.com
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Which is what the flow of time is...... a succession of events.
Except that there is... it's the entire basis for the space-time continuum; ie the expanding universe.
And expanding universe requires the flow of time.
You make no sense.
It's like arguing that gravity is "just a concept" and that only mass exists.
I hear what you’re saying, but the thing is, if that is true then “time” is an utterly abstract entity, and merely descriptive of other things which do exist while having no existence of its own. See what I mean?Which is what the flow of time is...... a succession of events.
People generally speak of time as an actual thing which exists and into which all the events which occur in the universe are fit or “filed”(for lack of a better word) in chronological order. In this view, time is rather like a file cabinet which, instead of holding pieces of paper, holds instead events. In such a case as a cabinet of files, both the pieces of paper (the “files”) and the file cabinet are actual things which exist, and people seem to think of time as being a thing which similarly holds events in a certain order, like the file cabinet does. This is certainly how they speak about it. It seems to me that this is not a true conception. Rather, I think of time as an abstraction, somewhat like the words for other groups of things: a “mob”, the soccer “team”, the “band” Pink Floyd… These descriptors have no real existence apart from the people which compose them except in the human mind. They are immensely iseful ideas, such as when one wishes to purchase tickets to a particular soccer match, but they cannot be said to have concrete existence. It is so with time as well. The succession of events seems real, but the thing that we conceive of to exist when those events are grouped together retrospectively, time, seems to me not to be.
Now, the physicists proclaim, since Einstein, that that have evidence that there is truly something real called time upon which their theories depend, It is this which I am wrestling with, not having sufficient theoretical knowledge to be convinced. I suppose the task before me is to read up on relativity theory before I can make any evaluations about this concept of time, which I suspect of being rather unlike the concept which I have described above.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
A thing is an an utterly abstract entity, because you can't point to a thing. Nor can you point to existence. The same with existence of its own, that is the problem of "das Ding an sich". You are playing with different abstract concepts and declaring some relevant and other not so much. BTW I do that, I am just aware of it. Not that that makes it better.
No, you are flirting with solipsism here. There are things which do exist outside of your and my minds. There are, however, things alongside them which we create within our minds as useful tools for understanding and ordering reality, which cannot be said to have independent existence. We must learn to delineate between those categories.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but there are different kinds of solipsism and not only one. I never claimed to be a metaphysical solipsist. My point is epistemological.
Again, there was never a point at which it wasn't. There is only when it exists.
When you use the word 'then', you are assuming a progression in time. And that is precisely what is being denied if time began. There was no 'before' and 'after'. There is only a state of existence.
Think of it like this. Do we say the Earth wasn't south of the south pole? Or do we simply say there is no south of the south pole?
Precisely.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
How come you do philosophy as fact at some points in these debates and at other points you do if..., then...?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, that is it. It is unknown, stop there.
Again, you use the word 'then'. And that is either wrong or redundant.
If you mean there was a point when things were not, *then* there was a point at which they were, that is WRONG. There was no point at which there was not.
If, however, you mean 'then' only in the context of existence, it is redundant. We can simply say things exist.
Try NOT using the word 'then', which implies a progression in time: that non-existence happened *before* existence.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You are doing that whole argument in your head.
There was no 'before'.
All that exists, yes.
No, you are giving existence to the non-existent. It is NOT the case that there was a point *before* the BB. There was no 'then', which implies a progression. The universe of spacetime simply exists. No progression. Just existence. No t<0, only t>0.