The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

[Singularitarian]

I suggest that you cease and desist your philosophical ramblings, they are speculation as to Absolutes and Ultimate Causes (Lollipos and Leprechauns) and they are not open to Observation and Modeling(Data and Theory). As such they are Philosophy and not appropriate for this Forum.

Fortunately I am going out of town and I doubt anyone else will be so bold as to report your nonsense and ask that it be split to R&P.

Blessed be! See this in threedays!

It's Ironic, i surmized this response before you submitted it. In reply i say,

''It does not matter whether if you like the unfication of methology, theology or science, they are complient and co-dependant on each other anyway.''

So whether if you dislike it, you cannot have any stance in your disgreements. Even Einstein once said that religion and science have more to do with each other in defining each other than one would normally expect. I can provide a reference to that if you like?

 

[Singularitarian]

Welcome Singulatarian!

I am sorry that he JREF was it's usual self and got cranky before addressing your post. to all,

b]The main issue is this:

When Hubble noticed the galaxies were moving away at a rate proportional to the distance that they appear to have from the earth. This observation is more and more fine tuned over time. So unless you find a way to red shift light that is proportional to its distance from the observer, the conclusion is that the universe is expanding.

This is the data and the hypothesis to explain the data. [1] [/b]

Then someone (many someones) decided to say "Hmmm, what is a consequence of this hypothesis?" And they said what would the consequence be of the expansion of the universe, and they created a model/theory where they theoretically ran the expansion of the universe in reverse. Hoyle did not like this and he dubbed it the Big Bang.

So far that is it, the theory does not state what started the BBE nor does it speculate as to the cause of the BBE, it just assumes the universe is expanding and then goes backwards. It is a very effective theory that matches the observations up to a point very shortly after the BBE.[2]

I am not a physicist.

First ground vs. excited state: this is not a question that the BBT can answer at this time.

Second: time. Um the model breaks down at ~10^-47-10^-36 after the BBE, one of many issues is quantum reconciliation with relativity. Partly the some issues are resolved with inflationary theory. But my understanding also breaks down at this point, where you have infinities at scales.

Third: inflation. It is a theory and there seems to be a clinging to older models, the universe does not care what our presuppositions are, it is what it is. Some may cling to older notions of what the universe has to be.

Fourth: Ex nihilio, the common philosophical objection of most BBE detractors, including Hoyle. The universe may or may not have come from nothing. We do not know and can not say at this time. That is the nothing of the BBE, what we can currently say about the universe prior to the BBE> It seems likely it came from something but that is speculative.

Fifth multiple space times: they are a consequence of some of the models of both quantum physics and inflation. They are however theoretical constructs and interpretive speculation in many cases. They are not required by the BBT because it just states: the universe appears to be expanding and then goes from there. the model does not state what is outside the universe or prior to the BBE.

[1]- Perfectly true

[2] - I'd agree there is som symmetry in time. If there is not, how can any defined beginning to time provide any definition to its infinite existence without some relative ending point?

I agree withmost of the rest.

 

[Molinaro]

It's Ironic, i surmized this response before you submitted it. In reply i say,

''It does not matter whether if you like the unfication of methology, theology or science, they are complient and co-dependant on each other anyway.''

So whether if you dislike it, you cannot have any stance in your disgreements. Even Einstein once said that religion and science have more to do with each other in defining each other than one would normally expect. I can provide a reference to that if you like?

This forum is for the discussion of Science, Math, Medicine and Technology. There is a seperate forum for Religion and Philosophy. Keep those discussions out of this forum.

 

[Cainkane1]

I was watching the science channel or NOVA I forget which and from what I can understand the scientists came to the conclusion that the Universe was expanding. They calculated the rate of expansion and reversed the expansion in an effort to determine how large the Universe was prior to this Big bang. It was very small. They used to say the Universe started out as small as a pea. Something caused the sudden expansion. What brought this pea sized Universe in the first place is something scientists don't know. They may never know.

In this theory there is no room for the big hairy cosmic thunderer called god and that suits me just fine.

 

[Singularitarian]

(A) Maybe because the theory is so well supported by evidence, you know, that silly little matter of pretty much all the data fitting the theory, that the scientific community doesn't see reason to abandon it?

(B) Maybe because the tens of thousands of educated and professional scientists on Earth, thousands of physicists among them, haven't read your 1125 word thesis above, experienced their epiphany, and decided to toss out the Big Bang theory because some guy on the internet doesn't seem to understand it?

(C) Maybe because the kind of ignorance and incredulity you display isn't common among contemporary scientists?




See answer "C" above.




Too late, perhaps?

A) Well, my essay concludes that despite the observationl success, it solves just as many problems it creates.

B and C) I can assure you, there have been many prominent scientists in the past who have considered the big bang, have done so with haste... simply because no one was present to observe the initial starting point of the big bang, unless you adopt some superintelligence.

 

[GeeMack]

A) Well, my essay concludes that despite the observationl success, it solves just as many problems it creates.

B and C) I can assure you, there have been many prominent scientists in the past who have considered the big bang, have done so with haste... simply because no one was present to observe the initial starting point of the big bang, unless you adopt some superintelligence.

As has been stated several times now, you should take this discussion of religion to the appropriate forum.

 

[Singularitarian]

This forum is for the discussion of Science, Math, Medicine and Technology. There is a seperate forum for Religion and Philosophy. Keep those discussions out of this forum.

Fogive me, but are not physical concepts like the time dimension and the wave function just as abstractual? If they are, then big bang is equally a philosophical subject as it is scientific. In fact, before the new physics, most of the theories hundreds of years before depended on the logic of philosophy.

 

[Singularitarian]

As has been stated several times now, you should take this discussion of religion to the appropriate forum.

I'm sorry, but i pose you a question...


...what makes you think physics has excluded some more intelligent superstructure to our existence?

... ever heard of the Anthropic Principle

 

[~enigma~]

P.s. - the closest thing to JHWH is a Singularity. Think about why.

Fastest ignore request I have seen.

 

[edd]

Multiple errors I have a Diploma in Physics, but i will accept this as a challenge, for i do enjoy a good challenge.

It's unwise to start playing top trumps with physics qualifications here.

Why don't you raise the point of any erreneous statement, and i will counter it - how about that for a fair analysis of who has mde mistakes?

Been done a lot, but here's my pet peeve

The universe had to expand faster than light!

How do you express the rate of expansion of the universe and how do you compare it to the speed of light? How do you feel this sits with what GR says is permissible anyway?
It's perfectly allowable to have a recession velocity due to cosmological expansion that is greater in value than the speed of light.
There are confusing subtleties about this which one shouldn't expect anyone to grasp quickly and easily. Like many things though, it is probably wise to check that what appears to be a logical flaw that everyone else has missed is actually a logical flaw.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm sorry, but i pose you a question...


...what makes you think physics has excluded some more intelligent superstructure to our existence?

... ever heard of the Anthropic Principle

Allow me to pose a question. Do you think the people in this forum are not astute enough to realize that your comments are simply ages old retreads, ejecta spewed countless times by other ignorant and incredulous religious people?

Your faith must be very weak if you have to build those little sciency strawmen the way you do. And your knowledge of science and understanding of the scientific method are also obviously seriously lacking. You pretty much don't have anything going for you in this discussion, do you?

 

[catbasket]

... ever heard of the Anthropic Principle

Which one?

(you can take that as a 'yes')

 

[Cuddles]

I am sorry that he JREF was it's usual self and got cranky before addressing your post.

Actually, the JREF addressed his post very specifically - it's a bunch of nonsensical word salad engaging in the usual cargo-cult science of throwing around words that have been seen but not understood in the slightest.

Fogive me, but are not physical concepts like the time dimension and the wave function just as abstractual?

No.

If they are, then big bang is equally a philosophical subject as it is scientific.

But since they aren't, it isn't.

In fact, before the new physics, most of the theories hundreds of years before depended on the logic of philosophy.

Yes, before we developed real science people just thought about stuff and got most of it very, very wrong. Now that we have science, we are actually able to test theories instead of just engaging in mental masturbation. If you wish to indulge in that, I suggest you do in the Religion and Philosophy forum created specifically for that purpose, where there are plenty of people who will be able to point out exactly how you're wrong in new and interesting ways.

 

[Singularitarian]

It's unwise to start playing top trumps with physics qualifications here.[1]


Been done a lot, but here's my pet peeve

How do you express the rate of expansion of the universe and how do you compare it to the speed of light? How do you feel this sits with what GR says is permissible anyway?[2]
It's perfectly allowable to have a recession velocity due to cosmological expansion that is greater in value than the speed of light. [3]
There are confusing subtleties about this which one shouldn't expect anyone to grasp quickly and easily. Like many things though, it is probably wise to check that what appears to be a logical flaw that everyone else has missed is actually a logical flaw.

[1] - All due respect, but i know nothing about the ultimate nature of the universe, i only hypothesize, and theorize within standard scientific appliances. Nevetheless, i will not be challenged as though i have no say on the matter. Understand?

[2] - The speed of light is a measurement, a universal invariance actually, which means its not just a mere measurement, but one in which we apply all relativistic velocities to, which include a vast array a mathematics, such as the Hamiltonian of space and the Minkowskian Vectors and Matrices.

[3] - Well, yes, but it is not suggesting matter or energy is moving inertially at superluminal speeds. Just rather that the vacuum is dragging ths inertia (a those related to the Weak Relativistic Principle of Equivalance, (energy[/b), is dragged by the distortions it inexorably creates as it moves throughout the dimensions of spacetime,according to smple special relativity.

 

[edd]

[1] - All due respect, but i know nothing about the ultimate nature of the universe, i only hypothesize, and theorize within standard scientific appliances. Nevetheless, i will not be challenged as though i have no say on the matter. Understand?

Totally. That wasn't what I was saying. What I was saying is that you should not try to use your diploma in physics to justify what you say, and that your arguments should stand or fall on their merits. Essentially, I am saying you should not use your diploma as an argument as it will mean you aren't given a fair shot against those posters here who will only wave their PhD at you if you do so.

Point 2 appears to fundamentally miss my point which is that the universe's expansion is not quantified as a speed, which is a fair indication you don't want to compare it to the speed of light.

With point 3, I'm glad you concede that an apparent recession velocity that is greater than the speed of light isn't a problem (at least that's how it reads from your "Well, yes") so the relevant points of your original post that follow on from that are ones we can now ignore?

 

[paiute]

You dialed the wrong number

Does no one here know physics?

No. You should be asking your questions over at Fark. Really. That's where the theoretical physicists hang. The JREF Forum is for motorcycle transmission rebuilds, really. Everything else, we're in way over our heads.

 

[ingoa]

Is the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?

...When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?

Ground state of what? Before hadronisation it does not make sense to speak of a ground state. Even after that it is not clear to what "state" you refer.

There was not enough time to start the universe!

Not enough time before time starts ticking? Sounds not convincing.

The universe had to expand faster than light!

So what. As said before there is nothing in SRT and GRT which disallows that.

Something Came from Nothing?

All the time. Take a look at vacuum polarization.

Parallel Universes and its Conceptual Nonesense

This like saying that evolution does not explain the nucleosynthesis. Has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

 

[Singularitarian]

Totally. That wasn't what I was saying. What I was saying is that you should not try to use your diploma in physics to justify what you say, and that your arguments should stand or fall on their merits. Essentially, I am saying you should not use your diploma as an argument as it will mean you aren't given a fair shot against those posters here who will only wave their PhD at you if you do so.

Point 2 appears to fundamentally miss my point which is that the universe's expansion is not quantified as a speed, which is a fair indication you don't want to compare it to the speed of light.

With point 3, I'm glad you concede that an apparent recession velocity that is greater than the speed of light isn't a problem (at least that's how it reads from your "Well, yes") so the relevant points of your original post that follow on from that are ones we can now ignore?

Who are you to judge such a consistency? Do you know anyone here who hs so far complained without any true physical arguement?

I have seen nothing so far than arm-wavy comments and unscientifically-justified comments wrapped in a disguise of a fig leaf, that is to be illogical in any of their conclusions. Who here can talk real physics?

As high and mighty as this sounds, no physicist knows quantum theory even by a partial degree, but there is some level of intelligence required, equally again not imposingany big-headedness, for where i might excell in oe area, i might not and most probably not excell in you relative area.

 

[Molinaro]

What you find here is that waving around your credentials is taken as a sign that your arguments can't stand on their own.

Also, you will find that the phds, the NASA employees and other similarly qualified experts will ignore word-salad rambling nonsense threads.

 

[Singularitarian]

Ground state of what? Before hadronisation it does not make sense to speak of a ground state. Even after that it is not clear to what "state" you refer.



Not enough time before time starts ticking? Sounds not convincing.


So what. As said before there is nothing in SRT and GRT which disallows that.


All the time. Take a look at vacuum polarization.


This like saying that evolution does not explain the nucleosynthesis. Has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

Nope, nope, nope...and... errr.... nope.

1) Not enough time to correspond to the amount of space required in observation measurement of the receedin gaalxies about 45 billionlight years away.

2) And, yet again?

3) Vacuum Polarization is he very essence of CPT-invariance and more importanly the conservational rules that include them such as an expectancy factor of energy (a gamma frequency) of 1022KEV creates matter (proven in 1996 by experimentation, sep. 7), and also that matter can conversely be made into energy by splitting the matter-shells that consist of the cloud of energy it has decohered into. The appearance of some particle in space therefore, is somehwhat indestinguihable to an antipartner that equally arises, we call the positron. These two specimens when under contact, reduce their constituent electromagnetic conservational enegies into the production of one gamma energy squared [latex]E^2=(Mc^2)^2[/latex].