Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[shunyadragon]

Oh, who cares? You do I suppose. But what you're saying doesn't make sense. Why is that? Because you agree that my first sentence is true. Since you say science cannot prove anything true or false. Discussion over. Bye.

No the first sentence is true, because irreducible complexity cannot be remotely falsify by scientific methods, because it is a subjective religious belief, Your distorted view of science is what is false.

Oh, let me dissect this a little. You, as a scientist(?) maybe -- or maybe not -- say with self-assuming authority that there is no proof in science. I am not saying that is not true. Now let me analyze this a bit. So anything scientists say or detect may or may not be -- true. Since there is no proof of their theories, as to whether any theory is true or false. OK, bye again..

I am a scientist yes a Geologist and Soil Scientist. There are scientists, physicists, chemists, biologists, and many other =ists, bit no Theorists.

 

[shunyadragon]

Pauli was a theorist. In fact, he was so theoretical that things started breaking on account of him just approaching an apparatus, or a lab.
in fact, science is full of theorists. The only recent one I know who was sort of both was Fermi.

so, you equivocate the activity of doing science with what is eventually accepted as science. The two things are different.

Theorists do science, but that does not entail that their theories become parts of science. Their theory need to be validated by experiment. In fact, they could spend their entire career doing science, without having nothing of what they did to become accepted science. I would say even Einstein spent 9/10 of his career doing science that never became accepted part of science.

Ciao

- viole

Scientists do science. Theorists? do not even exist. Scientists falsify theories and hypothesis withing their specialty in science through research m objective physical evidence, and discoveries.

What would the scientific specialty of Theorists?

 

[YoursTrue]

No the first sentence is true, because irreducible complexity cannot be remotely falsify by scientific methods, because it is a subjective religious belief, Your distorted view of science is what is false.


I am a scientist yes a Geologist and Soil Scientist. There are scientists, physicists, chemists, biologists, and many other =ists, bit no Theorists.

I respect the fact that you are a geologist and soil scientist. Very interesting, I am sure. But! -- I use the term irreducible complexity maybe wrongly, because it seems to me that there is a certain point in the way things grow (or are) that at a certain point substances like water which I learned is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, and it can be separated, it can evaporate, etc. But now there is, in my mind, I wonder, a certain point in which oxygen alone as a separate substance can break up naturally into something other than oxygen. Meaning smaller, if you know what I mean. Perhaps you know if it can be.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists do science. Theorists? do not even exist. Scientists falsify theories and hypothesis withing their specialty in science through research m objective physical evidence, and discoveries.

What would the scientific specialty of Theorists?

Not to continue this in particular, but aren't scientists, generally speaking, using theory in their pursuit of whatever they like to pursue origins or how whatever they are examining works?

 

[shunyadragon]

Not to continue this in particular, but aren't scientists, generally speaking, using theory in their pursuit of whatever they like to pursue origins or how whatever they are examining works?

No, scientists within their discipline propose hypothesis (most common throughout science) and on occasion theories based on previous evidence and knowledge. Base on this the scientists propose predictions that need to be confirmed through their and others research. They then do research and get objective evidence to confirm their predictions falsify the hypothesis and theories.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, scientists within their discipline propose hypothesis (most common throughout science) and on occasion theories based on previous evidence and knowledge. Base on this the scientists propose predictions that need to be confirmed through their and others research. They then do research and get objective evidence to confirm their predictions falsify the hypothesis and theories.

OK, I understand that to an extent. Although -- (here we go again) -- scientists (heaven forbid I use the word theoreticians) cannot conclude (from evidence? how the universe was formed?

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, I understand that to an extent. Although -- (here we go again) -- scientists (heaven forbid I use the word theoreticians) cannot conclude (from evidence? how the universe was formed?

True, from the scientific perspective we cannot conclude how out universe specifically began, but at present only Natural Laws and Natural Processes have been observed concerning the nature and origins of our universe and all possible universes. Though recently scientists have discovered a Supernova of a huge Red Giant star at 2 billion years after the beginning of our universe indicating the possible existence of other universes.

See new thread Secrets of an Earlier Universe Revealed by Red-Supergiant Supernova: Secrets of an Earlier Universe Revealed by Red-Supergiant Supernova

 

[YoursTrue]

True, from the scientific perspective we cannot conclude how out universe specifically began, but at present only Natural Laws and Natural Processes have been observed concerning the nature and origins of our universe and all possible universes. Though recently scientists have discovered a Supernova of a huge Red Giant star at 2 billion years after the beginning of our universe indicating the possible existence of other universes.

See new thread Secrets of an Earlier Universe Revealed by Red-Supergiant Supernova: Secrets of an Earlier Universe Revealed by Red-Supergiant Supernova

I saw something about that but it's not something I particularly am eager to follow the hypotheses surrounding this. The hypotheses can go on and on and on and...on...and...on...for a while at least. Perhaps we'll see.

 

[shunyadragon]

I saw something about that but it's not something I particularly am eager to follow the hypotheses surrounding this. The hypotheses can go on and on and on and...on...and...on...for a while at least. Perhaps we'll see.

Yes, it could be evidence of a multiverse.

 

[ratiocinator]

False, involving time and position of particles is not continuous time in the context of time/3Dspace as in the macro scale universe.

You seem to have got confused between the wavefunction and particle position. The position of a particle is not defined in QM except in the context of a 'measurement' but the wavefunction can be defined in terms of position and that position is consists of continuous coordinates. The same goes for time - it is always treated, by all the mathematics of QM, as a continuous variable. You are simply wrong about this.

 

[joelr]

First big outrageous foolish mistake. You apparently do not realize NOTHING IS PROVED IN SCIENCE.

Not only is it not outrageous or foolish, it's not even a mistake. You claim time is not continuous at the quantum scale, or that it behaves somehow different than at macroscopic scales.
So if nothing is proven then why are you making this claim as if it's true? By pointing out nothing is proven now your stance makes less sense.

But of course I never said anything was proven so that is a strawman. I said the evidence suggests time acts the same at a quantum scale, just as space does.

The problem is NOT Quantum behavior on the macro scale. Yes, there are Quantum properties on the macroscale. The problem remains there is no evidence of continuous time at the scale of Quantum particles.

I listed several indicators that demonstrate time is no different at the quantum scale. There is no evidence of gaps in time, atomic clocks, particle decay, virtual disturbances don't suddenly freeze in time. They all operate smoothly in time.

 

[exchemist]

Scientists do science. Theorists? do not even exist. Scientists falsify theories and hypothesis withing their specialty in science through research m objective physical evidence, and discoveries.

What would the scientific specialty of Theorists?

Was Einstein a scientist in your opinion? If so, of what type? If not, what was he, then?

 

[exchemist]

Not to continue this in particular, but aren't scientists, generally speaking, using theory in their pursuit of whatever they like to pursue origins or how whatever they are examining works?

Yes of course they are. @shunyadragon doesn't know what he is talking about. Scientist inevitably draw on existing theory in the design, execution and interpretation of their observations of nature. How could it be otherwise?

 

[joelr]

I don't know much about Zeus and Brahman. Are they said to have created the heavens and the earth?

So every religion starts with a creation story.

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[shunyadragon]

Was Einstein a scientist in your opinion? If so, of what type? If not, what was he, then?

Einstein was a Physicist. Of course he was a scientist

 

[RestlessSoul]

Einstein was a Physicist. Of course he was a scientist

He won the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics for his contribution to Theoretical Physics

 

[shunyadragon]

Not only is it not outrageous or foolish, it's not even a mistake. You claim time is not continuous at the quantum scale, or that it behaves somehow different than at macroscopic scales.
So if nothing is proven then why are you making this claim as if it's true? By pointing out nothing is proven now your stance makes less sense.

But of course I never said anything was proven so that is a strawman. I said the evidence suggests time acts the same at a quantum scale, just as space does.

Not a strawman. You used proof in reference to science. Science DOES NOT prove anything.

You stated: "First, so what? That doesn't prove or even suggest time isn't exactly the same at the quantum scale."

I listed several indicators that demonstrate time is no different at the quantum scale. There is no evidence of gaps in time, atomic clocks, particle decay, virtual disturbances don't suddenly freeze in time. They all operate smoothly in time.

No you did not. You described attributes of Quantum Mechanics on the macro scale You DID NOT describe continuous time/space on the Quantum scale of Quantum particles. There is no evidence that continuous time/space exists on the Quantum Scale

 

[joelr]

Here's what I know: the Mosaic writings and those of the Christian followers were primarily about a certain group of people, namely the Israelites. Although other groups are certainly mentioned in the Bible, that is true.
What other historical writings of these near eastern deities are you talking about?

Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter,

Francesca Stavrakopoulou PhD

9:00
The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh.
9:44 - Biblical ideas are based on ideas that Yahweh was unique. Nothing unique, find examples in much earlier religions, Yahweh is a local iteration of common deities



Francesca Stavrakopoulou Discusses Her Latest Book,

3:15 Yahweh is the same as older Greek gods. Anthropormorphic, dynamic, colorful, emotional, vivid, changeable, masculine, real body parts. In "God: An Anatomy" Francesca explains the Hebrew text is very explicit in this.

Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

The Enuma Elish (also known as The Seven Tablets of Creation) is the Babylonian creation myth whose title is derived from the opening lines of the piece,

www.worldhistory.org

Genesis/Enuma Elish

The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.

Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.


Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.

Yahweh

Yahweh is the name of the state god of the ancient Kingdom of Israel and, later, the Kingdom of Judah. His name is composed of four Hebrew consonants (YHWH, known as the Tetragrammaton) which the prophet...

www.worldhistory.org

The meaning of the name `Yahweh' has been interpreted as “He Who Makes That Which Has Been Made” or “He Brings into Existence Whatever Exists”, though other interpretations have been offered by many scholars. In the late middle ages, `Yahweh' came to be changed to `Jehovah' by Christian monks, a name commonly in use today.


The character and power of Yahweh were codified following the Babylonian Captivity of the 6th century BCE and the Hebrew scriptures were canonized during the Second Temple Period (c. 515 BCE-70 CE) to include the concept of a messiah whom Yahweh would send to the Jewish people to lead and redeem them. Yahweh as the all-powerful creator, preserver, and redeemer of the universe was then later developed by the early Christians as their god who had sent his son Jesus as the promised messiah and Islam interpreted this same deity as Allah in their belief system.
Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El. Canaanite inscriptions mention a lesser god Yahweh and even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that “the Most High, El, gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity). The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan.

 

[joelr]

Not a strawman. You used proof in reference to science. Science DOES NOT prove anything.

You stated: "First, so what? That doesn't prove or even suggest time isn't exactly the same at the quantum scale."

The point still stands, based on what evidence do you posit time is not continuous at the quantum scale?

No you did not. You described attributes of Quantum Mechanics on the macro scale You DID NOT describe continuous time/space on the Quantum scale of Quantum particles. There is no evidence that continuous time/space exists on the Quantum Scale

There is no evidence that it doesn't. Time is linked to space. Spacetime shows no evidence to think it isn't continuous at th equantum scale.
In fact theory demonstrates spacetime is not effected by quantum weirdness until the Planck scale where quantum effects will effect spacetime.

The latest atomic clocks use single atoms oscillating at a certain constant frequency and keep time better than any clock based on macroscopic parts. If time were not continuous this behavior would not be possible.

So we don't see any effects that would suggest a different time, theory predicts QM effects time and space at a far smaller scale and we rely on time being the same for atomic clocks and many other phenomenon.

 

[exchemist]

Einstein was a Physicist. Of course he was a scientist

I agree. A theoretical physicist. So a theorist, not an experimenter. And what about Paul Dirac? He held the chair of Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge. So he was a theorist too.