-
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!
Problems & confusion with the Multiverse
- Thread starter gnostic
- Start date
nPeace
Veteran Member
The Inflation 'theory', is a good example of what I meant by adjusting to fit the model.
The most commonly accepted solution among cosmologists is cosmic inflation, the idea that the universe went through a brief period of extremely rapid expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang; along with the monopole problem and the horizon problem, the flatness problem is one of the three primary motivations for inflationary theory
The most commonly accepted solution among cosmologists is cosmic inflation, the idea that the universe went through a brief period of extremely rapid expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang; along with the monopole problem and the horizon problem, the flatness problem is one of the three primary motivations for inflationary theory
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You evidently missed the point.
It's probably my fault though. I should have picked out one or two specifics. I keep forgetting I am on RF.
Good grief, talk about moving the goal posts. Most of these aren't even referencing the same page you gave me before!
However, basically the answer is the same, these are all known unknowns - we are not dealing with properly tested theories. Inflation is probably the most widely accepted but I know of some vocal critics and we run out of fully tested theories as we extrapolate backwards towards the BB. Basically, the closer we get, the less certain things are, and we've run out of full tested theory well before we get to any inflationary epoch.
nPeace
Veteran Member
They aren't.
I must be losing my mind.
I think you might have misinterpreted what I said, and the point I am making.
What was my point again? Maybe go back to the first of my posts, you responded to.
How circular is that.
>>It is assumed the predictions are correct, therefore the model is correct. If the model is correct...>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Assumed the predictions are correct
the inflation idea can be made to predict almost any outcome. It would also generate primordial gravitational waves, which have not been found.
On March 21, 2013, the European Space Agency held an international press conference to announce new results from a satellite called Planck. The spacecraft had mapped the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, light emitted more than 13 billion years ago just after the big bang, in better detail than ever before. The new map, scientists told the audience of journalists, confirms a theory that cosmologists have held dear for 35 years: that the universe began with a bang followed by a brief period of hyperaccelerated expansion known as inflation. This expansion smoothed the universe to such an extent that, billions of years later, it remains nearly uniform all over space and in every direction and “flat,” as opposed to curved like a sphere, except for tiny variations in the concentration of matter that account for the finely detailed hierarchy of stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters around us.
Therefore, the model is correct.
In the years since, more precise data gathered by the Planck satellite and other instruments have made the case only stronger. Yet even now the cosmology community has not taken a cold, honest look at the big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics who question whether inflation happened. Rather cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents' assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe.
Isn't it true that many predictions were false, but the model is retained, and adjustments made to fit the model?
The most commonly accepted solution among cosmologists is cosmic inflation, the idea that the universe went through a brief period of extremely rapid expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang; along with the monopole problem and the horizon problem, the flatness problem is one of the three primary motivations for inflationary theory.
Goal posts. I haven't moved them. Are you?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Which, as I pointed out, was a total misunderstanding. I explained in detail why that was, see #97 - and now you've shot off on an irrelevant tangent about the very edges of our understanding, where lots of competing tentative theories, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations live, with are all totally irrelevant to the explanation I gave you.I suggest you go back and read it again, try to understand it, and if you still think all this stuff is relevant, I suggest you ask questions because it means you haven't understood.
Which is one reason why inflation isn't considered a well tested theory, and is irrelevant to the point. If you are struggling to make unique predictions, then you have a problem with the model.
I'm well aware that it's popular because if offers simple explanations to some problems (possibly) but even the underlying mechanism isn't known, so thinking it's a fully developed model, is just wrong. And, as I said before, its acceptance if far from universal - it has many critics.
To go back to the original point. If there was a fully developed model that had made multiple tested predictions, and it also implied a multiverse (and, to be clear, no such model yet exists), then we could infer a multiverse with reasonable confidence.
Bringing in incomplete models with known problems, is just irrelevant.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It's not circular at all.
If a model is correct, then what it predicts will also be correct.
It follows by definition.
If predictions of a model or wrong, then the model itself must also be wrong (or at least incomplete).
It follows, again, by definition.
That's not at all what I said.
This is true of all science throughout history. Nothing is ever proven, but hypotheses and models have been found false, and either discarded or modified to be tested again.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Thank you.
This is what I know to be true.
As you rightly said, some models are kept, and adjusted, and I would add, some hypotheses are proposed as solutions to retain the model, even if those solutions cannot be tested or verified... or might be assumed to be correct, even if there can be other explanations, or those solutions have problems themselves.
The most commonly accepted solution among cosmologists is cosmic inflation, the idea that the universe went through a brief period of extremely rapid expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang; along with the monopole problem and the horizon problem, the flatness problem is one of the three primary motivations for inflationary theory.
Horizon problem
Contrary to this expectation, the observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and galaxy surveys show that the observable universe is nearly isotropic, which, through the Copernican principle, also implies homogeneity.
...
The theory of cosmic inflation has attempted to address the problem...
Am I saying something wrong?
Can you point out what, please.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The problem is that what you're saying is totally irrelevant to the point you were answering and to your spurious accusation of circularity. It just indicates that you've completely missed the point.
nPeace
Veteran Member
What was the point?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The fact that inflation of the universe is objectively observed is the primary objective evidence for the inflation of the universe. It is not a theory, though various versions of the 'Origins(?) of the universe may be called theories.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I'm sorry, you'll need to be specific.
I made one point, which you jumped on.
If I wanted to address every point in post 17, I would have, but I didn't.
If you didn't want to address my point, you didn't have to, but you did, so don't tell me you jumped on a point, to then ignore it, and want me to focus on other points... because why... It's a valid point you can't handle?
Please...
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
You're talking about cosmic inflation?
It's on the list of unsolved problems in physics... Of which it is said...
Some of the major unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result. The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail.
How do you figure it is "objectively observed"?
gnostic
The Lost One
You said OT as in Old Testament, as falsifiable. You wrote:
No, it doesn't make anything in the Old Testament falsiable.
Knowing that the Earth isn’t “eternal“, doesn’t make any parts of the OT Bible or Genesis, “falsifiable”, because the other details in Genesis 1 & 2 provide false claims to information…
…information pertaining to Earth history, to astronomy, and to how life form, “magically”, because the false claims in Genesis clearly claimed “God did it”.
Any claim to “God did it”, make the events to Genesis creation “unfalsifiable”, because God himself as the source of creation, is what make everything relating to these 2 chapters in Genesis “unfalsifiable” and “untestable”.
For any event that God being responsible for in Genesis 1 & 2, then you must be able to observe God, measure God, test God, etc, but you cannot do any of that, so the “God did it” are mere conjectures and unsubstantiated superstitions.
The basic objective observable evidence of the expanding universe is the red shift galaxies showing the expansion of the universe. I realize the beginning is still unknown with a number of possible theories, bit the universe is expanding beyond any reasonable doubt.
The Big Bang Theory is an explanation of the early development of the Universe. According to this theory, the Universe expanded from an extremely small, extremely hot, and extremely dense state. Since then it has expanded and become less dense and cooler. The Big Bang is the best model used by astronomers to explain the creation of matter, space and time 13.7 billion years ago. What evidence is there to support the Big Bang theory? Two major scientific discoveries provide strong support for the Big Bang theory: • Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed; and • the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation.
The expanding universe
When scientists talk about the expanding Universe, they mean that it has been increasing in size ever since the Big Bang. But what exactly is getting bigger? Galaxies, stars, planets and the things on them like buildings, cars and people aren’t getting bigger. Their size is controlled by the strength of the fundamental forces that hold atoms and sub-atomic particles together, and as far as we know that hasn’t changed. Instead, it’s the space between galaxies that are increasing – they’re getting further apart as space itself expands. How do we know the Universe is expanding? Early in the 20th century, the Universe was thought to be static: always the same size, neither expanding nor contracting. But in 1924 astronomer Edwin Hubble used a technique pioneered by Henrietta Leavitt to measure distances to remote objects in the sky. Hubble used spectroscopic red-shift data to measure the speeds these objects were travelling then graphed their distance from Earth against their speed. He discovered that the speed at which astronomical objects move apart is proportional to their distance from each other. In other words, the farther away objects are from Earth, the faster they are moving away from us. This became known as Hubble’s law. One explanation might be that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe, and everything else is moving away from us, but that seems pretty unlikely! M 83 (NGC 5236, Southern Pinwheel) is a barred spiral galaxy about 15 million light-years from Earth. It’s moving away from us at about 513 km s-1. credit: SPIRIT image by Paul Luckas distance from Earth, parsecs recessional velocity, km s-1 1000 500 0 0 106 2 x 106 Right: Simplified graph of Hubble’s data. Hubble plotted the recessional velocity of celestial objects (the speed that they’re moving away from Earth) against their distance from Earth (1 parsec = 3.26 light years). He found that objects farther away from Earth tended to be travelling faster. Some nearby objects are travelling towards Earth – these have negative recessional velocities. ast0959 | Evolution of the Universe 3: Evidence for the Big Bang (fact sheet) developed for the Department of Education WA © The University of Western Australia 2014 for conditions of use see spice.wa.edu.au/usage version 1.0 page 2 The relationship Hubble discovered was later used as evidence that the Universe is expanding. It’s a bit like dots on a surface of an expanding balloon: it doesn’t matter what dot you choose, every other dot is moving away from it, and the dots farthest away are moving the fastest. Of course, the surface of a balloon is an expanding two-dimensional shape, whilst the expanding Universe is an expanding three (or more) dimensional shape. Balloons also expand into existing space, while the Universe includes all of space itself, so can’t be expanding into anything. Hubble also realised that distant objects he’d been observing lay far beyond the Milky Way. This was the first time humans discovered that structures existed outside the Milky Way. We now know that the objects that Hubble observed are galaxies, similar to our own Milky Way and that there are billions of them in the observable Universe. Hubble’s discovery provided additional evidence for what was to become known as Big Bang theory, first proposed by Georges Lemaître in 1927. It was a major step forward for astronomy. Compare Hubble’s image of the Andromeda Galaxy taken in 1923 (left) with a recent image that shows much more detail for the same galaxy (right). Hubble’s photographic plate is reversed (stars appear black against a bright sky). credit: Hubble image of M 31 — Carnegie Observatories; M 31 galaxy — Bill Schoening, Vanessa Harvey/REU program/NOAO/AURA/NSF Hubble’s law allowed astronomers to calculate how long ago galaxies started moving apart, which provides an estimate of when the Big Bang occurred and how old the Universe is. Hubble initially underestimated distances to these remote galaxies. He calculated that the Universe was about 2 billion years old. Geologists immediately condemned Hubble’s finding because they had measurements showing the Earth to be somewhere between 3 and 5 billion years old. The Universe couldn’t possibly be younger than the stars and planets in it! The issue was resolved in the 1950s when new data showed that the Universe was between 10 and 20 billion years old. Today, our best estimate is that it’s 13.7 billion years old. The age of the Universe The Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) shows galaxies so far away that their light has taken 13.2 billion years to reach us. The image ‘looks back in time’ to when the Universe was 500 million years old. credit: NASA, ESA, G. Illingworth, D. Magee, and P. Oesch (University of California, Santa Cruz), R. Bouwens (Leiden University), and the HUDF09 Team ast0959 | Evolution of the Universe 3: Evidence for the Big Bang (fact sheet) developed for the Department of Education WA © The University of Western Australia 2014 for conditions of use see spice.wa.edu.au/usage version 1.0 page 3 According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was initially very hot and dense. As it expanded, it cooled (your refrigerator works on the same idea, expanding a liquid into a gas to cool the inside). Cosmologists were able to calculate the theoretical temperature of today’s Universe and began to search for evidence of it. It was eventually discovered by accident in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson as ‘noise’ in an antenna they had built to research how radio signals could be reflected off orbiting satellites. They first thought it was radio interference from nearby New York City, but eventually recognised it as radiation from beyond the Milky Way. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) that Penzias and Wilson observed is leftover heat radiation from the Big Bang. Today, CMBR is very cold due to the expansion and cooling of the Universe. It’s only 2.725 Kelvin (-270.4 °C), which is only 2.725 °C above absolute zero. Cosmic microwave background radiation fills the entire Universe and can be detected day and night in every part of the sky. Penzias and Wilson detected cosmic microwave background radiation with this microwave horn antenna in New Jersey, USA, in 1964. credit: NASA artist’s impression of the COBE satellite in orbit credit: NASA / COBE Science Team nine-year microwave sky image from WMAP credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team Studying CMBR The Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE) was launched in 1992 to look for small variations in CMBR temperature. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe spacecraft (WMAP) was launched in 2001 to measure variations more accurately. Cosmologists believe that tiny temperature variations in the CMBR are caused by differences in the density of matter in the early Universe. Areas of different densities led to the formation of galaxies and stars. The WMAP survey After nine years of observation the WMAP survey produced a detailed temperature map of the entire sky. Colours indicate tiny variations in the temperature of background radiation. These correspond to places where galaxies formed. The WMAP survey shows CMBR is almost the same in all directions. Red spots are slightly warmer and blue spots are slightly cooler, but the difference is only about ±0.0002 of a degree. The WMAP survey provides strong evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. The pattern of radiation is similar to what astrophysicists predict it would be if the Universe started from a very dense state and expanded to its present size.
Last edited:
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ot = it
It was just a typo……………. Why would you assume that I meant Old Testament, when nothing in my comments is remotely related to the Old Testament?
If God / Multiverse / abiogénesis / Aliens / Unicorns / gohsts is the best explanation among competing hypothesis
And the sum of competing hypothesis accounts for all possibilities
The you would have conclusive evidence for If God / Multiverse / abiogénesis / Aliens / Unicorns / gohsts etc.
If you would have seen Jesus died in the cross and then you would have seen his body resurrected…….. you would consider this to be conclusive evidence for God,
If your darwers start to open and close, and then you listen to a voice that says “booo I am your grate grand ma” you would conclude that Gohsts exists
If you go to an other planet and you find pyramids and art work, you would conclude that Aliens did it
Etc.
You don’t need to observe/Meassure/test......... God or Ghosts or Aliens directly in order to arrive at such conclusions.
nPeace
Veteran Member
If you realize that, what is the reason for this post?
Was it not the first moments of time - the "theory" of cosmic inflation that was being refered to.
So, if there is no objective verifiable evidence for that, it is not too difficult a thing for you to say, there isn't, is there?
???
My argument is for the expansion of the universe. Your 'arguing for ignorance' does not negate the support for a type of beginning of our universe demonstrated by the math models and application of our knowledge of the early years of expansion.
What would be a alternate explanation for the evidence we presently have?
nPeace
Veteran Member
What explanation do you have that is true?
Since you know of none, why do you want to argue over beliefs?