The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My point is that many don't understand the concept of natural selection. It is aimless, unguided, has no reason, no intent, is blind, is not a conscious process, there is no choice involved while at the same time those many are invoking those concepts into it that don't exist in natural selection in its current state, and that the human being contradict and deny natural selection in and of themselves. Understand yet? It's like someone saying that "no, choice is an emergent property of evolution," when the process of natural selection invokes no choice available. Or "no, this organism shows signs of altruism, when natural natural selection invokes no altruism.

Just about every response I have gotten been invoking things that are irrelevant and don't relate to natural selection but all they've proved is exactly what I've been trying to get across the entire time. My aim, if that's possible, since natural selection invokes no aim... is awareness.

Sorry, but your point is still unclear to me. You seem to be saying that because natural selection is an undirected process, humanity could not have evolved the way it is, specifically, if nature doesn't make conscious choices, how could she create a species that does.

If so, you're making an implied incredulity argument - you can't see how it happened, therefore it didn't, therefore a god is needed to account for mankind, but without actually saying so explicitly.

I suspect that this is the argument underlying all challenges to science coming from the religious community.

And it's not a persuasive argument for reasons already given. I have no trouble imagining that such a thing could have happened. I don't say that I know that it did, or how it happened, just that I have no reason to say that it couldn't, and that which is not known to be impossible must be considered possible.

Also, I have problems with arguments that basically say that a specific occurrence such as the emergence of choice is so unlikely to have arisen undesigned and uncreated that we should posit something even less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated - a god - to account for it. That's a special pleading fallacy - the rules apply to the universe, but God is excused from them with no reason better than, "God lives outside of space and time and is therefore exempt from the same reasoning."

If that's not your (unstated) message, I don't know what is. I doubt you wanted to post that you think that people have trouble understanding what natural selection is, or that you can't imagine the faculty of volition evolving from unconscious matter, so I assume that you have a larger message that you're not stating explicitly.

 

[Profound Realization]

Sorry, but your point is still unclear to me. You seem to be saying that because natural selection is an undirected process, humanity could not have evolved the way it is, specifically, if nature doesn't make conscious choices, how could she create a species that does.

If so, you're making an implied incredulity argument - you can't see how it happened, therefore it didn't, therefore a god is needed to account for mankind, but without actually saying so explicitly.

I suspect that this is the argument underlying all challenges to science coming from the religious community.

And it's not a persuasive argument for reasons already given. I have no trouble imagining that such a thing could have happened. I don't say that I know that it did, or how it happened, just that I have no reason to say that it couldn't, and that which is not known to be impossible must be considered possible.

Also, I have problems with arguments that basically say that a specific occurrence such as the emergence of choice is so unlikely to have arisen undesigned and uncreated that we should posit something even less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated - a god - to account for it. That's a special pleading fallacy - the rules apply to the universe, but God is excused from them with no reason better than, "God lives outside of space and time and is therefore exempt from the same reasoning."

If that's not your (unstated) message, I don't know what is. I doubt you wanted to post that you think that people have trouble understanding what natural selection is, or that you can't imagine the faculty of volition evolving from unconscious matter, so I assume that you have a larger message that you're not stating explicitly.

For one, I have no "religion" or affiliate myself with any "religion" or any "community." I don't promote an "us vs. them" mentality as you may do.

Perhaps if you assume that is the intent, maybe consider taking a look at where those assumptions arise. I know this may be hard to fathom due to imaginations running wild in many thinking everyone is conspiring or has an alterior motive... because that is a strong nature in the human species, but you'd be mistaken if you believe such on me.

If you're not aware of what the message is, there isn't anything else to discuss. I've tried to make it as clear as I can, and I'd rather not have lies spread on me for imagined up intent.

 

[Polymath257]

What do I mean by the big bang creating energy? The theory is that the big bang created all energy, matter, and space.

No, actually, it isn't/

What makes me think there wasn't any energy before the universe began expanding? Because that does not fit the theory of the big bang. Everything is theorized to have been created in one inflationary event.

What makes you think there was a 'before the Big Bang'?

You don't think I understand the big bang cosmology at all? Seems you're the one who doesn't understand the big bang. You just confused yourself.

You don't understand the Big Bang. That much is clear.

 

[Profound Realization]

No it is not a trollish response and I'm seeking no-one's approval.
I'm trying to understand if you are so sure of your statement, "I've done a lot of experiments/measurements and the sun and the moon always equate to being much closer." Well then, share the information and let us see how you come to make such an assertion. Such assertions cannot go unchallenged.

Science has already been rewritten enough for the sun's distance alone. In order to challenge my assertions, I'd have to expect that you've done the work yourself and with others and we can both share our results. Results which have no predeterminations in their equations. Results which also aren't shooting a beam 93 million miles, since we both cannot do that and would both be under the faith system that the special access only privileged elite classes' information is someone accurate and/or that they can do that, or because "we know the distance of the sun because we know the distance of Venus" when we both don't know the distance.

Start from scratch and do your own experimentations, show how, where, and the basic Math for your results and we can compare. If not, I'm not foolish enough to engage in a fruitless debate with someone who made a trollish remark.

I've done experimentation with 2 friends assuming the diamter of the Earth is accurate(a pre-determination) and its curvature, and experimentation with the same 2 friends assuming a flat plane, with no curvature... as we did with no bias or as a confirmation assumption for one. The mathematics led to about 73 million miles away for the latter and 3600 miles for the other. That's what I can give you, what can you give me for both measurements? When I become dumbfounded for seeing clouds behind and through the sun.... I have no clue what to believe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Everyone is an independent scientist.

There are still plenty of lies in academic books.

Indoctrination comes from human beings.

The further things are away from independent analysis and research, such as stars that are alleged to be quadrillion's of miles away.... the easier it is for a human being to be a human being. It would just come in more clever, convincing, deceitful technique.

I don't see a relationship between this and my post. My point remains that scientists and science teachers don't need to indoctrinate, that indoctrination is for those trying to persuade without a sound argument such as advertisers, priests, and political propagandists, and that the former don't care what you believe, but the latter have a stake in persuading you, and that therefore it is incorrect to call standard science education indoctrination.

You didn't disagree.

Regarding the points you made, once again, I don't see your larger purpose. You made a comment calling everybody a scientist, which doesn't seem related to the discussion of teaching versus indoctrination, that there are "plenty of lies" in academic books, which I doubt and which is not my experience, and that any indoctrination will come from human beings - not an area of contention. Put them all together and your point is what?

Also, you haven't made the case that "clever, convincing, deceitful technique" is relevant to the pursuit of science. It is characteristic of advertising, and of both religious and political apologetics.

I saw a great example from a creationist website recently. The creationist was arguing that man could not have descended from an ancestral ape that gave rise to the extant apes since chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans all possess 24 pairs of chromosomes, man possesses 23 pairs, and that therefore, a lethal chromosome dropout event would have been necessary. What the apologist left out is that there was a fusion event that connected two chromosomes yielding human chromosome 2. Pure deceit from an indoctrination source.

Go to a science book, and you'll find a whole other approach closer to what I just shared. When you present all of the relevant facts to a mind capable of following their implications to sound conclusions, there is no need to do more. This is a radically different method based on different values in the service of a different agenda.

The writing style is also very different between academic education and indoctrination. The former is generally written in the passive voice and dispassionately, whereas indoctrination tends to be written more like a letter or email to somebody, and has an emotional tone to it as if to say that this is important - urgent, even.

Understood? Much of the stuff doesn't make sense and is not possible to be understood to the common mind, let alone even "scientists" themselves can't make sense of many things that are accepted as "facts."

Some facts are counterintuitive, and some too technical to be understood by the average reader. I don't know much about the engineering involved in building a bridge. The mathematics is beyond my education there,and I know very little about materials, stresses, and the like.

But must I believe that the math, science and technology is valid by faith? No. I only need to see the bridge standing to know that whatever it is that others know is valid. How do I know that what I am told about the dimensions of the solar system or the distance to the nearest star is correct? The same way. The people that tell me so are the same ones that accurately predict eclipses, tell us when and where comets will be visible, and land rovers on Mars. I think that that is compelling evidence that their ideas are correct.

For one, I have no "religion" or affiliate myself with any "religion" or any "community." I don't promote an "us vs. them" mentality as you may do.

Perhaps if you assume that is the intent, maybe consider taking a look at where those assumptions arise. I know this may be hard to fathom due to imaginations running wild in many thinking everyone is conspiring or has an alterior motive... because that is a strong nature in the human species, but you'd be mistaken if you believe such on me.

If you're not aware of what the message is, there isn't anything else to discuss. I've tried to make it as clear as I can, and I'd rather not have lies spread on me for imagined up intent.

No problem. I asked you to state your position explicitly and suggested that I suspected a religious undercurrent. I am only now making assumptions because you chose not to do so, and I can't imagine any other purpose for your posting.

But I agree. This has run its course, and there appears to be little value in repeating ourselves.

 

[Profound Realization]

I don't see a relationship between this and my post. My point remains that scientists and science teachers don't need to indoctrinate, that indoctrination is for those trying to persuade without a sound argument such as advertisers, priests, and political propagandists, and that the former don't care what you believe, but the latter have a stake in persuading you, and that therefore it is incorrect to call standard science education indoctrination.

You didn't disagree.

Regarding the points you made, once again, I don't see your larger purpose. You made a comment calling everybody a scientist, which doesn't seem related to the discussion of teaching versus indoctrination, that there are "plenty of lies" in academic books, which I doubt and which is not my experience, and that any indoctrination will come from human beings - not an area of contention. Put them all together and your point is what?

Also, you haven't made the case that "clever, convincing, deceitful technique" is relevant to the pursuit of science. It is characteristic of advertising, and of both religious and political apologetics.

I saw a great example from a creationist website recently. The creationist was arguing that man could not have descended from an ancestral ape that gave rise to the extant apes since chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans all possess 24 pairs of chromosomes, man possesses 23 pairs, and that therefore, a lethal chromosome dropout event would have been necessary. What the apologist left out is that there was a fusion event that connected two chromosomes yielding human chromosome 2. Pure deceit from an indoctrination source.

Go to a science book, and you'll find a whole other approach closer to what I just shared. When you present all of the relevant facts to a mind capable of following their implications to sound conclusions, there is no need to do more. This is a radically different method based on different values in the service of a different agenda.

The writing style is also very different between academic education and indoctrination. The former is generally written in the passive voice and dispassionately, whereas indoctrination tends to be written more like a letter or email to somebody, and has an emotional tone to it as if to say that this is important - urgent, even.



Some facts are counterintuitive, and some too technical to be understood by the average reader. I don't know much about the engineering involved in building a bridge. The mathematics is beyond my education there,and I know very little about materials, stresses, and the like.

But must I believe that the math, science and technology is valid by faith? No. I only need to see the bridge standing to know that whatever it is that others know is valid. How do I know that what I am told about the dimensions of the solar system or the distance to the nearest star is correct? The same way. The people that tell me so are the same ones that accurately predict eclipses, tell us when and where comets will be visible, and land rovers on Mars. I think that that is compelling evidence that their ideas are correct.

It's within the nature of the human, "science" is neutral.

Since "scientists" constantly are updating and correcting themselves.... I'm sure it would cost a lot to keep updating and coming out with new academic books. There are still many things in academic books that were once promoted as fact, have since been falsified yet remain in texts. I'm just not under a powerful spell of bias towards "scientists" to think they're an infallible super species capable of no lie, no agenda, no political agenda, etc.

Well aware of "religious" indoctrination but as just said, am not as naive to believe that "scientists" are all superhuman and have shed their nature card.

The greatest lies I've discovered tell a lot of truth with them, sound very intelligent, well-thought out, spoken with eloquence.

Yes, that bridge is more local to observation. The further things are made to be, the more trust one has to put into the few with special access information. I don't suspect these people's duty to the public is to reveal the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I don't see it plausible that I have photos and videos of stars with a crap zoom digital camera changing colors clear as day while being told they are quadrillion's of miles away. If I surrender my eyes and personal observation, I become a slave to whatever I'm told.

 

[sayak83]

A decent link to hopefully clear up some popular misunderstandings.

Misconceptions about evolution

I am quite aware of them and agree completely. Nothing changes though.

 

[Altfish]

Science has already been rewritten enough for the sun's distance alone. In order to challenge my assertions, I'd have to expect that you've done the work yourself and with others and we can both share our results. Results which have no predeterminations in their equations. Results which also aren't shooting a beam 93 million miles, since we both cannot do that and would both be under the faith system that the special access only privileged elite classes' information is someone accurate and/or that they can do that, or because "we know the distance of the sun because we know the distance of Venus" when we both don't know the distance.

Start from scratch and do your own experimentations, show how, where, and the basic Math for your results and we can compare. If not, I'm not foolish enough to engage in a fruitless debate with someone who made a trollish remark.

I've done experimentation with 2 friends assuming the diamter of the Earth is accurate(a pre-determination) and its curvature, and experimentation with the same 2 friends assuming a flat plane, with no curvature... as we did with no bias or as a confirmation assumption for one. The mathematics led to about 73 million miles away for the latter and 3600 miles for the other. That's what I can give you, what can you give me for both measurements? When I become dumbfounded for seeing clouds behind and through the sun.... I have no clue what to believe.

Well as you probably anticipated I can't attain your ridiculous acceptance criteria; so little point in continuing the discussion. So good luck debunking science, I hope you never go in an aeroplane as scientists who have ascertained the distance to the sun also do tracking devices and distances for planes and airports.
I wouldn't rely on your satnav in your phone either, because if you are correct that'll be out by some magnitude.

 

[Super Universe]

Not quite. The big bang didn't "create" the energy, space or matter. All of it already existed (at least, as of the planck time) but contained within an infinitely dense singularity. The "big bang" refers to the sudden expansion of this singularity into the form we known as the Universe today, not the creation of the singularity.


Again, false. The big bang wasn't a creation event, it was an expansion event. It describes how the Universe expanded from a singularity into its current state. It does not state that it is where everything necessarily came from. It is useful to talk about it in those terms because, as far as we are aware, time stop functioning at the planck time, so little - if anything - is known or can be known of the state of reality before then, but it is not necessarily the origin of all mass.


False. See above.


False. See above.


This statement makes no sense. You do realize that physical laws can only exist in a Universe that has already expanded, right?


You have demonstrated quite definitively that you have no actual grasp of the big bang theory, I'm afraid.

All energy, space, and matter was contained inside the singularity that produced the big bang? Previous arguments in this topic made earlier by others suggested that the singularity existed outside of the three dimensional universe, so, that's why I said that the big bang produced all energy, matter, and space.

My statement is incorrect that the COE and law of gravity only apply to a universe that has already expanded? Okay, at what point did they turn on then and what activated them?

You guys sure like to tip toe around the facts.

I have demonstrated that I have no grasp of the big bang theory? No, you did not read the previous discussions and came in 17 pages late and assumed incorrectly.

 

[Super Universe]

No, actually, it isn't/



What makes you think there was a 'before the Big Bang'?




You don't understand the Big Bang. That much is clear.

Okay, so you flip flopped back to the singularity existing in thee dimensions again?

What makes me think that there was a before the big bang? The big bang never happened. It couldn't happen because gravity would not allow it to happen. The person arguing for the big bang thought that energy could have existed before the big bang.

I don't understand the big bang? Oh, you mean I don't understand how you can come up with a theory that violates your own laws and it is accepted by all of science? I understand that too well. You're human, that's what humans do when they are confronted with complexity. They get it wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, so you flip flopped back to the singularity existing in thee dimensions again?

No. Where did I say or imply that?

What makes me think that there was a before the big bang? The big bang never happened. It couldn't happen because gravity would not allow it to happen. The person arguing for the big bang thought that energy could have existed before the big bang.

OK, what makes you think that in the BB model there was a 'before the Big Bang'?

I don't understand the big bang? Oh, you mean I don't understand how you can come up with a theory that violates your own laws and it is accepted by all of science? I understand that too well. You're human, that's what humans do when they are confronted with complexity. They get it wrong.

Once again, your claim that the BB violates the laws of gravity is simply false. But you will continue to make that false claim without any supporting evidence or enough understanding of the BB to see why you are wrong.

 

[Super Universe]

No, actually, it isn't/



What makes you think there was a 'before the Big Bang'?




You don't understand the Big Bang. That much is clear.

Where did you say or imply that the big bang was a singularity in the 3rd dimension? Earlier you said that the singularity existed outside of space/time in the 4th dimension. Then you suggest that the big bang did not create energy so the energy must have existed in the 3rd dimension. You're trying to play word games because you can't avoid the facts which are these:

1) The big bang violates the law of gravity.

2) The big bang, if it existed outside the 3rd dimension, created energy in the 3rd dimension. This violates the law of COE.

3) The uniformly cold universe is not evidence of a hot big bang because there would be unequal cooling of the space if it was ever hot, outer areas would cool much more quickly than central areas, and that is not what we see.

4) Scientists do not follow the evidence, they force fit the evidence to fit what they want to believe.

What makes me think there was a "before the big bang"? Nothing. I know the big bang did not happen. Some of "your" science people don't even understand your theories.

I don't understand the big bang? I know a fake theory when I see one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All energy, space, and matter was contained inside the singularity that produced the big bang? Previous arguments in this topic made earlier by others suggested that the singularity existed outside of the three dimensional universe, so, that's why I said that the big bang produced all energy, matter, and space.

How are those two things equivalent? How could an expansion "create" the thing that it is expanding?

My statement is incorrect that the COE and law of gravity only apply to a universe that has already expanded?

Where did I say that?

Okay, at what point did they turn on then and what activated them?

The planck time, and I'm not really sure what activated them.

You guys sure like to tip toe around the facts.

You do realise you're asking us about the cosmology of the Universe from billions of years ago, right? This isn't an interrogation about where we were last night - this is a complicated thing to explain.

I have demonstrated that I have no grasp of the big bang theory? No, you did not read the previous discussions and came in 17 pages late and assumed incorrectly.

You repeatedly asserted in that very post that the big bang "created" energy, space and matter when no big bang model has (that I'm aware of) ever asserted such. That shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the big bang theory actually states, in spite of presumably talking about the big bang for several pages.

 

[Polymath257]

Where did you say or imply that the big bang was a singularity in the 3rd dimension? Earlier you said that the singularity existed outside of space/time in the 4th dimension.

No, I said the singularity technically doesn't exist in the universe and has no location or time. It's sort of like dividing by zero. it only makes sense as a limit.

Then you suggest that the big bang did not create energy so the energy must have existed in the 3rd dimension.

Huh? No such implication is required.

You are *assuming* that in the Big bang model, there *was* a before the Big Bang. That is false. In fact, in the basic BB model, time *began* with the BB, so no 'before' even makes sense.

You're trying to play word games because you can't avoid the facts which are these:

1) The big bang violates the law of gravity.

No, it doesn't.

2) The big bang, if it existed outside the 3rd dimension, created energy in the 3rd dimension. This violates the law of COE.

You have this incredibly garbled. The BB did NOT 'create' energy. Time, space, and energy began with the Big Bang. None existed previous because there was no previous. The COE is not violated because the COE says that the total energy at two different times has to be the same. But time only makes sense *after* the BB.

3) The uniformly cold universe is not evidence of a hot big bang because there would be unequal cooling of the space if it was ever hot, outer areas would cool much more quickly than central areas, and that is not what we see.

Which shows there were no 'outer areas' or 'central areas'. The BB does not describe an expansion *into* anything. In it, the whole universe is expanding and is *always* filled with matter and energy. There is no 'edge' to the expansion. There is no 'center' to the expansion.

4) Scientists do not follow the evidence, they force fit the evidence to fit what they want to believe.

Quite the contrary.

What makes me think there was a "before the big bang"? Nothing. I know the big bang did not happen. Some of "your" science people don't even understand your theories.

I don't understand the big bang? I know a fake theory when I see one.

What makes you think that in the BB model there was a 'before the BB'? You keep talking about it as if you think that is part of the model. Well, it isn't.

 

[Super Universe]

No, I said the singularity technically doesn't exist in the universe and has no location or time. It's sort of like dividing by zero. it only makes sense as a limit.


Huh? No such implication is required.

You are *assuming* that in the Big bang model, there *was* a before the Big Bang. That is false. In fact, in the basic BB model, time *began* with the BB, so no 'before' even makes sense.



No, it doesn't.


You have this incredibly garbled. The BB did NOT 'create' energy. Time, space, and energy began with the Big Bang. None existed previous because there was no previous. The COE is not violated because the COE says that the total energy at two different times has to be the same. But time only makes sense *after* the BB.



Which shows there were no 'outer areas' or 'central areas'. The BB does not describe an expansion *into* anything. In it, the whole universe is expanding and is *always* filled with matter and energy. There is no 'edge' to the expansion. There is no 'center' to the expansion.


Quite the contrary.



What makes you think that in the BB model there was a 'before the BB'? You keep talking about it as if you think that is part of the model. Well, it isn't.

You said the singularity doesn't exist in the universe and has no time? It's beyond you and your ability to comprehend, and it's beyond your math.

I'm assuming something before the big bang? I'm not. I'm trying to get you to fix a theory, singularity or no singularity, singularity in the 3rd dimension or 4th dimension, pick one. You keep flip flopping back and forth.

Why couldn't a singularity existing in the 3rd dimension sit nice a quietly for a period (the period is measured by the constant rate at which particles pop into existence in the singularity) and then the singularity suddenly inflates?

Time, space, and energy began with the big bang? Okay, so COE begins with the event. Any evidence for this or is it entirely based upon the big bang theory? At what time does gravity activate?

There were no outer or central areas? Then there was no big bang followed by a very quick inflation. There was a sudden appearence of all matter already separated, that's why gravity would not cause it to stop because the force falls off with the square of the distance. So, the big bang was not a bang it was an instantaneous nebular formation, and, it doesn't have to be instantaneous, it could have been a few nebula's here and there at first. Sounds like what I said a long time ago.

There is no center to the expansion? But there would be if there was a big bang and it would be hotter than the outer areas.

What makes me think there was a before the big bang? I know there was no big bang. You're the ones who have to figure out what was before the big bang, not I.

 

[Super Universe]

How are those two things equivalent? How could an expansion "create" the thing that it is expanding?


Where did I say that?


The planck time, and I'm not really sure what activated them.


You do realise you're asking us about the cosmology of the Universe from billions of years ago, right? This isn't an interrogation about where we were last night - this is a complicated thing to explain.


You repeatedly asserted in that very post that the big bang "created" energy, space and matter when no big bang model has (that I'm aware of) ever asserted such. That shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the big bang theory actually states, in spite of presumably talking about the big bang for several pages.

How could an expansion create the thing that is expanding? I agree, the big bang makes no sense.

You don't know what activated the law of gravity at the Planc time? Sounds like a problem, a big one.

Do I realize that I'm asking you about the cosmology of the universe billions of years ago? I do realize that. No scientist is going to seriously suggest that gravity activates. No scientist can fathom how a big bang happened. It's all beyond your ability to comprehend. It's also impossible because it violates known laws of physics but scientists believe it regardless and they criticize religious beliefs as faith.

I asserted that the big bang created energy, space, and matter? If the idea is that the singularity existed outside of this universe and then inflated in three dimensional space/time, then yes, the big bang created energy, space, and matter.

No big bang model that you are aware of states that the big bang created energy, space, and matter? Refer back a few pages and read Polymath's post, he said that the singularity existed in the 4th dimension. You guys pick which one it is, a 3rd dimensional singularity or 4th dimensional singularity, I don't care which but pick one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How could an expansion create the thing that is expanding? I agree, the big bang makes no sense.

Once again, the big bang theory never stated that it "created" mass or energy. I can only assume you're being obtuse at this point.

You don't know what activated the law of gravity at the Planc time? Sounds like a problem, a big one.

That's why we do research, grasshopper. Believe it or not, "not knowing all the details of everything" is a bloody good reason to actually put in the work to find out.

Do I realize that I'm asking you about the cosmology of the universe billions of years ago? I do realize that. No scientist is going to seriously suggest that gravity activates. No scientist can fathom how a big bang happened. It's all beyond your ability to comprehend. It's also impossible because it violates known laws of physics but scientists believe it regardless and they criticize religious beliefs as faith.

Just because it is beyond your ability to understand it doesn't mean it is beyond anyone else's, unless you are under the impression that you are the single most intelligent, sentient being in the Universe. Are you?

I asserted that the big bang created energy, space, and matter? If the idea is that the singularity existed outside of this universe and then inflated in three dimensional space/time, then yes, the big bang created energy, space, and matter.

No, it didn't. It expanded the energy, space and matter that was already there in the singularity. You are being obtuse.

No big bang model that you are aware of states that the big bang created energy, space, and matter? Refer back a few pages and read Polymath's post, he said that the singularity existed in the 4th dimension. You guys pick which one it is, a 3rd dimensional singularity or 4th dimensional singularity, I don't care which but pick one.

And where does he say the big bang created energy, space and matter?

 

[Polymath257]

You said the singularity doesn't exist in the universe and has no time? It's beyond you and your ability to comprehend, and it's beyond your math.

More specifically, in General Relativity, a singularity is an inability to extend a certain coordinate. In the case of the BB, that coordinate is the coordinate of time. So, it means that it is impossible (under GR) to talk about 'before the BB'.

I'm assuming something before the big bang? I'm not. I'm trying to get you to fix a theory, singularity or no singularity, singularity in the 3rd dimension or 4th dimension, pick one. You keep flip flopping back and forth.

The problem is that you misunderstand what it means to be a singularity. For example, the latitude and longitude lines on the Earth have a singularity at the north and south poles: those coordinates cannot be extended pst the poles in a meaningful way.

The singularity in the BB is the same, although a bit more extreme. In GR as applied to the BB, time cannot be extended back before 13.8 billion years ago. That is what defines it to be a singularity.

For modifications to GR that allow quantum effects, there is no such singularity: time *can* be extended further back into the past. And for those theories, matter and energy exist farther back also. No *information* manages to get through because of the conditions at maximal density, though.

Why couldn't a singularity existing in the 3rd dimension sit nice a quietly for a period (the period is measured by the constant rate at which particles pop into existence in the singularity) and then the singularity suddenly inflates?

Again showing that you don't understand the concept.

Time, space, and energy began with the big bang? Okay, so COE begins with the event. Any evidence for this or is it entirely based upon the big bang theory? At what time does gravity activate?

This is based on GR. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, so is always 'active' when time exists.

There were no outer or central areas? Then there was no big bang followed by a very quick inflation.

Wrong. The inflation was also universal: it was literally everywhere. Again, no edges.

There was a sudden appearence of all matter already separated, that's why gravity would not cause it to stop because the force falls off with the square of the distance. So, the big bang was not a bang it was an instantaneous nebular formation, and, it doesn't have to be instantaneous, it could have been a few nebula's here and there at first. Sounds like what I said a long time ago.

There is no center to the expansion? But there would be if there was a big bang and it would be hotter than the outer areas.

Which again shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. The BB does NOT have a 'center of expansion', nor is there and 'edge' to the expansion, nor are there 'outer limits' to the expansion. It is literally the expansion of *all* space with matter and energy throughout.

What makes me think there was a before the big bang? I know there was no big bang. You're the ones who have to figure out what was before the big bang, not I.

Once again, there is no 'before the BB' in standard BB cosmology. Time isn't defined prior.

 

[Super Universe]

Once again, the big bang theory never stated that it "created" mass or energy. I can only assume you're being obtuse at this point.


That's why we do research, grasshopper. Believe it or not, "not knowing all the details of everything" is a bloody good reason to actually put in the work to find out.


Just because it is beyond your ability to understand it doesn't mean it is beyond anyone else's, unless you are under the impression that you are the single most intelligent, sentient being in the Universe. Are you?


No, it didn't. It expanded the energy, space and matter that was already there in the singularity. You are being obtuse.


And where does he say the big bang created energy, space and matter?

The big bang theory never stated that it created mass or energy? If it came from another dimension then it did create mass and energy in the 3rd dimension.

The problem of gravity and the big bang is why scientists do research? There is no research that will allow a big bang. None. It can't happen. You're only fooling yourselves. The only thing you can say is that galaxies are spreading apart, you have no idea where they came from or why galaxies are spreading apart and you have no idea why the speed of expansion is increasing.

Just because the big bang is beyond my ability to understand doesn't mean it is beyond anyone else's? GRAVITY. You do know what gravity is, don't you? You don't seem to understand it at all.

Where does Polymath say that the big bang created energy, space, and matter? He said it came from the 4th dimension. It's a great excuse, it's like saying "I have no way for this to make sense so it came from the 4th dimension because no one knows jack about the 4th dimension so I'm safe and you can't criticize it." That's no longer science.

It's like a movie from the 60's "It Came From The 4th Dimension!" Ooooohhh.

 

[Super Universe]

More specifically, in General Relativity, a singularity is an inability to extend a certain coordinate. In the case of the BB, that coordinate is the coordinate of time. So, it means that it is impossible (under GR) to talk about 'before the BB'.



The problem is that you misunderstand what it means to be a singularity. For example, the latitude and longitude lines on the Earth have a singularity at the north and south poles: those coordinates cannot be extended pst the poles in a meaningful way.

The singularity in the BB is the same, although a bit more extreme. In GR as applied to the BB, time cannot be extended back before 13.8 billion years ago. That is what defines it to be a singularity.

For modifications to GR that allow quantum effects, there is no such singularity: time *can* be extended further back into the past. And for those theories, matter and energy exist farther back also. No *information* manages to get through because of the conditions at maximal density, though.



Again showing that you don't understand the concept.



This is based on GR. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime, so is always 'active' when time exists.


Wrong. The inflation was also universal: it was literally everywhere. Again, no edges.



Which again shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. The BB does NOT have a 'center of expansion', nor is there and 'edge' to the expansion, nor are there 'outer limits' to the expansion. It is literally the expansion of *all* space with matter and energy throughout.



Once again, there is no 'before the BB' in standard BB cosmology. Time isn't defined prior.

In GR a singularity is an inability to extend a certain coordinate? That's trying to tell you something. It's trying to tell you that what you are trying to do is impossible.

I misunderstand what it means to be a singularity? No one understands the idea of a singularity. There is no scientific theory that allows a condense sphere of particles to suddenly expand. Black holes do not explode or inflate or expand.

I'm showing that I don't understand the concept? I understand it as well as the scientists do. It just doesn't work and does not match testable and experimental evidence nor does it match logic because it violates a fundamental law of physics.

Gravity is the curvature of space and becomes active when time exists? Gravity is not the curvature of space. Yes, gravity curves three dimensional space but gravity exists in all eleven dimensions. And, time, as you believe it, started at the exact moment the singularity began to expand, so, gravity would have stopped the big bang the fraction of a second it tried to start.

The inflation was everywhere, not one place? Correct. We finally agree. Nebula's formed one by one distant from each other. Some of the nebula's were allowed to remain nebula's as gravity acted to form stars and planets while other nebula's were spun up to be disc shaped galaxies.

You guys are really trying very hard to make this big bang thing work even when it violates all scientific reason. Humans are incredibly stubborn. You're always very full of yourselves.

The big bang does not have a center of expansion? I know it doesn't. If your idea was correct it should. You can't have matter self generate at multiple points all at exactly the same moment. You guys are trying to prove a fantasy that is impossible.

Also, if all matter originated at separate points then why the expansion? This makes no sense. What is causing the expansion then? The whole idea of the big bang came about BECAUSE you saw that galaxies were expanding and now you are trying to say "Well, the galaxies formed in multiple separate locations at the same instant and then started moving outward."

This is not science. Science would say "I don't know," not, "Well, if we violate gravity and invent this COE thing that doesn't help us one way or another at least then we are doing something with our careers and deserve the pay and recognition we have received."

There was no before the big bang? There was no big bang. But there was a time before the nebula's were formed, time being a sequence of events.