Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

So you, the physicist are asking me, the layman why distances between things in the universe are expanding when you have no sure foundational data on why/when the alleged expansion of space began. Is that correct? If so, aren't we coming full circle to my contention that we both espouse unfalsifyable POVs? Edited by Buzsaw, : Update Message Title

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Inflation is a hypothetical field.

---

Incorrect. It's a measured occurence. What do you think WMAP and PLANCK were measuring? What do you think the cosmic background radiation means? The hypothetical field is what causes inflation. We know that inflation happened. What we don't quite understand is how.

quote:

---

It is a fudge factor to account for some predictions of the Big Bang that would falsify the Big Bang if inflation was not inserted.

---

Incorrect. It is the conclusion based upon what it is that we observed. And it makes predictions: The Standard Model is confirmed by inflation.

quote:

---

If the inflationary epoch really took place, it could cure the problems of Horizon, Flatness, and Monopole

---

Those aren't "problems" that need to be "cured." They are observations that we have made. And inflation predicts exactly what it is that we see.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What do you think the red-shift is a measure of?

---

​

Rrhain, I am a Bible thumper.

---

If you say so. What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying god can't exist in a universe that inflates? I don't recall the Bible mentioning anything about the mechanism by which the universe behaved. Why do you feel the need to tell god what to do?

quote:

---

quote:

---

What do you think the various experiments into dark energy are about?

---

​

Bible thumper version. Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy.

---

So why is it that we can measure it? Oh, we have no idea what it is. But the expansion of the universe is measurably accelerating. Since we haven't figured out that telepathy thing yet, we use words to describe that expansion and the phrase we have come up with is "dark energy." Just as we still have no real idea what gravity is and nobody pretends that it is "hypothetical," nobody pretends that dark energy is "hypothetical." We can measure it...we just don't know what it is or how it works.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What are we talking about? You're switching the goalposts.

---

​

I never switch the goal posts.

---

Oh, really? Let's see what I originally said...you know...the part you cut out: It seems you don't know what you are trying to deny. We can measure inflation and expansion which is what we were talking about: And thus, my reaction: Buzsaw and I were referring to the expansion of the universe. I pointed out that the expansion of the universe is a measurable quantity and that we know a fair amount about it.You jump in and suddenly talk about origins. That's shifting the goalposts. Since Buzsaw's claim about the expansion of the universe is false, you shift the goalposts and insist we come up with an explanation of origins and hope to high heaven that nobody notices.

quote:

---

But when you have to add assumptions to get things to match what you observe that is not knowledge.

---

And thank heaven that isn't what we're doing. Instead, we're measuring things. We test hypotheses against actual observations. Are you saying the universe isn't expanding? That there is no cosmic background radiation?By your logic, gravity isn't "knowledge" either since we still have no idea what it is and only "add assumptions to get things to match what we observe." We have to measure G because otherwise, the equation doesn't work, right?

quote:

---

Concerning the origin Hawking said: "Cosmology can not predict anything about the universe unless it makes some assumption about the initial conditions."

---

(*chuckle*) That quote comes from Chapter 5 of Hawking and Penrose's book, The Nature of Space and Time. Hawking was referring to why cosmology was considered a pseudo-science in the past. He made a few points:1) Lack of observations.
2) Need for assumptions.However, he then spends the rest of the chapter responding to them. As he later points out in the same chapter: What? A creationist was quote mining? Say it isn't so!

quote:

---

No I am trying to point out that the assumptions are unfalsifiable.

---

And yet, they can be. Do not confuse your ignorance of the state of the science with a universal condition.And if you're going to quote Hawking, it would do well for you to have read the entire lecture transcript.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to Bluejay:

quote:

---

Is Hawking wrong?

---

Again with the quote mining. Your quote is, once again, from the Hawking-Penrose debates that were written up in The Nature of Space and Time. Do you know what Hawking is referring to when he says "incomplete"?Here's the lead-in to Hawking's definition: Hawking is attempting to include the singularities in his model. As he continues on: Hawking then goes on to explain how you can, indeed, predict what comes out of them (as I showed in response to your other quote mine).You did actually read the lectures before you posted them, didn't you?

quote:

---

That tells me there is nothing at T=0.

---

And why, precisely, is that a problem?Be specific and show your work. To quote from the very source you mined: To use your own words: Is Hawking wrong?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

You probably right that is the reason I quote Hawking and http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/index.html quite often among many others. They seem to know what they are talking about.

---

Yes, but the problem is that you don't know what they're talking about. So far, you've quote-mined the same paper twice. Can you actually tell us what Hawking was referring to? Go beyond stenography and rephrase it in your own words.What did Hawking do with his definition of "singularity"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw responds to lyx2no:

quote:

---

1. Aren't the iffies relative to the Buzsaw Biblical Universe Hypothesis (BBUH} what makes it unfalsifiable?

---

No.

quote:

---

2. Isn't a lot of the foundational data relative to the Expansionist Universe Theory (EUT) assumed from the unfalsifiable Planck Epoch of T=0 to T=10-43; data such as the Superforce of the unification of the forces of the Universe, the alleged hyper-expansionist epoch, etc? If so, doesn't that jeopardise the falsifiability of Expansionist Universe Theory?

---

No.

quote:

---

3. The BBUH defines space having no properties except eternally existing static boundless area in which all else in the universe exists, including all forces, having no properties capable of expansion. Observable expansion is accounted for by increasing distances between things in the universe.

---

If it is eternal, then it is at thermal equilibrium. Since the universe is clearly not at thermal equilibrium, your claim is trivially proven false.And since we can directly measure the expansion of the universe, your claim is trivially proven false.Observable expansion is not "accounted for by increasing distances between things in the universe." It is happening too fast for it to be simple motion. Thus, your claim is trivally proven false.Since your claims violate all observations at every turn, what can it tell us about how the universe works that current theory can't?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Imo that space has no properties capable of expansion is refutable

---

And it has been. The fact that the galaxies are moving apart faster than what simple motion can cause is indicative that space is expanding.If space were not expanding, then the universe should have collapsed due to the gravitational pull on everything.

quote:

---

Imo expansionists assume too much uniformability relative to how the uiverse was billions of years far removed.

---

You really have no clue as to the state of cosmology, do you?For the third time:Have you ever had any formal training in physics? I mean real physics that you need calculus to figure out where you did the experiment of suspending a pendulum from the ceiling so you could directly calculate G (the constant of universal gravitation), where you recreated the Millikin experiment to directly measure the charge on an electron, where you measured the spectral lines of hydrogen, that sort of physics.Again, that's high school level stuff. How much physics do you know?Cosmology, on the other hand, is well beyond high school. Have you ever done any work in quatum physics? Calculated the wave-form of an electron? Run the two-slit experiment? When was the last time you had to deal with the calculations involved in a twisted tensor?I asked you this previously, too, but apparently you decided to blow it off as well:What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?The reason I ask these questions is because the questions you are asking show a severe ignorance of how physics works. This isn't something you can "common sense" your way through because the universe does not work the way you think it works.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw responds to lyx2no:

quote:

---

So you, the physicist are asking me, the layman why distances between things in the universe are expanding

---

You're the one making the claim, therefore it is your burden of proof. Since you are contradicting direct observations of the universe, it is your responsibility to explain why it is that our telescopes are showing us things that aren't true.The expansion of the universe is a direct observation. The expansion is happening faster than what kinematics can cause.So why is it you are claiming that we aren't really seeing it?

quote:

---

when you have no sure foundational data on why/when the alleged expansion of space began. Is that correct?

---

No.

quote:

---

If so, aren't we coming full circle to my contention that we both espouse unfalsifyable POVs?

---

No.You're the one contradicting observation. Therefore, not only is the theory falsifiable, you need to explain why reality isn't actually happening.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Reread what I'm positing, that both POVs are unfalsifiable since your POVs foundational underpinnings such as when/how/if spacial expansion began and when/how/if separation of the Superforce singularity of forces began, etc.My POV is unfalsifiable since I cannot verify the existence of the ID omnipotent designer/creator who's ability is allegedly to expand things in the universe via work as well as to manage/design every aspect of the universe.Both POVs have evidence for lending credence to them, mine being the phenomena of complex design on earth and in the cosmos, compatibility with the LOT science laws as well as corroborating evidence of the credibility of the Biblical record. Yours has evidence based on a somewhat uniformitarian model and your definition of the properties of space.So far as I have thus far ascertained you can't verify when/how the expansion began, the gravitational forces originated and allegedly separated from an alleged superforce etc but you insist on me verifying when/how the ID omnipotent designer came to be and the mechanics of how he worked to effect his purposes and plans for the universe.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

Reread what I'm positing, that both POVs are unfalsifiable since your POVs foundational underpinnings such as when/how/if spacial expansion began and when/how/if separation of the Superforce singularity of forces began, etc.

---

Incorrect. The reason why we concluded inflation is because we could test for it. The reason why we conclude expansion is because we could test for it.

quote:

---

My POV is unfalsifiable since I cannot verify the existence of the ID omnipotent designer/creator who's ability is allegedly to expand things in the universe via work as well as to manage/design every aspect of the universe.

---

So considering that cosmology is falsifiable and yours is not, why should we treat yours as science?

quote:

---

Both POVs have evidence for lending credence to them

---

Huh? You just said your claim was unfalsifiable. By definition, this means there is no evidence for it.Cosmology, on the other hand, has lots of evidence. That's why we have been able to design tests for inflation and expansion.

quote:

---

mine being the phenomena of complex design on earth and in the cosmos, compatibility with the LOT science laws

---

Incorrect. Everything you have said so far has been a direct contradiction of what we know of physics. Shall we go through it again? You claim an eternal universe but if that were true, then the universe would be at thermal equlibrium because all physical processes reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time. An eternal universe means an infinite amount of time and thus, the universe necessarily is at heat death.Plus, your definition of god directly contradicts the second law. Remember the hint I gave you? What would happen if you hooked up the engine to the refrigerator?

quote:

---

as well as corroborating evidence of the credibility of the Biblical record.

---

Except there isn't, really. The Bible is actually a pretty piss poor historical document.But by your logic, we should all be claiming Zeus is lord since we have coroborating evidence of the credibility of the Iliad and the Odyssey.

quote:

---

Yours has evidence based on a somewhat uniformitarian model and your definition of the properties of space.

---

Incorrect. "Uniformitarian"? Methinks you are confusing your creationist jargon. "Uniformitarianism" is a complaint about geology, not cosmology. And it isn't even true in geology, for that matter. Where do you get the idea that the universe is uniform?Have you not seen the results of WMAP and PLANCK? The universe is lumpy.

quote:

---

So far as I have thus far ascertained you can't verify when/how the expansion began

---

Incorrect. We know when. How, that's a good question. But for you to complain about this shows that you have fallen for the creationist fallacy that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.You're the one saying the universe didn't inflate AT ALL. And yet, we have experiments that test for it and show that it did happen. Inflation is a conclusion, not an assumption.You're the one saying the universe isn't expanding AT ALL. And yet, we have experiments that test for it and show that not only did is it happening, it is accelerating. Expansion is a conclusion, not an assumption.

quote:

---

the gravitational forces originated and allegedly separated from an alleged superforce etc

---

Huh? When did gravity enter into it? Yeah, we don't have a TOE yet, but so what? That's the creationist fallacy that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.By the way, we've been able to combine the electromagnetic and weak forces.

quote:

---

but you insist on me verifying when/how the ID omnipotent designer came to be and the mechanics of how he worked to effect his purposes and plans for the universe.

---

It's your argument. You're the one who needs to prove it. So far, you haven't even shown the action of god. So far, you are claiming that things that we have tested and measured don't actually exist.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Buzsaw. It's time for you to show your work.For the fourth time:Have you ever had any formal training in physics? I mean real physics that you need calculus to figure out where you did the experiment of suspending a pendulum from the ceiling so you could directly calculate G (the constant of universal gravitation), where you recreated the Millikin experiment to directly measure the charge on an electron, where you measured the spectral lines of hydrogen, that sort of physics.Again, that's high school level stuff. How much physics do you know?Cosmology, on the other hand, is well beyond high school. Have you ever done any work in quatum physics? Calculated the wave-form of an electron? Run the two-slit experiment? When was the last time you had to deal with the calculations involved in a twisted tensor?I asked you this previously, too, but apparently you decided to blow it off as well:What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?The reason I ask these questions is because the questions you are asking show a severe ignorance of how physics works. This isn't something you can "common sense" your way through because the universe does not work the way you think it works.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Firstly, I’ve given no hint as to my vocation.Secondly, I was asking about your model of the Universe. Physicist or no, I have no way of knowing the wherewithal of your model.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

quote:

---

Both POVs have evidence for lending credence to them, mine being the phenomena of complex design on earth and in the cosmos, compatibility with the LOT science laws as well as corroborating evidence of the credibility of the Biblical record. Yours has evidence based on a somewhat uniformitarian model and your definition of the properties of space.

---

Presumably you mean INCOMPATIBILITY with the laws of thermodynamics. You certainly seem happy to let the problem I raised in my initial reply remain unaddressed (your only response so far relied on denying the real 2LoT, which hardly indicates compatibility !). But that's not evidence for your ideas, is it ?The Bible's credibility is also a negative, since the two differing creation accounts are both contrary to the evidence (and the depiction of God in the second has more in common with the Gods of polytheistic religions than modern Christianity or Judaism).Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Buz this just is not true.Why do you think we spend so much time, money and effort mapping the CMB? We do it to test our theories of cosmology.
Why do we spend so much time, money and effort building ever more powerful particle accelorators? We do this to test our theories of space, time and matter.The Big Bang and inflationary variant model both make highly detailed predictions about what should be observed if the model is true.
Observations have been found to match these predictions. To an incerdibly high degree of accuracy. This process is ongoing.These predictions do not require interpretation of existing data. They tell us exactly what new data should reveal. The data that has subsequently been investigated has been found to be perfectly in line with these predictions.What predictions do creationist theories make about new cosmological data? What tests do creationists apply to their ideas of cosmology to test them?This is the difference between a scientifically verified theory and a mere hypothesis. Testing of theories. Verification by detailed and specific prediction. Not simply best guess methods of explaining away known phenomenon based on whatever sounds personally plausible. Since you so readily admit that your POV is unfalsifiable and you must surely recognise that it does not even warrant the term hypothesis? Never mind any serious consideration as a scientific theory.Your POV and the scientific consensus regarding cosmology are utterly incomparable in terms of evidence by any remotely objective standard.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

1. My statement to which you are responding says mine has evidence lending credence to it. There can be supportive evidence to unfalsifiable hypotheses. Right?2. Your evidence is based on a definition of space far different than mine; yours having properties which are questionable as to whether they are spacial properties or whether they are properties pertaining to things/forces occupying space.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How many times have I stated the work/manage factor relative to my hypothesis being effected by the intelligent omnipotent designer which you persistently refuse to acknowledge? I've explained how this does not contradict 2LoT. Where have I effectively been refuted on this thus far in this thread?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a bare asserted claim on your part; nothing but your biased opinion which refutes nothing. Your analogy is a red herring.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I pulled the hind legs off a bucket full of toads and stove their little heads with a rubber mallet, but it wasn’t at all cruel and it obeyed 2LoT.Buzsaw, do you see anything non sequiter about the above statement? Anything at all?You cant just claim something follows 2LoT and expect everything else to fall in line.I once met a man who had drawn a carefully laid out plan of a flying saucer. Control rooms and storage rooms, bathrooms and lounges, observation ports and landing gear. And in the very center on the lower three levels (He must have spent months) he had a circular room labeled MAGNETO RESONANCE LEVITATION DEVICE. I spent days without "effectively refuting" his plans viability. Some things just can't be done with some people.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.Edited by lyx2no, : Antitypo (lets hope they don't react.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Do you know of any non-creation science where the hypotheses in question are considered inherently impossible to test?A fairly fundamental concept with regard to hypotheses is that they can be tested and further investigated and therefore ultimately either be verified or refuted.
If you are forming 'hypotheses' where you totally acknowledge the impossibility of falsification from the very beginning they don't really even warrent the term 'hypothesis'.Instead you just have highly subjective untestable guesses based on a deeply personal wish fulfilment based extrapoloation of existing evidence.
In the specific case of your proposal it isn't even based on the evidence that does exist. Rather it is a series of implausible 'what ifs' that force the known evidence into a predefined philosophical position.
That is isn't science. It is a recipe for nonsense.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.