|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5449 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang is NOT Scientific | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Nothing worse... Look like Holmes got zapped in the Coffee House too. Talk to you soon...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If that be the case, would you mind refuting my interpretation of his statement to which you are responding, as follows?
Chomsky came up with a wonderful sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." buzsaw interpretation of SG. writes: 1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng. Your statement means about the same thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
So as I read and understand your statements, we can conclude from it the following to be what you are saying: 1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng.2. So there was no "before." the universe. 3. Regarding the universe, there is no past and there is no future. There is only the immeasurable present. I'll leave SG to tell you that his post implied none of these But please please explain to me the meaning of
Buzzsaw writes:
the immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
buz writes: Yet mainline science insists there's no "before," as if they're positive about their claims CD writes: No, I'm claiming there is no before in the Big Bang model. As I have mentioned to you before, there are other possibilities. I am trying to show you why your "problems" with the Big Bang are not valid. That does not imply that I think the the Big Bang actually happened... Does or does not mainline science insist there's no "before" the BB? If so, do you agree?
buz writes: I'm afraid that's not the attitude of BB advocates here in the science foum debates CD writes: Which BB advocates? What attitude? 1. Nearly all.2. The attitude that aspects of BB science cited in the message I was responding to are speculative. CD writes: So all of the cosmology and relativity departments around the world are just engaged in psuedoscience? Perhaps you should write to them before they waste any more time? That's not what I said. My comment was addressing the statement about the speculative aspects of the BB being cited. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Buz interpretation writes: 1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng. nwr writes: Chomsky came up with a wonderful sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."Your statement means about the same thing. Are you going to yada or are you going to refute the specifics of the statement above? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
CD writes: But please please explain to me the meaning of Buzzsaw writes:the immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past 1. The present is an instentaneous immeasureable moment.2. The present is an extension of history/the infinite past. 3. What presently is has eliminated the present from being inclusive of the eternal future. Edit error This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-03-2006 12:31 AM BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
quote:At first glance, your statement (about the universe) looks like a meaningful sentence. But when you examine it closely, you can see that it makes no sense. That's what I was trying to illustrate by quoting the Chomsky sentence. If the statement makes no sense, then there is nothing there to refute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
buzsaw
1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng. If the universe had no beginning is this not the same as saying that it never began?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
SonGoku writes: It seems it is at least the orgin of spacetime and matter. Of which energy manifest everything. Orgin, originate....begin, begun...lets call the whole thing off.
The Big Bang is often viewed as a high energy environment, but nobody claims it is the orgin of the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Does or does not mainline science insist there's no "before" the BB? If so, do you agree?
There is already no universal "before" anyway. If we then attempt to discuss a construct like the universe, that has distance and time has observer dependant fields sitting in it, I think the words "before" and "after" have lost their usefulness. In any discussion of this kind, I think humans will have to get rid of the idea that everything is measured by a giant universal grandfather clock sitting somewhere out there. However that doesn't mean the Universe isn't a result of some process or thing or......e.t.c........Simply that, whatever the Universe is a result of, causal language can't apply to it. Your quantumist relativist science view
Quantumist?I would simply say I adopt the view of the world suggested by the experimental success of Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4875 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:I'll try and answer this. General Relativity tells us that the universe is the entire 4-D structure of spacetime. The universe doesn't evolve through time since time is just as part of the universe as space. The BB just refers to one section of this 4-D structure, and hence cannot be said to be the origin fo anything. [EDITED] for vagueness This message has been edited by JustinC, 04-03-2006 10:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
There seems to be a some confusion as to what constitutes a "beginning" and what the word: "orgin" means in this discussion. If there was no space prior to T=0 then there was no time. Now how does one reconcile that space and time existed always if the Big Bang is the point where our physics ends and begins. General Relativity, String, Matrix, M, or any other theoretical phyisics can not begin to have meaningful answers to a event that began our cosmological clock ticking.
"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Thanks for showing up, 1.61803. Finally someone has showed up willing to incorporate some logic and common sense into the discussion.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
buz-message206 writes: Hi Son Goku: So as I read and understand your statements, we can conclude from it the following to be what you are saying:1. The universe had no origin/never ever originated/had no beginnng. 2. So there was no "before." the universe. 3. Regarding the universe, there is no past and there is no future. There is only the immeasurable present. Hi again, SG. Before we address this post we need to back up. I've been hoping you'd show up to address the specifics of my above from message 206. Is the above a fairly accurate interpretation of your statements in your first message before this? If not, why specifically for each item? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Nwr, it appears that you either don't want to or cannot present a forthright answer.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024