|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5558 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Talking about infinity is a lot like talking about god. In practice, we don't know if they exist or what they are supposed to be like. If we stick to the BBT, how would the universe be infinite? Wouldn't nothingness, that was there before the BB, be considered infinity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Wouldn't nothingness, that was there before the BB, False. BB theory does not postulate that nothingness preceded the Big Bang.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Correct. But nor does the term 'nothingness' have any meaning, other than an admission for the motion of a finite universe. Both nothing and no-things are universal concepts - as is the half empty part of a half full cup.
The empty bag is not empty - it contains a lot of emptiness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But nor does the term 'nothingness' have any meaning, other than an admission for the motion of a finite universe. Oh, I'm sure we could come up with some other meanings than that vague load of made up crap
But the concepts aren't true tothat actual definition of "nothingness". You can't get to nothingness. There's always something.
The empty bag is not empty - it contains a lot of emptiness.
Then its not an empty bag, now is it? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : Striked misquote (quote #2)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
NOTHING = NO THINGS.
PERIOD. Here's why I see genesis not as a theology [the NT & Quran are theologies, namely based on belief], while Genesis is science - which does not mean it has to subscribe to all the science of the day, any period - instead, it is 'A' science - one with a different scientific premise. Buddhism is not a theology but a philosophy, while I cannot define Hinduism. Now we do not have a scientific premise of nothingness or a pre-uni scenario - so Genesis does not go against science in this instant, but posits a different view, while no view is provable about the universe origins; even BBT is only a theory. But as theories, where logic and no contradictions with known science counts, then Genesis wins the day on what prevailed pre-uni, as well as what defines nothingness. Genesis' opening verse says: 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD/CREATOR' Not provable you say? I already preambled that fact, and instead will rely on logic relating to this non-provable premise, logic being a form of science in itself, or its absolute forerunner requirement. The Q here is, why is a Creator positation logical in this opening statement in Genesis? First thing is to forget the premise of theology and think science, or else, at least logic, and that which does not contradict known science - I believe this is a reasonable scientific methodology. Firstly, we have no scientific knowledge or proven position of a pre-uni scenario. Secondly, the premise of a beginning point [BB] does not even begin to explain the universe, raising questions such as how can a complexity result from a random or of its own or from chaos or what triggered the activation of the first point particle? A fristrating vaccuum confronts us here. Now one can say, yes but nor does a verse in Genesis relieve this vaccuum. Let's examine that again. Genesis is saying before the universe there was not NOTHING, but a Creator - and that there was nothing else [it is a pre-uni statement, appearing before the word CREATED occurs]. This statement is not as naive as one may think - for a start it introduces that the universe had a beginning, namely it is the first positation of a finite universe, and correctly contexted in the formation of the universe, namely the heavens [galaxies] and the earth. That is 100% science today. Then the premise that there was no nothingness but only a creator, is also 100% science: all things are post-uni in a finite universe - thus no things contained in this universe could exist pre-uni, including para- and multi-V universes. Real science and logic. Then that enigmatic question, how does this point more logically to a Creator creating the universe, as opposed to everything just acculumatively progressing on its own. My answer: EXCUSE ME! Since when is a creator creating a complex realm, LESS LIKELY than that realm occuring by itself - we need a verb [action] and an actioner [subject] - whatever happened to logic and science suddenly?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Anything subject to change must be finite. No. This is exactly what you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate. You are just asserting it again. You can logically argue that the unchanging and static must be infinite. Fine. I have no problem with that.But there remains no basis for your assertion that things subject to change must be finite. One does not lead to the other. Your logic remains flawed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Genesis is science?
BBT is only a theory. They are both just points of view etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah. Science tests it's conclusions regarding nature against the facts of nature. Predictions about physical phenomenon are made and verified or refuted. If you produce one verifiable prediction regarding an as yet unknown physical phenomenon by means of your "Genesis science" I will dedicate my life to God.If you cannot produce any verifiable predictions then your "Genesis science" just isn't science. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5558 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
Agobot writes: Wouldn't nothingness, that was there before the BB, Catholic Scientist writes: False. BB theory does not postulate that nothingness preceded the Big Bang. Hehe, game of words. What was there before the Big Bang? If there was something and you know what it is - let us know about it. If there was nothing, then we can conclude there didn't exist anything, hence there was nothingness. That's as far as I can grasp the idea of nothingness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Agobot Member (Idle past 5558 days) Posts: 786 Joined: |
IamJosif writes: The empty bag is not empty - it contains a lot of emptiness. Catholic Scientist writes: Then its not an empty bag, now is it? Wrong. 0+0=0. Nothing+nothing=nothing. Empty+empty=empty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: BB TheoryThe crux of the BB position being that the universe has evolved, and continues to evolve, from a prior very hot, very small, very dense state as evidenced by - # Observed ongoing expansion of the universe# Specific measured verification of CMB # Abundance of light elements as required as a direct logical consequence of BB theory. If the universe has allegedly evolved how does that go with 2LoT. My understanding is that increased entropy and 2LoT naturally tends towards disorder. Merriam Webster: Evolution 1 a : a process of change in a certain direction; especially : a process of constant change from a lower or simple state to a higher or complex state : GROWTH b : something evolved2 : the process of working out or developing BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
We have discussed entropy before and it was obvious then that you have no understanding of the concept beyond the sort of misinformation posted on creationist sites regarding life, death, decay, order and development.
Entropy arguably has some very interesting things to say about all of these things and other intriguing areas such as the nature of time. However to even begin to grasp why this is you need to uderstand what entropy is in terms of energy. The physics of simple energy transfer may not ge as sexy as discussing cosmological evolution but there is absolutely no point discussing entropy in cosmological terms with you unless you have a grasp of these basic concepts. Do you understand, for example, how the sun and your reliance on it as an energy source can be described in terms of simple energy transfers and the minor but increasing entropy of the universe these cause? Can you describe the energy source and the energy transfers involved that allow you to lift a box (for example) in your own words? Can you explain why a hot cup of water placed in a perfectly sealed room would temporarily reduce the entropy of the room? Can you explain in simple thermodynamic terms how the entropy of the room would subsequently increase until maximum entropy was eventually reached? Can you explain how this relates to incresing disorder of the room? If you cannot get the concept and practical implications of energy transfer and entropy in terms of these simple examples there is no hope of applying such concepts to an expanding universe. Where exactly do you think BBT contradicts the 2ndLOT in terms of energy?Forget your concepts and dictionary definitions of development, complexity etc. etc. for one moment (we can come back to those if you can demonstrate a basic understanding). If you cannot express your objections in terms of energy then frankly there is no point having this discussion until you have learnt something about energy transfer and entropy from a basic physics text book rather than a creationist website. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Entropy is an effect, not a cause. The effect would not occur without critical factors applying: e.g. reciprocity and intergration factors: these are anticipatory and rely on pre-determined criticality factors.
The sun's energy is not what makes life possible. Photosenthesis, for example, requires the other product it impacts to be receptive to it: that is why the sun cannot create life upon iron ore or other planets. You are confusing a creative factor with the created process; the former must subsist before the latter can: holding a white paper high in the air does not make the car manual the end point of a car.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: And what happens when there is no '0'? Nothing is not zero, but no-things; and all things are uni contained - including no-things. This enigmatic premise is well catered to in the notion all things began with a duality factor; in fact this says there is no 'ONE' in the universe. Track down all things and you find it is a combination of at least a duality - namely a positive and negative force, and no where can any one of those forces subsist in the universe independently or as ONE. This is the reason particles either attract or repel each other, and levels seek their uniform balance - these are effects of fundamental designs within the deepest realms of the universe. One has to agree with the position prior to the universe [namely, all things], there was ONE - as opposed no things/nothingness. Nothingness is a subjective posiion, meaning it is limited to what one can fathom, discern, calculate, measure, see or contain in their vocab. And this means only that there is ONE factor when no things existed - meaning there is never nothing - else no things could be possible. Even the notion of no-things or nothingness - requires ONE to say that is so!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Yes, science comes from genesis; science is an explanation how an existing and operating process works - nothing more. Its like a faculty of maths, history and geography. When genesis declares there was a beginning, humanity had to consider it - then fathom it - then endeavour to explain and rationalise it. But if Genesis said there was no beginning and everything was always there, it would be the end of science, or science could not be initiated: what for?
quote: I just did.
quote: That the uni had a beginning; that next came entropy [formless to form]; then came critical seperations of the elements [light from darkness; water from land; etc]; then came life giving luminosity; then came life forms - in a chronological, evolutionary order. Am I still talking science - and is there any science outside these premises?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Infinite = everlasting = unchanging. A state of change = the thing was and is finite. A state of no change = not finite. All finite things are subject to change. Something which changes means it was not the same thing 10 seconds ago. Something which does not change means it was always that same thing. There is no other factor which positively and conclusively makes something finite than change. Name anything which is finite and not subject to change?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024