Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Polymath257]

I said:
What happen with your apple if you take it way out beyond the influence of the Earth´s atmosphere and let it go?

Will it fall significantly faster to the Earth? Or will it float?

Oh please free me from such non sense metaphysical actions at different distances.

Just exchange the unnatural gravity law with the natural law of a atmospheric weight pressure which has same properties.

I notice that you haven't made a prediction of what will happen to an apple in a vacuum. In a vacuum, there won't be the 'weight of the air' acting on the apple, right?

So what do you predict it will do?

Oh, what do you predict will happen on the moon, which has almost no atmosphere? Will things fall there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can´t help you if you choose to avoid and ignore the questional implications in the article.

That is not how it works. If you present an article as evidence you must be ready to quote the passages that support your claims and explain why they do. This looks like a dodge on your part. I have a feeling that he understood the article far better than you did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I notice that you haven't made a prediction of what will happen to an apple in a vacuum. In a vacuum, there won't be the 'weight of the air' acting on the apple, right?

So what do you predict it will do?

Oh, what do you predict will happen on the moon, which has almost no atmosphere? Will things fall there?

I thought that only feathers and hammers fell on the Moon.

 

[Polymath257]

I thought that only feathers and hammers fell on the Moon.

And golf balls.

 

[Native]

Denial is also a typical trait of science deniers along with mathematical illiteracy.

Are you aware of the cosmological situations where your math is useless? You cannot even trust your math calculations of a wooden board as it changes constantly by simple temperature.

 

[Native]

There is no "natural law of an atmosphere"

Dear oh dear. Is it really necessary to inform you of the most simple scientific laws which can be measured by simple instruments?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was your point in this fly away rambling?

I see. A failure to understand basics concepts is "rambling".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dear oh dear. Is it really necessary to inform you of the most simple scientific laws which can be measured by simple instruments?

Oh dear. Is it really necessary that one does not get to make up scientific "laws" out of whole cloth?

By the way, laws are testable. When are you going to come up with a test for your law?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you aware of the cosmological situations where your math is useless? You cannot even trust your math calculations of a wooden board as it changes constantly by simple temperature.

Let's add understanding measurements to the concepts that you do not understand. All measurements have a margin of error. So of course one can calculate the area of a wooden board. Making unreasonable demands does not refute an idea.

 

[Polymath257]

I see. A failure to understand basics concepts is "rambling".

Not quite. because he doesn't understand the basic concepts, your exposition is considered (by him) to be rambling.

 

[Polymath257]

Dear oh dear. Is it really necessary to inform you of the most simple scientific laws which can be measured by simple instruments?

Please do. What scientific law goes by the name 'natural law of an atmosphere'?

Be specific.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, if you don't know what my take is on cosmology and you don't care, there is no point in continuing to engage me, so let it be. So long as you are content with your belief, so be it, I am happy for you.

Wait, you just said before that you don't care what my take on cosmology is and now you want to know what it is, you are nigh on impossible to follow?

No. That was Subduction Zone quoting MY REPLY to you.

Only the last two lines were SZ’s comment.

See what I mean, here comes gnostic attacking the messenger. Gnostic, contemporary bb science is not settled, new data from existing and new space based systems will undoubtedly bring new light and result in new understanding of the cosmos as time goes by. Does not being a scientist mean in your view that my message is to be dismissed.

I am not a scientist, nor I have ever claimed to be physicist, or in this case, an astrophysicist.

Yes, I have studied physics and maths, but only where they applied to my courses in civil engineering (1st half of 1980s) and computer science (2nd half of 1990s)...

...so i considered myself more engineer than a scientist/physicist.

Not once in either courses did they ever teach me Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, astrophysics, because they were not parts of courses’ syllabus and curriculum.

But I have interests in science, so I read some basic frameworks of each fields, scan the evidence and data that verify the theories, but avoid the maths. The last 15 years or more, I have been learning many different sciences that weren’t taught in subjects that I have attended.

I can deal with some famous basic and famous equations, but I leave the more advanced ones alone.

The advanced maths in these physics fields are often beyond my grasp, so I leave to others, like @Polymath257, @ratiocinator, @ecco, @exchemist, @Subduction Zone, @shunyadragon, @Valjean, etc, to explain.

 

[exchemist]

Does not being a scientist mean in your view that my message is to be dismissed.

Could be.

It depends on whether what you say makes any sense, scientifically speaking.

The thing is that, in science, you can't just make stuff up. Hypotheses only start to have value when observational evidence supports them. So all this tiresome nonsense about "true believers" in the Big Bang is just rhetorical garbage. There is evidence for the Big Bang theory. You are welcome to advance an alternative theory, but it will need to account for the evidence better than the Big Bang model does.

 

[gnostic]

You see no troubles even if astronomically educated scientists in the article states this:

"The Hubble observations challenge those estimates for the age of the universe that do not allow enough time for the galaxies to form and evolve to the maturity seen at an early epoch by Space Telescope".

This is no troubles and concerns for you Gnostic as you like to hold onto your indoctrinated convictions and theories of how scientific methods are working - instead ALSO of being updated on the cosmological problems which indicates huge cosmological perception questions.

That article was written in 1994.

The Planck mission, provide the most recent update (2013) to the age of the universe.

I would go with the most most recent revisions and updates.

Second, the article don’t debunk the Big Bang theory at all...and the article certainly don’t verify or validate your pseudoscience Electric Universe.

Your Electric Universe isn’t even falsifiable...which is more a dismal failure than the 1949’s Steady-State model, which was falsifiable but was debunked in 1964.

Unfalsifiable concepts are considered pseudoscience, like YEC, Intelligent Design, or your Electric Universe cosmology.

 

[gnostic]

I started this thread to learn more of other people's understanding of the big bang, not to propose an alternate theory because I don't have one, here is my opening post, "I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding."

So I have asked a lot of questions and have followed with interest the comments of others, I consider I have learned a lot about other people's beliefs and understanding of the bb which helps me understand a little more. I appreciate those who have contributed to this thread with a sincere spirit to pass on their understanding, despite the fact that I may not always accept everything that they have conveyed or tried to convey. BB is not a religion and so should be free of dogma that afflicts fundamentalism of all religions, and in some cases even science, bb being an example as is global warming. When I see the word denier being used, I understand what I'm dealing with.

But the Big Bang theory is being constantly tested, hence it isn’t a religion, nor it is dogma.

You are ignoring the evidence that back up the bb, so you are in denial.

The theory have undergone a number of changes, since the 1920s, because new evidence and data, have provided the Big Bang theory to expand beyond the original model (1920s).

The evidence and data continued to verify the BB model, despite all the other alternative models in the last 80 years, because the alternative models failed to provide the evidence needed.

Second.

You don’t understand the concept of evidence or the concept of hypothesis or theory.

Evidence are the only currency needed to test any model.

Logic alone or maths alone don’t verify a model...only evidence can do that.

Logic is only good in science, if it is testable (hence falsifiable) and can be tested. Hence a logical explanation must be backed by evidence/observations/data.

Your constant denying evidence, just show how little understand basic science.

A hypothesis isn’t something that you can simply make up. It always preliminary observations or evidence, to come up with logical explanations to explain the phenomena under investigation.

Hence, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, hence it must be TESTABLE, because unfalsifiable concept don’t even qualify as being “hypothesis”.

A scientific theory is a hypothesis that have been tested, and meeting all required standards (eg Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review).

Only scientific theory are considered “science”. And the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory.

There are some models that called itself “Theory”, but are not “scientific theory”. For examples, String Theory, M-theory, Superstring Theory, etc, are not scientific theories, because they are untested. So until they have evidence to support them, they are not scientific theories.

 

[exchemist]

Wait, you just said before that you don't care what my take on cosmology is and now you want to know what it is, you are nigh on impossible to follow?

I started this thread to learn more of other people's understanding of the big bang, not to propose an alternate theory because I don't have one, here is my opening post, "I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding."

So I have asked a lot of questions and have followed with interest the comments of others, I consider I have learned a lot about other people's beliefs and understanding of the bb which helps me understand a little more. I appreciate those who have contributed to this thread with a sincere spirit to pass on their understanding, despite the fact that I may not always accept everything that they have conveyed or tried to convey. BB is not a religion and so should be free of dogma that afflicts fundamentalism of all religions, and in some cases even science, bb being an example as is global warming. When I see the word denier being used, I understand what I'm dealing with.

Where do you get this notion that the Big Bang is in some way religion or dogma, though? It's just a model, the best one we currently have, of how the cosmos seems to have developed over time, according to our observations and measurements to date.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. That was Subduction Zone quoting MY REPLY to you.

Only the last two lines were SZ’s comment.


I am not a scientist, nor I have ever claimed to be physicist, or in this case, an astrophysicist.

Yes, I have studied physics and maths, but only where they applied to my courses in civil engineering (1st half of 1980s) and computer science (2nd half of 1990s)...

...so i considered myself more engineer than a scientist/physicist.

Not once in either courses did they ever teach me Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, astrophysics, because they were not parts of courses’ syllabus and curriculum.

But I have interests in science, so I read some basic frameworks of each fields, scan the evidence and data that verify the theories, but avoid the maths. The last 15 years or more, I have been learning many different sciences that weren’t taught in subjects that I have attended.

I can deal with some famous basic and famous equations, but I leave the more advanced ones alone.

The advanced maths in these physics fields are often beyond my grasp, so I leave to others, like @Polymath257, @ratiocinator, @ecco, @exchemist, @Subduction Zone, @shunyadragon, @Valjean, etc, to explain.

Ok, got it.

I know, you have explained your background before. Btw, I am impressed with what you have achieved.

You don't need math to understand that math can't explain how the universe began. That is where I am coming from, I am not promoting any cosmological model, I am asking about the bb model. I am not yet convinced that it is correct. I don't doubt the math that does exist to explain the model sans very beginning is quite good as far as math goes, but models of reality are not equal to the reality, they are just a sort of thumb sketch relatively.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, got it.

I know, you have explained your background before. Btw, I am impressed with what you have achieved.

You don't need math to understand that math can't explain how the universe began.

Yes you do not math and physics to develop models of the origins of our universe. What is your science and math background that you can make these assertions you make in this thread, other than the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance.' Well, ah . . . math can develop math models that are confirmed by observations that support hypothesis of the origins of our universe. There are several models that fit the current knowledge of physics, cosmology and math models.

That is where I am coming from, I am not promoting any cosmological model, I am asking about the bb model. I am not yet convinced that it is correct. I don't doubt the math that does exist to explain the model sans very beginning is quite good as far as math goes, but models of reality are not equal to the reality, they are just a sort of thumb sketch relatively.

Science and math is descriptive of the nature of our physical existence. They are more than a thumb sketch. Again . . . What is your science and math background that you can make these assertions you make in this thread, other than the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance.'

Still waiting . . .

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Where do you get this notion that the Big Bang is in some way religion or dogma, though? It's just a model, the best one we currently have, of how the cosmos seems to have developed over time, according to our observations and measurements to date.

I agree bb is just a model, but it does not and can not deal with the most critical aspect of the theory of creation, the beginning. I understand that it can't because time had not begun blah blah, but I really can't accept a belief that ca not deal with how it came to be. You are told you can not ask the question of where it all came from, but I am someone who needs to know because at the moment, it makes more sense that the universe, or source therefore has always existed, it had no beginning, Thus I hold off going full belief in it and get called a denier by true believers. Ring bells wrt religious fundies?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

?

Your post makes no sense to me. Quote my exact words that you want to respond to and try and avoid non essential verbiage.