Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

Because there continues to be time.

Persistence of existence is *time*. To go beyond that focus on time, you need to go to a 4-dimensional perspective. In that, the rock 'just is' as a rock *through time*. The universe 'just exists' as a universe 'through time'. The 4-dimensional geometry is 'fixed' with time and space *within* it.

Continuing to exist *is* time. You need to jump up a level and look at spacetime as an entity.

Such is your claim. I find it to be a useless viewpoint.

I can see it as spacetime, but as I said, I see time as a handy human construct for managing life's activities, but the real is eternal existence, that is the goal to realize.

It is understood that as an atheist, you have your own beliefs. God bless you Polymath.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok, you consistent remind religious folk that a subjective experience does not make it true.
Now reflect on BB theory wrt the beginning whereby you think that there was maybe no "before" the BB, Now that conception is a subjective mind ideation, there is absolutely no objective evidence that there was no "before", it is a mental conception only, thus a subjective ideation does not make it true, quote, "in fact it it is subject to self-delusion". No "before" the BB is self delusion, you want so much to avoid the truth that science has not a clue why or how a theoretical BB happened, so they make up an cock and bull story of no "before".

Yes, it's been an interesting excursion and I'm glad I engaged in some discussion with the "experts" on this board. as if they know. It helps me to realize they don't know what they're talking about. No insult to those folks intended. Just the way it is. Here's how one possibility of "what's beyond" from livescience.com put it: "One form of the question asks, "Could you go somewhere that you could look 'beyond' the universe," the way one might peer beyond a cliff edge or look out a window to see the outside of a building? The answer to that query is "probably not."
(right. A good answer -- "probably not." Probably not? lol, that's right, probably not.) Does the Universe Have an Edge?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, it's been an interesting excursion and I'm glad I engaged in some discussion with the "experts" on this board. as if they know. It helps me to realize they don't know what they're talking about. No insult to those folks intended. Just the way it is. Here's how one possibility of "what's beyond" from livescience.com put it: "One form of the question asks, "Could you go somewhere that you could look 'beyond' the universe," the way one might peer beyond a cliff edge or look out a window to see the outside of a building? The answer to that query is "probably not."
(right. A good answer -- "probably not." Probably not? lol, that's right, probably not.) Does the Universe Have an Edge?

Yes, it is revealing to see the 'holes' in BB theory, and somewhat amusing to see the unrealistic conceptual 'patches' atheistic science creates to plug them up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it is revealing to see the 'holes' in BB theory, and somewhat amusing to see the unrealistic conceptual 'patches' atheistic science creates to plug them up.

That is funny. You cannot seem to find any "holes" in it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is funny. You cannot seem to find any "holes" in it.

No before? edges? no why? no how? shape? finite or infinite? etc......

Looks like all these theoretical possible shapes have edges/outside, The flat one looks good, the Gods can play soccer on it using the top one, but then if one like to ride, the saddle is the one of choice.

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

 

[viole]

I will take that as a no, you have no objective evidence of the moment of the BB, nor the reason why or how it began.

i have, but I need to know your level of knowledge so that I can adapt the discussion at the proper level. I don’t want to run the risk to lose you immediately with things like general relativity geodesics, and such.

so, what is your level of knowledge about the subject?

ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

No before? edges? no why? no how? shape? finite or infinite? etc......

Looks like all these theoretical possible shapes have edges/outside, The flat one looks good, the Gods can play soccer on it using the top one, but then if one like to ride, the saddle is the one of choice.

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

You do realize these are two dimensional analogs of the three dimensional space part of spacetime, right? They do not include the geometry of time in this.

Also, both the plane and the saddle are infinite in extent. No edges. The sphere also has no edges. In all cases, these depict all of space so there is no outside(except for different times).

 

[gnostic]

Like science, there is poor science and great science, it all depends on the scientist, so it is with religion. The difference between science and religion is that one primarily is looks out into the universal expression, and the other is looking into the source of that expression. Human religious institutions are mostly corrupt, and can not be held up as to what religion is meant to represent. If I were to suggest what the most important religious goal is, it would be to find out what and who one really is in the context of universal existence, not conceptually but really.

Science isn’t a religion.

There are no worshipping, no praying, in science. There are no supernatural beings (eg deities, angels, demons, jinns, spirits, fairies, etc), no supernatural phenomena or events (eg miracles, alchemy, divination, resurrection, reincarnation, afterlife, Nirvana, etc), no supernatural places (eg heavens, Hell, Olympus, Tartarus, Field of Reeds, Asgard, Valhalla, astral plane, etc). There are also no prophets, saints or messiah in science.

Neither Physical Science, nor Natural Sciences, make any attempt to model any supernatural, because they are all unfalsifiable...meaning they untestable, and therefore cannot be tested.

Yes, I know that in the past, religions and superstitions have mixed with Natural Philosophy (started by the Archaic Greek philosophers, 7th century BCE, eg Thales), like until 19th century, it was hard to separate astronomy from astrology.

It was the biologist, Thomas Henry Huxley, a friend and contemporary of Charles Darwin, who strongly supported separation of sciences and religions in universities and schools throughout Britain, during the late 19th century. Before the British government supported Huxley’s proposals, schools and universities were still teaching theology, and the Genesis Creation and Flood in science classrooms and lectures.

Although the Separation of Church and State, occurred a century-and-a-half earlier, coinciding with the Age of Enlightenment (early 18th century), this was mainly in politics and laws, not with education.

Sure, the 20th century, some groups still try to mix science with supernatural, like the supposedly “scientific” research on paranormal phenomena (eg ghosts, spirits, astral projection) and psychic phenomena (eg telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, remote viewing, etc), but Parapsychology is now deemed as pseudoscience.

And then there are still creationists trying to teach creationism, using propaganda and, applying political pressures or giving money, to pressure or bribe school boards to teach religions in science classes, eg Intelligent Design, and Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and Dembski’s Specified Complexity, all fake sciences.

Astrology, parapsychology, creationism, Intelligent Design, etc, are not science at all.

No, sciences aren’t religions, but that doesn’t stop some religious people interfering in sciences.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

i have, but I need to know your level of knowledge so that I can adapt the discussion at the proper level. I don’t want to run the risk to lose you immediately with things like general relativity geodesics, and such.

so, what is your level of knowledge about the subject?

ciao

- viole

You have no objective evidence and you know it!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You do realize these are two dimensional analogs of the three dimensional space part of spacetime, right? They do not include the geometry of time in this.

Also, both the plane and the saddle are infinite in extent. No edges. The sphere also has no edges. In all cases, these depict all of space so there is no outside(except for different times).

So how do you respond to the article that states clearly that science does not know if the universe is finite or not, nor does it know if there are edges or not, nor does it know what shape it is. Add to this that science does not even know why the universe happened, nor how it happened.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Science isn’t a religion.

There are no worshipping, no praying, in science. There are no supernatural beings (eg deities, angels, demons, jinns, spirits, fairies, etc), no supernatural phenomena or events (eg miracles, alchemy, divination, resurrection, reincarnation, afterlife, Nirvana, etc), no supernatural places (eg heavens, Hell, Olympus, Tartarus, Field of Reeds, Asgard, Valhalla, astral plane, etc). There are also no prophets, saints or messiah in science.

Neither Physical Science, nor Natural Sciences, make any attempt to model any supernatural, because they are all unfalsifiable...meaning they untestable, and therefore cannot be tested.

Yes, I know that in the past, religions and superstitions have mixed with Natural Philosophy (started by the Archaic Greek philosophers, 7th century BCE, eg Thales), like until 19th century, it was hard to separate astronomy from astrology.

It was the biologist, Thomas Henry Huxley, a friend and contemporary of Charles Darwin, who strongly supported separation of sciences and religions in universities and schools throughout Britain, during the late 19th century. Before the British government supported Huxley’s proposals, schools and universities were still teaching theology, and the Genesis Creation and Flood in science classrooms and lectures.

Although the Separation of Church and State, occurred a century-and-a-half earlier, coinciding with the Age of Enlightenment (early 18th century), this was mainly in politics and laws, not with education.

Sure, the 20th century, some groups still try to mix science with supernatural, like the supposedly “scientific” research on paranormal phenomena (eg ghosts, spirits, astral projection) and psychic phenomena (eg telepathy, telekinesis, levitation, remote viewing, etc), but Parapsychology is now deemed as pseudoscience.

And then there are still creationists trying to teach creationism, using propaganda and, applying political pressures or giving money, to pressure or bribe school boards to teach religions in science classes, eg Intelligent Design, and Behe’s Irreducible Complexity and Dembski’s Specified Complexity, all fake sciences.

Astrology, parapsychology, creationism, Intelligent Design, etc, are not science at all.

No, sciences aren’t religions, but that doesn’t stop some religious people interfering in sciences.

I stated that purpose of religious teaching is different to the purpose of science teaching, on that we can agree. And in the same way an atheist may air the perception of flaws in religious teaching. so a theist may point out their perceived flaws in science,

And in the context of the BB universe claims, science does not know if the universe is finite or not, nor does it know if there are edges or not, nor does it know what shape it is, nor does not it know why the BB happened, nor does it know how it happened.

You see, you would need a lot of faith to believe that contemporary science already knows universe well. When I give the true believers a break by saying that that science will know much more in the future, I am looked upon as a blasphemer as though it is already concluded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So how do you respond to the article that states clearly that science does not know if the universe is finite or not, nor does it know if there are edges or not, nor does it know what shape it is. Add to this that science does not even know why the universe happened, nor how it happened.

The article that you linked was quite clear on the curvature of the universe:

"Ωtotal = Ωmass + Ωrelativistic + ΩΛ = 1.00±0.02."

"Using a method similar to this, the BOOMERanG experiment has determined that the sum of the angles to 180° within experimental error, corresponding to an Ωtotal ≈ 1.00±0.12.[15]"

They measured the curvature two different ways and both of them show it to be "flat" to within experimental error.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The article that you linked was quite clear on the curvature of the universe:

"Ωtotal = Ωmass + Ωrelativistic + ΩΛ = 1.00±0.02."

"Using a method similar to this, the BOOMERanG experiment has determined that the sum of the angles to 180° within experimental error, corresponding to an Ωtotal ≈ 1.00±0.12.[15]"

They measured the curvature two different ways and both of them show it to be "flat" to within experimental error

In reality, determining the value of the density parameter and thus the ultimate fate of the universe remains one of the major unsolved problems in modern cosmology.

What is the shape of the universe?

It should be pointed out that a flat Universe is not universally accepted. Some studies have shown that other measurements, such as the amount of gravitational lensing – how much the CMB is distorted by the gravity of matter in its path – is more consistent with a closed Universe.
What shape is the Universe? | BBC Science Focus Magazine

Although the exact shape of the universe is still widely debated among scientists, observations of the CMBR have revealed that our universe has a curvature of zero, meaning that the universe is flat. However, do not think of a flat universe as being as flat as a sheet of paper. Rather, a flat universe is still three dimensional. Furthermore, the universe could be so large that any attempts to determine its shape are pointless.​

https://www.worldatlas.com/space/what-shape-is-the-universe.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Ben Dhyan both of your articles acknowledge that most accept the flat universe. There ae a few that disagree. But their evidence does not appear to be as strong as the evidence that tells us it is flat.

 

[YoursTrue]

...General relativity has been extensively tested. The BB is what you get when you apply GR to the universe as a whole.

It is? I mean like how do you know?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is? I mean like how do you know?

He can do the math. I can't.

 

[gnostic]

But a mathematical theory based on a theory that has been verified by observation is. General relativity has been extensively tested.

It is? I mean like how do you know?

It was mathematically formulated and predicted, first by Alexander Friedmann, who presented the modified field equations of General Relativity, which is now called Friedmann equations, by including a Friedmann metric (now called the FLRW metric). Independently, Georges Lemaître in 1927 and Howard Percy Robertson in 1924 & (with Walker) 1935 came up with similar ideas with Einstein’s field equations, and their respective metric.

Plus, both Robertson & Lemaître (independently) predicted the Redshift, to measure the expansion.

Together, using General Relativity equations together with the Redshift, Edwin Hubble (with the Hooker Telescope in 1929) had made the first observations of the redshift. Hence, the first test, the first evidence.

And so, together they make up the Hubble’s Law.

The Hubble’s Law (Friedmann equations and Redshift) is still being used today, hence “verified” and “tested” BY JUST ABOUT EVERY OBSERVATORIES in the world, as well as NASA & ESA (European Space Agency, who were responsible for the Planck mission).

There are several observatories that do Redshift surveys, eg Sloan Digital Sky Survey, 2df Galaxy Redshift Survey, DEEP2 Redshift Survey, etc. Even the Hubble Space Telescope is capable of measuring the redshifts of distance galaxies.

So YoursTrue, yes, the Big Bang models have been tested, in the decades that followed the 1929's first discovery. Actually it is nearly 100 years since Hubble's findings.

The second important evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, predicted back in 1948, discovered in 1964. That too have been verified by the COBE & WMAP from NASA, and the Planck from Planck.

So again, the BB theory has been tested.

 

[Polymath257]

It is? I mean like how do you know?

Because I know the equations of general relativity and have seen the derivation of the BB model from them.

The basic model starts with a homogeneous and isotropic universe, plugs that into the equations for general relativity and the basic BB model pops out. Then, using the equations for thermodynamics, we get the description of the hot BB model. Then, we allow variances from the basic model: density fluctuations, etc. When these are put into the equations for general relativity, and thermodynamics, we are able to model the cosmic background radiation.

The predictions of these models (red-shifts proportional to distance for close galaxies, spectrum of the CMBR, prediction of the fluctuations in the CMBR, etc) have been extensively tested and have been verified by observation.

If you felt like it, you could learn some math (mainly calculus and differential equations, but linear algebra and differential geometry is quite relevant), learn a bit of physics (primarily general relativity) and actually go through the derivations. They are done in most cosmology books at graduate level (the basics are sometimes done at the undergraduate level).

It takes work and the willingness to learn, but it can be done and is freely available to everyone.

 

[Polymath257]

First, realize that the density parameter being 1 to within experimental error means that it is *possible* for the universe to be flat, or large and positively curved, or large and negatively curved.

The problem is similar to trying to determine the curvature of the Earth by looking at things only within a mile of one spot. It is very close to being flat on that scale. Similarly, the universe is very close to being flat on the scales we are able to observe.

But, just like the Earth, it is still possible for the universe to be negatively curved and thereby closed. if that is the case, then the universe is MUCH larger than what we can currently observe.

Similarly, it is quite possible that space is 'saddle shaped', but very large so that it looks flat for what we can observe.

The point is that a flat universe is right at the border of positive and negative curvature, so if the universe is actually flat, then there will *always* be some uncertainty about that fact. It will always be possible that another decimal place accuracy will tilt to one side or the other.
----------------------------

So how is it a weakness that we rely on data to determine between these possibilities and that a flat universe will *by necessity* always be somewhat in doubt?

 

[Polymath257]

I stated that purpose of religious teaching is different to the purpose of science teaching, on that we can agree. And in the same way an atheist may air the perception of flaws in religious teaching. so a theist may point out their perceived flaws in science,

And in the context of the BB universe claims, science does not know if the universe is finite or not, nor does it know if there are edges or not, nor does it know what shape it is, nor does not it know why the BB happened, nor does it know how it happened.

You see, you would need a lot of faith to believe that contemporary science already knows universe well. When I give the true believers a break by saying that that science will know much more in the future, I am looked upon as a blasphemer as though it is already concluded.

It is true that we do not know whether it is finite or not. If it *is*, then it has to be *very large*: far, far larger than what we can observe.

The current models work very well and do not have 'edges'. if there are edges, they are very far outside of the observable universe.

The shape has to do with whether it is finite or not. Again, it is very close to being flat, so there is an uncertainty as to whether it is actually flat or just very, very large and finite.

So, we rely on the data. That data says that the universe is very close to being flat, but the specifics have (and always will have) error bars, so the precise, large scale, shape is in doubt. If the data put the density parameter as smaller than 1, we would *know* the universe is finite. If it put it as definitely larger than 1, we would *know* that it is infinite. But, at this point, that parameter is 1 to within experimental error, so we do not know whether it is less than 1, equal to 1, or more than 1.

If it is actually equal to 1, we will *never* know that as a certainty. The error bars will always allow both more or less than 1.