RELIGOUS SCIENTISM - "WHERE IS THE MATH"?

[Pogo]

The math itself however is just a playing around with geometry and numbers until we find something that it relates to.

To some degree yes, there is the field of pure mathematics and it has arguably been around since the first geometers drew circles and lines in the sand

Math is a concept created by mankind.

Yes, it has not been shown to exist in any other species, but rudiments may yet be found.

The BBT is not based on any math.

Actually it is entirely based on math, on a set of equations that explained the patterns and observations of astronomers

The BBT is based on the assumption that the universe had a beginning to exist.

Actually false, it was originally thought that the universe was static and eternal and Einstein even inserted an unnecessary term into his equations to make it static.

The assumption is that about 8 billion, 13.8 billion, some even believe 20 Billion , others go up to 27 Billion years ago that the universe began to expand from nonexistence. If there was non existence that would mean no energy, no matter and no place for anything to exist. So far the consensus is 13:8 billion years ago at T=10^-43 seconds the universe began to expand and has been expanding every sense.

It is not an assumption, when it was realized that the universe was not in fact static, the new data was applied without the extra assumption to make it static and it led to the conclusion that the universe was in fact finite in age apparently. further calculations and observations have confirmed this.
note that the inflationary phase and the current expansion rate are not the same.

For 16 years I have asked the question: "What existed at T=0?" The best answer I have been able to get from Scientist is, "We don't know". Maybe some of you have a better answer. I have also asked where did all that energy come from that existed in something the size of a pin head that created the universe and everything in it we can see and all that beyond what we can see? Amy ideas?

And for far longer than that cosmologists have been asking the same question. The answer is that they don't know. The current theories only provide answers to a point near "T0" but quantum gravity effects appear to be necessary to go beyond that. As for a pinhead as I understand it, that only refers if true to the volume that became this universe, how big it actually was is unknown, only that the current best equations converge on a small volume for what we call the universe.
There is lots more to learn and will continue far into the future so we can all look forward to more.

Dark energy and Dark matter are created by an assumption. It is assumed they exist without any evidence because if all that energy and matter did not exist the universe would fly apart..

Not actually an assumption but a calculation that if the theory that had so far been so accurate, then to explain certain anomalies there would have to be "dark" matter and energy. Dark matter has already been confirmed in that there is apparently stuff that behaves like matter in how it bends light etc that answers the questions as to why certain things were seen in spite of the observation that they did not contain enough matter.
Dark holes are another success that having been postulated according to the theory, they were looked for and found exactly where they would have been expected.

Enjoy,

Enjoy yourself, It is a great time to be alive to watch the discovery of the understanding of the universe we live in.

The math may be beyond you or I but it is not imaginary and yes, the math is entirely a creation of human intellect. That it relates to physical reality and observations is a coincidence that can make one wonder.

 

[Audie]

The math itself however is just a playing around with geometry and numbers until we find something that it relates to.

Math is a concept created by mankind.


The BBT is not based on any math.

The BBT is based on the assumption that the universe had a beginning to exist.

The assumption is that about 8 billion, 13.8 billion, some even believe 20 Billion , others go up to 27 Billion years ago that the universe began to expand from nonexistence. If there was non existence that would mean no energy, no matter and no place for anything to exist. So far the consensus is 13:8 billion years ago at T=10^-43 seconds the universe began to expand and has been expanding every sense.

For 16 years I have asked the question: "What existed at T=0?" The best answer I have been able to get from Scientist is, "We don't know". Maybe some of you have a better answer. I have also asked where did all that energy come from that existed in something the size of a pin head that created the universe and everything in it we can see and all that beyond what we can see? Amy ideas?



Dark energy and Dark matter are created by an assumption. It is assumed they exist without any evidence because if all that energy and matter did not exist the universe would fly apart.

Enjoy,

I'd say you are grossly misusing the word " assumption".

 

[Native]

@Native I could be wrong which gives me the freedom to write.

Membrane where?

Light tunnel goes through the membrane.

It's more difficult to nourish feed and drink from light from this side of the membrane compared to the other side of the membrane

Light can think.

Light is in us, and I allow light in me to teach me how to nourish, feed, and drink from light within my situations.

What happens is I'll write about light because I've seen light in people radiate outward, and drink from light.

And when I shared about light, people would think I'm writing about planet Sun.

I think I'm passive, because I give in and let the conversation continue as people write about the planet Sun, because that's interesting too. Yes, people think I'm writing about the planet Sun when I write about light. And I gave in and let them then continue about planet Sun.

Then suddenly I see math before me from people. So maybe we don't know this math yet? Would PNC help in this area or not? I don't know, maybe PNC math won't help and we hadn't discovered this math yet?

What are your thoughts about this?

I agree in your take of Light in general. We all derive from Light. i.e., electromagnetic frequencies, and we all can discover our celestial surroundings by "spiritual travellings".

 

[icant]

Hi Pogo,

If I remember correctly, math as we knowith it had it's beginning around 4,000 BCE. When the Sumerians of Mesopotamia developed a base-60 number system.

Actually it is entirely based on math, on a set of equations that explained the patterns and observations of astronomers

The only thing that math had to do with the BBT theory is the math that mankind applied to it to fit their worldview.

Pogo said: Actually false, it was originally thought that the universe was static and eternal and Einstein even inserted an unnecessary term into his equations to make it static.

Yes Einstein believed in an eternal universe, and he was correct.

Unless you someone else can explain where the energy came from that was necessary to create the universe we have today. Some of the smartest scientists of my lifetime have spent their entire adult life trying to find that answer and no one has been able to yet.

Nonexistence produces Nonexistence.

Pogo said:
It is not an assumption, when it was realized that the universe was not in fact static, the new data was applied without the extra assumption to make it static and it led to the conclusion that the universe was in fact finite in age apparently. further calculations and observations have confirmed this.
note that the inflationary phase and the current expansion rate are not the same.

In 1925

In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian cosmologist and Roman Catholic priest suggested that the universe began from a "primeval atom" or "cosmic egg", that exploded and caused the expansion of the universe.

So the assumption is either a primeval atom or a cosmic egg existed and exploded. The only place they existed was in the mind of George Lemaitre.

Do you have any evidence that either of those things ever existed?

Pogo said: "Not actually an assumption but a calculation that if the theory that had so far been so accurate, then to explain certain anomalies there would have to be "dark" matter and energy. Dark matter has already been confirmed in that there is apparently stuff that behaves like matter in how it bends light etc that answers the questions as to why certain things were seen in spite of the observation that they did not contain enough matter.
Dark holes are another success that having been postulated according to the theory, they were looked for and found exactly where they would have been expected."

There have been a lot of things observed in the universe. Black holes and Dark matter are not one of them. You can't see a black hole or dark matter only gravitational waves moving.

Pogo said:
"The math may be beyond you or I but it is not imaginary and yes, the math is entirely a creation of human intellect. That it relates to physical reality and observations is a coincidence that can make one wonder."

The math only relates to reality as mankind applies i.

 

[Native]

You're dealing with later times; the times of myths and legends

No Cladking, I'm dealing with the ancient meaning of "mythos", the traditional cultural telling of the creation as such and how to connect to this narrative.

But the ancient people who left us things like great pyramids couldn't have done it without a "complete" understanding of math and engineering.

All around the world we have discovered megalithic round circles with such a central post.

As said above, all measurement needed to make pyramids and other divine temples, comes automatically by placing a central stick in a marked circle and notice and mark the annual solstices and directions. Just by making the markings, you got the factual embedded math.

I believe the original human language was universal and metaphysical. As such there was no "symbolism" of any sort. Words represented things that were real and concrete and had fixed meanings instead of definitions. When this language failed due to its increasing complexity the ancient stories and ancient history survived as myth.

Entirely agreed What once was ancestral solid terrestrial, celestial, and cosmological knowledge, has become "unbelievable myths" and "supernatural fantasies" to modern humans.

I contend only that observation explains tides in terms of our "theory of gravity"

Well, by the discovering of the galactic rotation curve, Newton's "laws of celestial motion" based on his terrestrial observed gravity, was directly contradicted.

I believe modern theory is stuck in 1925

Me too.

 

[icant]

I'd say you are grossly misusing the word " assumption".

What is your definition of assumption?

I use the Oxford Language definition.
"a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof:

As I stated there is nothing but an assumption to support the BBT.
If you disagree then present the evidence that provides for the energy that is required to for the Big Bang to happen .

Enjoy,

 

[AppieB]

What is your definition of assumption?

I use the Oxford Language definition.
"a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof:

As I stated there is nothing but an assumption to support the BBT.
If you disagree then present the evidence that provides for the energy that is required to for the Big Bang to happen .

Enjoy,

To call a scientific theory an assumption is to call a circle a square.

 

[Native]

Not actually an assumption but a calculation that if the theory that had so far been so accurate, then to explain certain anomalies there would have to be "dark" matter and energy. Dark matter has already been confirmed in that there is apparently stuff that behaves like matter in how it bends light etc that answers the questions as to why certain things were seen in spite of the observation that they did not contain enough matter.
Dark holes are another success that having been postulated according to the theory, they were looked for and found exactly where they would have been expected.

Dark matter has not been discovered at all but simply added as yet another assumption to confirm the standing terrestrial made laws of celestial motion which was contradicted in galactic realms by the discovery of the Galactic Rotation Curve.

Both a dark matter and a dark hole, derives from excluding the explanations from the natural laws of Electromagnetism which governs the Universe by activating cosmic clouds.

Just think of it: The galactic central bulges are several thousand light years thick, hence 2D like holes with "event horizons" in galactic centers are absurd. Besides, several galaxies shows up two electromagnetic Fermi Bubbles on both planes, so we either have two holes or more likely a whirling Funnel of formation which open up on both planes in a toroidal motion.

"Dark energy" and "expansion of the Universe" derives from the false assumption of having the speed of light as a constant. The assumed and impossible "exponential expansion of the Universe" is nonsense as distances as a term cannot provide any motion in and on itself.

Light and other electromagnetic frequencies disperses and slows down, gets redshifted, on its way through a not empty space, giving the false impression of distances and expansion when having a likewise false constant speed of light.

 

[Audie]

To call a scientific theory an assumption is to call a circle a square.

As anyone who has a science
background or does look things up
already knows.
The attack though was much broader than
just on " theory".

 

[Audie]

What is your definition of assumption?

I use the Oxford Language definition.
"a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof:

As I stated there is nothing but an assumption to support the BBT.
If you disagree then present the evidence that provides for the energy that is required to for the Big Bang to happen .

Enjoy,

It was easy to tell which definition you chose.

Better to use the word as used in science,as
otherwise it's argrument- by- equivocation.

"Proof" btw, has no role in science.

 

[River Sea]

We all derive from Light. i.e., electromagnetic frequencies, and we all can discover our celestial surroundings by "spiritual travellings"

@Native

Do you ever feel fire-burn when drinking from light and also an inner peace?

Also, this light can think.

I keep learning allowing. I allow light in me; teach me how to drink from light in the midst of my situations.

Is asking "Do you" is that to harsh or how does one ask? I was thinking about this later. Maybe I should only write "I relate" or "I experience." What do you think? I'll leave the (Do you) there and let me know.

I'm curious about that. How to ask and not sound harsh.

 

[icant]

To call a scientific theory an assumption is to call a circle a square.

Hi Apple,

I don't remember saying that the BBT was an assumption,

I did say: "As I stated there is nothing but an assumption to support the BBT. (Support=Evidence)
If you disagree then present the evidence that provides for the energy that is required to for the Big Bang to happen ."

Since you disagree with my statement, please present any evidence you have to support the source of the energy that existed at T=0 to bang at 10^-34 and expand into the universe we live in.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

Dark matter has not been discovered at all but simply added as yet another assumption to confirm the standing terrestrial made laws of celestial motion which was contradicted in galactic realms by the discovery of the Galactic Rotation Curve.

Both a dark matter and a dark hole, derives from excluding the explanations from the natural laws of Electromagnetism which governs the Universe by activating cosmic clouds.

Just think of it: The galactic central bulges are several thousand light years thick, hence 2D like holes with "event horizons" in galactic centers are absurd. Besides, several galaxies shows up two electromagnetic Fermi Bubbles on both planes, so we either have two holes or more likely a whirling Funnel of formation which open up on both planes in a toroidal motion.

"Dark energy" and "expansion of the Universe" derives from the false assumption of having the speed of light as a constant. The assumed and impossible "exponential expansion of the Universe" is nonsense as distances as a term cannot provide any motion in and on itself.

Light and other electromagnetic frequencies disperses and slows down, gets redshifted, on its way through a not empty space, giving the false impression of distances and expansion when having a likewise false constant speed of light.

AMEN

 

[icant]

It was easy to tell which definition you chose.

Better to use the word as used in science,as
otherwise it's argrument- by- equivocation.

"Proof" btw, has no role in science.

OK

I Googled "Scientific definition of Assumption"
THIS IS WHAT I FOUND

Assumption in science refers to the fundamental assertions about the nature of the world that are scientifically studied1. These statements are not empirically testable, for they are the starting point of scientific reasoning1. An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without proof2. In research, assumptions are those things that are taken for granted and are understood to be true3. SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF ASSUMPTION - Bing

So an assumption is an Assertion

Assertion is one of the central kinds of speech act, typically carried out by the utterance of a declarative sentence. From the oxford dictionary. Found here: Assertion

I FIGURED I BETTER LOOK UP SCIENTIFIC PROOFS AS WELL.

In science, there is no such thing as a scientific proof1. Unlike mathematics and logic, which have proofs, science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. Instead of proofs, science relies on observations, experiments, and data to construct or test hypotheses123. SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION OF P,ROOF - Bing

So, Where is the observations, experiments and data to support the energy existing at T=0 to be able to start expanding 1 billionth of a second later at 10^-34.

I think Hawking made a declarative statement to that effect. But just because someone declares something does not make it a fact, so it remains an assumption

Now if you got any facts showing it is not an assumption that the energy existed at 10^-34, that the BBT was built on please present them.

Enjoy

 

[Audie]

OK

I Googled "Scientific definition of Assumption"
THIS IS WHAT I FOUND

So an assumption is an Assertion

I FIGURED I BETTER LOOK UP SCIENTIFIC PROOFS AS WELL.

So, Where is the observations, experiments and data to support the energy existing at T=0 to be able to start expanding 1 billionth of a second later at 10^-34.

I think Hawking made a declarative statement to that effect. But just because someone declares something does not make it a fact, so it remains an assumption

Now if you got any facts showing it is not an assumption that the energy existed at 10^-34, that the BBT was built on please present them.

Enjoy

A person with background in science
would not need to look up such definitions,
not because they memorized but because they
understand.

Similarly,one skilled in the art will have no
occasion for false arguments, such as presented
via equivocation and news of the tautological
Or all caps.

In general person needs to at least be an
advanced student before trying to
disprove theories- or show some
profound fault in the conduct of science.

Repetitive use of somethng however irrelevat,
about BB as some sort of argument may indicate
an assumption that it's a killer gotcha.

It isnt. Neither is the ' assumptions/ assertions" thing,
whatever you're trying to say and however you choose your
definitions.

And I'm not much as a stereotypical Asian.
I struggled w calc and trig..
The astrophysics stuff is over my head.

And yours.

 

[Nakosis]

You can't translate this sentence to geometry, algebra, or calculus. If you could you still couldn't translate it back.

Your sentence was translated into binary and back so you could read it.

Thinking creates Zipf's Law. Bees, calculators, computers, and static don't think so they don't obey any linguistic laws. The authors of the Pyramid Texts didn't think and it doesn't obey the laws either.

All modern human languages obey the laws but some create a better fit than others and it also depends on the author. Because of the way i think my words will have more outliers and a smoother line as well but, I'm sure, they still obey linguistic laws.

Ok.

 

[icant]

A person with background in science
would not need to look up such definitions,
not because they memorized but because they
understand.

Similarly,one skilled in the art will have no
occasion for false arguments, such as presented
via equivocation and news of the tautological
Or all caps.

In general person needs to at least be an
advanced student before trying to
disprove theories- or show some
profound fault in the conduct of science.

Repetitive use of somethng however irrelevat,
about BB as some sort of argument may indicate
an assumption that it's a killer gotcha.

It isnt. Neither is the ' assumptions/ assertions" thing,
whatever you're trying to say and however you choose your
definitions.

And I'm not much as a stereotypical Asian.
I struggled w calc and trig..
The astrophysics stuff is over my head.

And yours.

I don't have to have more than a 7th grade education to ask for evidence to support a "Theory". That would have been 1952 when I was introduced to Calc. Which I have never had any use for as my chosen profession did not require it.

Everything is composed of energy and matter including this universe and anything and everything in it.
Energy can be turned into matter and matter can be turned into energy.
Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed.
They can change back and forth from one to the other until they reach equilibrium. No net force and no net torque.

It energy and matter can not be created where did the energy come from that formed the universe we live in?

I don't think that is a stupid question to ask.
People around the world has ponied up Billions if not Trillions of dollars to support science and scientist in the search for the answer to that question.

They must think it is an important question as I do, but you dismiss it without a thought as do millions of others.

Without energy there is no bang and no universe period. But the universe does exist.

Conclusion:

Since the universe does exist ENERGY has to exist.
Since ENERGY can not be created it must have a source of an endless supply of energy.
Or the universe would run out of energy as it keeps producing things.

That is why I believe Einstein was correct that the universe was eternal.

I myself believe the universe has eternally existed in the past, the present, and the future, just not necessarily in the form we see it today.

Enjoy,

 

[cladking]

Your sentence was translated into binary and back so you could read it.

No.

It was not translated. It was rendered in binary as it might be rendered in italics, a different font, or larger script. "Translation" is taking the meaning of something in one language and putting that meaning in a different language. There is a computer language composed of eight words that also breaks Zipf's Law but you can't translate English into it or from it either.

 

[Audie]

I don't have to have more than a 7th grade education to ask for evidence to support a "Theory". That would have been 1952 when I was introduced to Calc. Which I have never had any use for as my chosen profession did not require it.

Everything is composed of energy and matter including this universe and anything and everything in it.
Energy can be turned into matter and matter can be turned into energy.
Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed.
They can change back and forth from one to the other until they reach equilibrium. No net force and no net torque.

It energy and matter can not be created where did the energy come from that formed the universe we live in?

I don't think that is a stupid question to ask.
People around the world has ponied up Billions if not Trillions of dollars to support science and scientist in the search for the answer to that question.

They must think it is an important question as I do, but you dismiss it without a thought as do millions of others.

Without energy there is no bang and no universe period. But the universe does exist.

Conclusion:

Since the universe does exist ENERGY has to exist.
Since ENERGY can not be created it must have a source of an endless supply of energy.
Or the universe would run out of energy as it keeps producing things.

That is why I believe Einstein was correct that the universe was eternal.

I myself believe the universe has eternally existed in the past, the present, and the future, just not necessarily in the form we see it today.

Enjoy,

Whatevs

 

[Pogo]

I don't have to have more than a 7th grade education to ask for evidence to support a "Theory". That would have been 1952 when I was introduced to Calc. Which I have never had any use for as my chosen profession did not require it.

Everything is composed of energy and matter including this universe and anything and everything in it.
Energy can be turned into matter and matter can be turned into energy.
Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed.
They can change back and forth from one to the other until they reach equilibrium. No net force and no net torque.

It energy and matter can not be created where did the energy come from that formed the universe we live in?

I don't think that is a stupid question to ask.
People around the world has ponied up Billions if not Trillions of dollars to support science and scientist in the search for the answer to that question.

They must think it is an important question as I do, but you dismiss it without a thought as do millions of others.

Without energy there is no bang and no universe period. But the universe does exist.

Conclusion:

Since the universe does exist ENERGY has to exist.
Since ENERGY can not be created it must have a source of an endless supply of energy.
Or the universe would run out of energy as it keeps producing things.

That is why I believe Einstein was correct that the universe was eternal.

I myself believe the universe has eternally existed in the past, the present, and the future, just not necessarily in the form we see it today.

Enjoy,

What is missing from your analysis is that gravitational potential can be considered as negative energy and can balance out the positive energy of E=mc^2