Discussion on the origin of the universe

Split from Straw Man Atheist thread

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Another straw-man atheist story

#21  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 11, 2018 3:10 pm

DavidMcC wrote:For Pete's sake, Thomas, did you not know that big bang cosmology is dominated by mathematicians, trying to push their favourite mathematical objects? Here's one of them, but there are others (such as Calabi-Yau):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit.

BTW, I'm not interested in your angry questions about minor details.
Oh, and then there's the "particle physics as cosmology" people, with symmetry group E8, etc.
[/thread]

Yet more off-topic stuff that doesn't even begin to adress anything I've said, nor answers the question why the BB theory supposedly isn't cosmology.
Not to mention more baseless, personalised accusations.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29162
Age: 29
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Another straw-man atheist story

#22  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 11, 2018 3:20 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:For Pete's sake, Thomas, did you not know that big bang cosmology is dominated by mathematicians, trying to push their favourite mathematical objects? Here's one of them, but there are others (such as Calabi-Yau):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit.

BTW, I'm not interested in your angry questions about minor details.
Oh, and then there's the "particle physics as cosmology" people, with symmetry group E8, etc.
[/thread]

Yet more off-topic stuff that doesn't even begin to adress anything I've said, nor answers the question why the BB theory supposedly isn't cosmology.
Blah, blah,bnlah.

You are confused. I never said that BB theory isn't cosmology, I merely said that BB cosmology is dominated by mathematicians who do not appear to be very interested in scientific evidence. Years of reading Nature Cosmology has only yielded one or two mathematicians who have published interesting papers - Lee Smolin and Abhay Ashtekar, both on space quantization.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 65
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Another straw-man atheist story

#23  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jan 11, 2018 4:29 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:For Pete's sake, Thomas, did you not know that big bang cosmology is dominated by mathematicians, trying to push their favourite mathematical objects? Here's one of them, but there are others (such as Calabi-Yau):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit.

BTW, I'm not interested in your angry questions about minor details.
Oh, and then there's the "particle physics as cosmology" people, with symmetry group E8, etc.
[/thread]

Yet more off-topic stuff that doesn't even begin to adress anything I've said, nor answers the question why the BB theory supposedly isn't cosmology.
Blah, blah,bnlah.

You are confused. I never said that BB theory isn't cosmology, I merely said that BB cosmology is dominated by mathematicians who do not appear to be very interested in scientific evidence.

I am going to be generous here and assume it's your memory that's at fault:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thommo wrote:Yes, that is a fair point MS2.

We know that there is such a thing (and therefore that such a thing is physically/metaphysically possible) as intelligent life, but we do not know there is such a thing as a creator of universes. This is again an evidence based distinction.
...

This is too vague, Thommo, because it depends what you mean by "creator of universes". You might either mean "god", or "the hyperspace continuum and the law of quantum gravity" (which gave rise to this and other big bangs). Which is it? Or, perhaps you believe that this universe has always existed, in spite of evidence for the big bang creating it.

The big bang is a theory about the origin of our local representation of the universe, not the universe as a whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Misconceptions

Yeah, sure, but that is just an admission that the big bang theory does not make sense as a cosmology. It needs my cosmology.

So, demonstrate how BB does not make sense as a cosmology.

DavidMcC wrote:Years of reading Nature Cosmology has only yielded one or two mathematicians who have published interesting papers - Lee Smolin and Abhay Ashtekar, both on space quantization.

Still in no way demonstrates BB to not make sense as a cosmology.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29162
Age: 29
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Another straw-man atheist story

#24  Postby Thommo » Jan 11, 2018 4:44 pm

Isn't the OP of this thread, that could not possibly be off its own topic, literally by you*? :scratch:

I cannot for the life of me find the part of the topic that was about David's crackpot pseudo-cosmology or dislike of mathematics.

*Edit after thread split: The Original Post was by Thomas Eshuis at the time.
Last edited by Thommo on Jan 12, 2018 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24758

Print view this post

Re: Another straw-man atheist story

#25  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 11, 2018 6:19 pm

Thommo wrote:Isn't the OP of this thread, that could not possibly be off its own topic, literally by you? :scratch:

I cannot for the life of me find the part of the topic that was about David's crackpot pseudo-cosmology or dislike of mathematics.

A. It was the current topic.
B. calling my cosmology "crackpot" needs to be justified. I doubt that you know enough to do so, in which case, it's just another off-topic insult from one of the usual suspects.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 65
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Another straw-man atheist story

#26  Postby Thommo » Jan 11, 2018 6:31 pm

:lol:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24758

Print view this post

Re: Another straw-man atheist story

#27  Postby Thommo » Jan 11, 2018 7:01 pm

David, if you want to make an appropriate thread for your cosmology I would be delighted to discuss it with all the merit it deserves and in a constructive fashion. But you have to be able to appreciate that "Another straw-man atheist story" is not a thread about you, it's not a thread about your cosmology and continuing to derail it is adding massive amounts of "off-topic", something which only an hour ago you felt so strongly against you made your own thread asking people to be banned for it.

You've already made ten consecutive posts which contain nothing relating to the topic and numerous personal comments and attacks, let's not make it eleven.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24758

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Another straw-man atheist story

#28  Postby LucidFlight » Jan 11, 2018 8:46 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Ha!
In effect they most definitely ARE assuming that Stephen Hawking knows best, in spite of the logical inconsistencies of his claim concerning the origin of the universe.

LucidFlight wrote:What are the logical inconsistencies of Hawking's claim regarding the origin of the universe? I'm asking for a friend.


DavidMcC, I did some searching and found this:

It seems to me that a case can be made that Hawking's physical laws are inconsistent with classical theism. I shall develop an argument to this effect in the present paper. Although this argument is not explicit in Hawking's writings, it is arguably implicit in or based upon his theory. I shall argue that

(P) Hawking's wave function law obtains
entails
(C) God does not exist.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/que ... wking.html
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Charley
Posts: 10078
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Another straw-man atheist story

#29  Postby surreptitious57 » Jan 12, 2018 1:31 am

David wrote:
I never said that BB theory isnt cosmology I merely said that BB cosmology is dominated by mathematicians
who do not appear to be very interested in scientific evidence. Years of reading Nature Cosmology has only
yielded one or two mathematicians who have published interesting papers - Lee Smolin

is a physicist not a mathematician
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 9588

Print view this post

Re: Discussion on the origin of the universe

#30  Postby scott1328 » Jan 12, 2018 10:31 pm

So where is this cosmology that I have heard so much of?
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8228
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Discussion on the origin of the universe

#31  Postby Thommo » Jan 12, 2018 10:44 pm

I don't know much about it, but I can say from what I've read that it doesn't involve either Einstein or Newton's laws of gravitation (cf. David's posts about tidal effects on non-rotating bodies, and indeed your own response to his ideas about the moons of Mars), doesn't allow a distinction between an Einstein-Rosen Bridge and an Alcubierre metric and doesn't involve any maths.

I might have jumped the gun a bit in dubbing this "crackpottery", but I'm prepared to walk that back for now.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24758

Print view this post

Re: Discussion on the origin of the universe

#32  Postby scott1328 » Jan 12, 2018 10:53 pm

alas.

What we can be most assured of is that FTL is forbidden in this strange a-mathematical model.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8228
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Discussion on the origin of the universe

#33  Postby newolder » Jan 12, 2018 11:30 pm

I recall it has something to do with an extra dimension to space and I've asked in the past (unless I'm mis-remembering) how it differs from the Randall Sundrum model of 1999. Here's a quote from a recent essay on dimensions that may prove useful as a catch-up:
...
In 1999, Lisa Randall (the first woman to get tenure at Harvard as a theoretical physicist) and Raman Sundrum (an Indian-American particle theorist) proposed that there might be an additional dimension on the cosmological scale, the scale described by general relativity. According to their ‘brane’ theory – ‘brane’ being short for ‘membrane’ – what we normally call our Universe might be embedded in a vastly bigger five-dimensional space, a kind of super-universe. Within this super-space, ours might be just one of a whole array of co-existing universes, each a separate 4D bubble within a wider arena of 5D space.
...

From Margaret Wertheim at aeon.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5381
Age: 7
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Discussion on the origin of the universe

#34  Postby Thommo » Jan 12, 2018 11:38 pm

Thank you for that. I can only look forward to hearing more, direct from the source.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24758

Print view this post

Re: Discussion on the origin of the universe

#35  Postby pelfdaddy » Jan 13, 2018 4:25 am

The universe is eternal according to my cosmology, which is the only one that makes sense.
Nothingness is no more likely than somethingness, according to my cosmology, which is the only one that makes sense.
I am God in my cosmology, which is the only one that makes sense.
I get ten percent of everything in my cosmology, which is the only one that makes sense.
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 997
Age: 52
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Discussion on the origin of the universe

#36  Postby LucidFlight » Jan 13, 2018 9:59 am

newolder wrote:I recall it has something to do with an extra dimension to space and I've asked in the past (unless I'm mis-remembering) how it differs from the Randall Sundrum model of 1999. Here's a quote from a recent essay on dimensions that may prove useful as a catch-up:
...
In 1999, Lisa Randall (the first woman to get tenure at Harvard as a theoretical physicist) and Raman Sundrum (an Indian-American particle theorist) proposed that there might be an additional dimension on the cosmological scale, the scale described by general relativity. According to their ‘brane’ theory – ‘brane’ being short for ‘membrane’ – what we normally call our Universe might be embedded in a vastly bigger five-dimensional space, a kind of super-universe. Within this super-space, ours might be just one of a whole array of co-existing universes, each a separate 4D bubble within a wider arena of 5D space.
...

From Margaret Wertheim at aeon.


Ah, a version of brane cosmology. Very good. Any mention of Hawking's logical inconsistencies?
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Charley
Posts: 10078
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Discussion on the origin of the universe

#37  Postby newolder » Jan 13, 2018 10:15 am

Hi LucidFlight, There's no mention of the Hawking-Turok instanton in that particular essay. Here's a relevant page but it does not mention the fact that their early work (part of Neil Turok's thesis work, iirc) led to an instanton that contained no matter. I think that this may well be a "logical inconsistency" to which David refers but, who knows?
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5381
Age: 7
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Discussion on the origin of the universe

#38  Postby LucidFlight » Jan 13, 2018 10:28 am

Thanks, newolder. The inconsistency is, I'm guessing, to do with the mathematics of their early work. :think:
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Charley
Posts: 10078
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Discussion on the origin of the universe

#39  Postby newolder » Jan 13, 2018 10:56 am

The discussions of the mathematics went on for years before the Steinhardt-Turok et al works and Turok's later simplification. Here's a note on the geometry of Hawking-Turok's instanton that concludes:
In summary, what the solution of Hawking and Turok requires to lead to an open universe in a natural way is, on the one hand, the complexification from the real to the Euclidean metric and, on the other hand, an extension into the open universe sector which should be accompanied by a rotation of the scale factor induced only by the Wick rotation of the original σ coordinate.

Rotating the Wick around the original coordinate... :scratch:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 5381
Age: 7
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Discussion on the origin of the universe

#40  Postby LucidFlight » Jan 13, 2018 11:57 am

Oo-er. Well, I'm sure the OP will be along any minute now to set this topic straight.
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Charley
Posts: 10078
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest