|
| Thread: The Big Bang: did it happen or not? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Warmonger
Promising
Legendary Hero
fallen artist
|
posted January 09, 2009 09:52 PM |
|
|
If you let your question to be stated as "Is the universe eternal or began out of nothing", Immanuel Kant has answered it almost 250 years ago. Both answers are senseless 
What I may add can't use scientific methods to issues which are not understandable. In such cases only faith or revelation can show the way.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 09:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes and it's why science may not be the best 'tool' to discuss the Big Bang or this subject.
Why is that?
One-time events are difficult to reproduce.
Stuff that is not reproducible is impossible to reproduce.
If it can't be reproduced, science ignores it.
So we should turn to something else instead.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 10:04 PM |
|
|
|
Yoo seem to forget that Big Bang is considered a scientific theory. It's not an invention or speculation of mine.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 10:08 PM |
|
|
Warmonger:
Kant was wrong about many things, this being one of them.
And there's a difference between unknown and unknowable. To the caveman, the atom was unknown. To us, many other thinks are unknown. But to say that they're unknowable is too much.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 10:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
One-time events are difficult to reproduce.
Stuff that is not reproducible is impossible to reproduce.
If it can't be reproduced, science ignores it.
So we should turn to something else instead.
If any of that were true, there wouldn't be forensic science and murderers would be out walking the street.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 11:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If any of that were true, there wouldn't be forensic science and murderers would be out walking the street.
Well that is not even a science
Anyway I didn't mean that we should "look elsewhere" instead of science, I meant that for irreproducible subjects, science is useless. Not saying it's a negative effect, it simply does not handle that. (else you could even use science for fairies and stuff, not very useful )
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted January 09, 2009 11:19 PM |
|
|
*perks a brow*
Quote:
Well I'm not sure about the Big Bang, I'm not really inclined about this so I don't know if it really is plausible or some other theory doubts the Big Bang's existence, but the Big Bang does not contradict God and neither the Bible.
Sure, the man was created 6000 years ago or so, but the Earth is much much older. Those 7 days from the Bible were relative: how do you know the time than passed as fast as now? For all we know, it could have been billions of years instead of 7 days. So the Big Bang, the existence of dinosaurs millions of years ago, etc, do not contradict the existence of a God or the Bible - all those could have happened in those 7 days.
I'm sorry that I included religion in my post but at least I linked it with the Big Bang so I hope it's not that far off-topic. 
using the bible as source for scientific facts will point you in a world where the earth is flat, the sky is supported by four columns and rain is nothing but the firmament leaking down on us, where bats are birds and where there are birds that have four legs... it makes about as much sense as me using the Lord of the Rings as a recipe book
and "man was created 6000 years ago or so"? ...then i guess those settlements from 10.000 BCE found not too far from here were made by aliens... and they are not even the oldest around (i know there is a 12k BCE one in mexico and i am sure africa has a few even older)
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 11:20 PM |
|
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 11:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I meant that for irreproducible subjects, science is useless. Not saying it's a negative effect, it simply does not handle that. (else you could even use science for fairies and stuff, not very useful )
And like I said, so if Jack is murdered, there's no use trying to use science to determine who killed him, because the murder can't be exactly reproduced?
For that matter, what can be exactly reproduced? What is an experiment except an attempt to reproduce something that already happened in as controlled a setting as possible?
The evolution of human beings cannot be exactly reproduced in a science lab. Do you feel that science has no use in understanding the diversity of life, as well?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2009 09:01 AM |
|
|
Please.
Science is a METHOD. A TOOL, if you want to. A way to find knowledge. You can use it everywhere you like provided you can get empirical data.
By the way, Corribus, do you think it's appropriate when a guy like you who never fails to point to his scientific background, hammers down on a thread like the Holy Keeper of the Scientific Idea, lecturing people with the typical mix of outrage and haughtyness science has for those they consider laymen, just to go on and ignore the explanation post the so lectured is giving just to humor the lecturer.
I find that rather impolite. IF you go ahead and start an attack you could at least have the decency to acknowledge a lengthy answer given for your benefit.
|
|
Warmonger
Promising
Legendary Hero
fallen artist
|
|
posted January 10, 2009 09:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Kant was wrong about many things, this being one of them.
Quote:
And there's a difference between unknown and unknowable. To the caveman, the atom was unknown. To us, many other thinks are unknown. But to say that they're unknowable is too much.
These two quotes together show that you have absolutely no idea which theory I was refering to.
He claims that time and space are not OBJECTS, but the way human mind perceives the reality. For that reason questions about the beginning of time and space make no sense as properties like presence or beginning of them does not apply.
So we can not learn anything about properties which do not exist at all.
Since Einstein we know that time and space are one, we know how they refer to each other in the string theory and others I'm not fluent in.
What I'm pretty sure is that there is no actual way to measure time and space as we are not able to think about any other ideas we could use as a reference. We live in time and space, but can't reach beyond and look at it from the perspective. Our image of them is subjective and will not be any other.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2009 10:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Since Einstein we know that time and space are one, we know how they refer to each other in the string theory and others I'm not fluent in.
What I'm pretty sure is that there is no actual way to measure time and space as we are not able to think about any other ideas we could use as a reference. We live in time and space, but can't reach beyond and look at it from the perspective. Our image of them is subjective and will not be any other.
Errm, sorry to say so, but it looks like even Einstein may have been wrong...
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 10, 2009 10:41 AM |
|
|
The big bang hmmm. Ok lets ignore the fact that the matter would have to come from SOMEWHERE, and that SOMETHING would have had to set of the 'bang'. Futher, lets ignore the fact that short of somebody creating a time machine that we will never know how the universe started. Unless of course there is an afterlife with an all knowing person who can teach us.
Ignoring those things, yes the Big Bang is possibly how the universe was created. However, with the current ammount of information we have..it is just as provable and believable as that 'God' created everything.
How do we even know this is the first 'wave'? It could have contracted and expanded thousands of times before we came along. So who knows.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted January 10, 2009 01:33 PM |
|
|
Aside from matter I also wonder about time Was there time before time started?
____________
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted January 10, 2009 02:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Was there time before time started?
Is that a rhetorical question? How can there be time before it started?
I know it's hard to imagine a world where everything happens without time but it is possible. It can happen everything that does with time as well, but only that it happens instantly.
Or maybe I'm saying nonsense.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 11, 2009 01:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And like I said, so if Jack is murdered, there's no use trying to use science to determine who killed him, because the murder can't be exactly reproduced?
For that matter, what can be exactly reproduced? What is an experiment except an attempt to reproduce something that already happened in as controlled a setting as possible?
The evolution of human beings cannot be exactly reproduced in a science lab. Do you feel that science has no use in understanding the diversity of life, as well?
Like JJ said, it is just a tool. Sure you can use it -- but it doesn't guarantee that if it is not useful, it means the respective thing should be discarded (although you would have to do it somehow differently).
Quote:
But to say that they're unknowable is too much.
Yeah they are, since we know only made-up MODELS. Atom itself is unknowable. It's perceived properties (hey, perception is limited too) may not be.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2009 09:45 AM |
|
|
Ökay, let's get a couple of info in.
US Astronomer Tom Van Flandern compiled a list in 2002 called
"The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang"
You find it here: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
Van Flandern writes:
"The Big Bang (..) no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget, or were never taught, that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with, at most, an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory. (..) Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers."
What is in fact worrisome is, things are postulated to exist, "because the theory calls for it". An observation doesn't fit into the theory, and WHAM, there must be Dark Matter and Dark Energy, amounting to 96% of the mass/energy of the universe.
You could just as well call that God, because per definitionem Dark Matter/Energy can't be detected which seems to be pretty convenient.
Basically those things are called adjustable parameters in science, which are frowned upon. Ockham's Razor, by the way, favors the theory with less adjustables.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2009 12:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What is in fact worrisome is, things are postulated to exist, "because the theory calls for it". An observation doesn't fit into the theory, and WHAM, there must be Dark Matter and Dark Energy, amounting to 96% of the mass/energy of the universe.
You could just as well call that God, because per definitionem Dark Matter/Energy can't be detected which seems to be pretty convenient.
There either is something called dark matter and energy, or we understand gravity wrong. Since no one has come up with a better theory of gravitation, dark matter is the only viable option to explain some observed phenomena. The observed phenomena which imply the presence of dark matter include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
Dark matter and energy are part of string theories as well, btw.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2009 01:16 PM |
|
|
Err, no. There are big IFs involved: IF we assume certain things and IF we interpret observations in a certain way THEN there MUST BE mass and energy that somehow isn't observable for us.
You could just say there are ghosts at work. Or God. It's the ulimate fudge factor.
It's against scientific princliples to postulate something as a cause for effects that you can A PRIORI not observe.
In short, theories that work only with "black box" parameters are in nature RELIGIOUS, not scientific.
Note, that this isn't limited to big bang cosmology. It's true for particle physics as well. A big part of the "known" paticles are purely hypothetical constructs.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2009 01:20 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 13:26, 11 Jan 2009.
|
Quote:
Err, no. There are big IFs involved: IF we assume certain things and IF we interpret observations in a certain way THEN there MUST BE mass and energy that somehow isn't observable for us.
So how do you explain the phenomena without dark matter or energy? Or how should they be interpreted?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
|
|
