Failure to respond to previous posts on Your intentional ignorance of science is overwhelming.
-
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!
On Evolution & Creation
- Thread starter READY S W
- Start date
I disagree on your extreme negative assessment of the scientific view of the possible existence and nature of a singularity. It is true"e cannot know the case,' but in terms of the current knowledge of science' we cannot know of anything with certainty concerning the singularity and the Quantum nature of our physical existence,
Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia
The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems (after Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking) are a set of results in general relativity that attempt to answer the question of when gravitation produces singularities. The Penrose singularity theorem is a theorem in semi-Riemannian geometry and its general relativistic interpretation predicts a gravitational singularity in black hole formation. The Hawking singularity theorem is based on the Penrose theorem and it is interpreted as a gravitational singularity in the Big Bang situation. Penrose was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2020 "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity", which he shared with Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
That has to do with the bureaucracy of science. Pure Science, like Physics, is not self sufficient with resources, like industry that uses applied science to make free market products; develop GPS tools. Physics type experiments; particle and cosmology, need an infusion of Government resources, since these need expensive tools and there is no direct economic gain in finding a new galaxy or quark. Nevertheless , it is good for the advancement of science.
That being said, Government has the money and therefore has the final say. BB is something the bureaucrats of Government can understand based on decades of exposure. The new and improved, makes them feel insecure, since bureaucrats also have to worry about career ambitions and potential blunders. They deal in lots of money and want to retire as high up as possible.
Also there is Big Boy table of Scientists, who have the most insider access and funnel funding, downward. If we did change directions, the fear is new people may come to the big table, and some may even muscle for the head of the table; politics of science. There is too much self benefit in the status quo and too much risk in the new and untested, that few want change. While such preliminary change will need resources, but not enough will not be forthcoming, to help protect the table. These humans inhibitions allow obsolete theory to linger beyond expiration date. The statistical model of life is another. That should have gone the way of the dodo bird in the 1950's.
My approach is to look at the conceptual framework. This does not need resources. This is done in your head with known observation and logic and inference. For example, I have shown how you can infer the universal red shift and the CBM; cosmic microwave background radiation, with only 2nd law or entropy considerations. Motion is a subset. This conceptual assumption can interface a before t=0 model, I developed; space-time and separated space and time. Separated space and time implies infinite entropy and the 2nd law is infinite entropy impacting space-time.
Several decades before, I intuitively developed what I called the MDT theory, which is very useful for interfacing separated space and time; foe t=0, with after t=0; space-time. Back then, I could not fully explain how and why the model worked. That original model predicts 6 possible t=0 or six universe creation scenarios, many of which are now considered alternate theories. The BB is one of those six predictions. I dis bootlick the BB scenario, since that is most popular and departure is a religious taboo. It can also be adapted to the predictions of the other five scenarios.
MDT stood for mass, distance and time potential; three separated variables than can blend. The space-time and separated space and time model, deals with distance and time potential; D and T. Mass potential, which was left to be unraveled, appears to deal with tethered space-time, since mass and GR or General Relativity, is what define specific space-time references. Mass potential is connected to space-time and GR. While the full MDT model is the interaction of space-time and independent space and time; macro and quantum. The model has so many prediction that fall out of the inspired diagram, both this was before I could explain the model; I had the answer before the solution. It has been on the back burner for years and the separated space and time, proven by Heisenberg's experiments, allows the MDT model to make full sense.
I do not have a copy of the unique diagrams. They were lost due to the original Physics Forums stopping broadcast, then I had a hard drive crash and finally my old iMac no was longer operative. They were diagrams of ancient alien dials, where you can tune in any state, and every parameter lines up. However, I had the foresight and the original diagrams were sent to the Copyright Office in Washington in 2007. I finally know how it all works, thanks to discussions we have had in these forums. Ironically, I was inspired to develop the needed physics on a Religious forum. I should commission the Copyright Office send me a copy. I believe I had them on CD-disk in PhotoShop format in my original editable layered files.
Two of the diagrams are connected to the electron and proton, respectively. These diagrams show every possible state, of each, as a combination of the three variables; MDT, with the different weight ratios of the three parameters, a different state; application in nature. If you wish to know how they behave in the center of a star and on the surface of the earth, for life; MDT ratios.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes, it's well known that GR predicts singularities, but we don't know how to combine it with QFT, and we know that in the extreme conditions at of the initial BB (and in black holes) that quantum effects will play a part. It's a known unknown, and singularities in physical theories are generally a sign that we've got something wrong or the theory is being applied beyond its scope. I've never even heard of a modern cosmological hypothesis that retains a singularity, and I quoted Matt Strassler before, who is in a far better position than you or I to talk about current ideas in cosmology.I disagree on your extreme negative assessment of the scientific view of the possible existence and nature of a singularity. It is true"e cannot know the case,' but in terms of the current knowledge of science' we cannot know of anything with certainty concerning the singularity and the Quantum nature of our physical existence,
Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems (after Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking) are a set of results in general relativity that attempt to answer the question of when gravitation produces singularities. The Penrose singularity theorem is a theorem in semi-Riemannian geometry and its general relativistic interpretation predicts a gravitational singularity in black hole formation. The Hawking singularity theorem is based on the Penrose theorem and it is interpreted as a gravitational singularity in the Big Bang situation. Penrose was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2020 "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity", which he shared with Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez.
Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?
Did the universe begin with a singularity? A point in space and/or a moment in time where everything in the universe was crushed together, infinitely hot and infinitely densely packed? Doesn’…
profmattstrassler.com
Worth adding that both Penrose and Hawking produced (different) cosmological models without singularities.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The government has no "final say" when it comes to peer review, which is also why it's such an important process.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It's astounding how many people you see on internet forums that have these amazing new theories and insights that show that all the experts have got it all wrong, and they alone have the answers.
They always have some great excuse for not publishing in respected science journals, and, oddly (not) none of them seem able to do mathematics or understand equations, even if they try to use them (as in your laughable attempt to use the free energy equation).
icant
Member
Hi ratiocinator,
Existence has been around since before the first man existed on earth. There was all kinds of things and events taking place with no way to figure out anything but to sleep, wake up work, darkness comes go back to sleep, because he had been so busy during the day trying to feed himself and his familie so, mankind devised a way to sort of divide up the light period which would be from the time the sun came up until it set. All you had to do was put a stick, or pole in the ground and then divide up the different parts of the light period in relation of the shadow that was cast by the pole, in relation to the sun. Later they came up with the base 60 in counting to base what the numbers would be.
So all they did was to divide up the light period into periods of duration and place a number on it. But the only thing that was measured was the length of the duration. That was done using the concept they came up with to measure the duration in existence between events.
I know you don't like that because it don't fit your world view. But that is the fact and that is what time is. It is the duration events in existence.
Beautiful chart but it only shows that an instrument on earth has more gradational force exerted on it than one further away from the center of gravity does.
A man on the moon could not walk around without a spacesuit on. The strongest gravity would be pulling him away from the moon not toward it.
Enjoy,
icant
Member
Who said anything about a theory of vaccines?
He had an assumption I can call a theory that if you insert dead polio viruses into live humans that they would never get the live virus. What if had said this will not work and went on his way to something else?
But he did experiment after experiments until he thought is was safe to administer to humans and he was the first one to receive the shot. He did not paten the medicine for personal gain.
His assumption was correct and he had a a medicine that prevented polio from attacking human's
So yes, he had a theory and his theory did a lot more for people than Einstein's did or ever will.
Enjoy,
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It was fine before we (some of us, anyway) knew better.
That went way over your head, then (no pun intended).
Something that is in orbit is in free-fall, so feels no gravitational 'force' (no matter how high the orbit is). There are two effects involved, one due to the placement in the gravitational field (the local 'curvature' of spacetime), and one due to relative velocity.
Both these effects were calculated using a GR which was published in 1915, before we had artificial satellites and atomic clocks to test it with.
In 1916 Einstein predicted gravitational waves from his theory. We had to wait until 2015 for the technology required to detect them, but the theory was again shown to be correct.
Perhaps you think these (and the countless other correct predictions of the theory) are just lucky coincidences and nothing at all to do with the nature of spacetime that was used to accurately predict them?
Nobody's that lucky.
icant
Member
You can't change a fact. You might hijack it and try to change to what you want it to be.
But first you got to falsify it.
No.
I just know that you can take numbers and make them say anything you want them to say as they are just numbers.
Enjoy.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You really don't understand this, do you?
Nobody manipulated the numbers after we'd seen what happened to atomic clocks in orbits. We already had the exact predictions based on a theory of spacetime from 1915. It got it spot on first time. Of course the theory already had a good track record of correct predictions.
If you don't think it's a massive series of impossibly lucky coincidences, then you really have no rational choice but to accept that the model is a close match to reality and hence that time and space are not separate and your old, simplistic notion of time is dead. Falsified by evidence.
The world of fundamental physics is far, far more weird and counterintuitive than just spacetime. If you find this hard to accept goodness knows what you think of quantum mechanics, yet the device you are using now wouldn't work without it.
This does not justify your previous aggressive campaign and rejection of the theoretical considerations of singularities and the Quantum World they would form in. Yes, all the present hypothesis of how singularities possibly form it would be in a Quantum World where we have the properties of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity.Yes, it's well known that GR predicts singularities, but we don't know how to combine it with QFT, and we know that in the extreme conditions at of the initial BB (and in black holes) that quantum effects will play a part. It's a known unknown, and singularities in physical theories are generally a sign that we've got something wrong or the theory is being applied beyond its scope. I've never even heard of a modern cosmological hypothesis that retains a singularity, and I quoted Matt Strassler before, who is in a far better position than you or I to talk about current ideas in cosmology.
Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity?
Did the universe begin with a singularity? A point in space and/or a moment in time where everything in the universe was crushed together, infinitely hot and infinitely densely packed? Doesn’…
Worth adding that both Penrose and Hawking produced (different) cosmological models without singularities.
It sounds like a religious agenda when you harp on what science "KNOWS" and the obvious differences between the present theories and hypothesis. Assume as most serious considerations in this discussion we no know nothing instead of splitting frog hairs over differences that have yet to be resolved, and unanswered questions..
Your responses make dialogues unproductive and combative.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What do you even mean by "Quantum World"? Quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are theories about this universe, and there is no such theory as quantum gravity yet (just lots of hypotheses and conjectures).
What scientists know is that we have no tested theory of quantum gravity. I'm pointing this out because you are making posts that imply that it's all done and dusted, and there is this larger context of the "quantum world" that you appear to have just made up.
My entire point is that we don't know some of the things that you keep on presenting as if they were established facts.
As for singularities, all the serious literature I've read on the subject doesn't take them seriously as representing a real physical state (of course you'll find them in GR textbooks, because that's what that theory alone tells us). They could all be wrong, of course, but it would be the first time that a singularity in a physical theory didn't turn out to be something we hadn't understood yet. For example, if you try to extend the spacetime coordinates of a distant observer from a black hole, you'll get a singularity at the event horizon, which turns out to simply be an indication that that coordinate system cannot be extended that far.
As I already pointed out, despite the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems, both of them produced models that removed the BB singularity. Penrose with conformal cyclic cosmology, and Hawking with the no boundary proposal.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Science is as only as good as the tools it uses. One can see mold growing on bread, over night. But since the bread looked clean yesterday and now we have this growing mass of mold, it would appear like spontaneous life appeared. This can be reinforced if you could not yet see the mold spores with with your tools, and how these spores are often air borne, and can land on anything, including clean things, and if there is water and food, the spores will grow. The lack of tools to explain and justify some past theory, until the tools catch up.
The main problem with evolution, is it starts the clock=0, at the first theoretical replicators. Science has never found any such replicators, to prove their foundation premise is valid. The whole theory is grounded on a foundation that has never been proven, with direct hard evidence. Hard evidence is important, correct! If I said God created the replicators, I would have the same amount of hard evidence. The foundation premise of modern evolution isa the same proof level, as a religious theory for evolution. Is there a dual evidence standard? I like science but not hypocrite science.
The problem with starting any theory so late, is it detaches from the previous chemical foundation, that brought the precursors of life to that point. It is sort of like, buying a house after it was built, with no knowledge of all the foundation, that got it to that point. You cannot just blow out wall, without having to go back and see how it was framed. Casino science may be needed to gloss over that understanding. Prediction is still in the prophesy stage; something in the future may happen, but where and when is not known; atheist religion.
NO, if a singularity formed it formed in a Quantum environment with Quantum Gravity.
Your perpetual arguing from ignorance clearly resembles an anti-science agenda expecting science to know absolutely.
The reverse is true I have made no claim o that there are established facts requiring to 'know'
I gave serious literature and you choose to ignore it.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Evolution is not about the start of life. It's about what happened to life after it started about 3.5 billion years ago.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There is no theory of quantum gravity yet, and "quantum environment" is meaningless.
I keep on pointing out what science doesn't know yet, but that you keep presenting as if it does.
The very first quote of yours above, is a meaningless claim about something we don't know happened, presented as if it were a fact.
I didn't ignore it at all. It was a proof about general relativity producing singularities, which is widely known. What you have ignored is that we don't know how any future theory of quantum gravity will change things. I also pointed out that both authors produced models without singularities.
icant
Member
So is a carpenter or surgeon or any other doctor and even with the proper tools they can still mess up.
No the clock did not start at zero. The clock did not start until there was a concept of time about 5,000 years ago. but the earliest clocks were kinda hard to tell what time it was as they had no dial All you had to do was to drive a stake in the ground where the sun could cause the stake to make a shadow. Then came Base 60 and better dials. Now we even have atomic clocks or one like one on my wrist.
Now if you want to talk about existence it has always existed.
You ask me how I know that existence is eternal.
Energy can not be created. Simple as that.
It can be harnessed and used to produce something. Like the chair I am sitting in that can be burned and produce warm air for a cold body. The ash then can be used to enrich the soil that can produce a tree which can be made into a house to live in or another chair to sit in.
Scientist need to be looking for the source of energy. But they got too many could of been, and might have been, along with all their assumptions and suppositions to worry about the source of what produced this universe'
Don't you know Atheist don't have a religion so they say
What I can't understand is they don believe in God why do they fight so hard to prove he does not exist. That seems to me to be a waste of time
I am a farm boy so I believe in evolution. We selectively breed animals and plants. We have got to the point we can genetically engineer both. That is just evolution on steroid's.
I just can't believe existence can begin from none-existence. Neither can I believe life can begin to exist from non-life.
I just do not have enough FAITH to believe such a fairy tale as our Atheist friends do. They got more fain than I have.
Enjoy,
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I've already explained this misunderstanding. It in no way at all implied an eternal past, and may well not be strictly true even today.Nobody can prove that no God exists. Many, or even most, versions of God are unfalsifiable. What we can do is challenge woolly thinking and superstition.
I don't think anybody does.
That's just blind faith. Something happened about 3.7 billion years ago on Erath to get life going. We have plenty of evidence for that.