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.

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

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.

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

That's a non-sequitur.

DavidMcC wrote: It needs my cosmology.

Applied for that Nobel prize yet?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
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

That's a non-sequitur.
...

No, it isn't. It's a logical conclusion. If you disagree with that, then please explain how we have many local starts of the universe, all from nothing.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
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

That's a non-sequitur.
...

No, it isn't. It's a logical conclusion.

Wrong, for it to be a logical conclusion you'd first need to present a valid argument.
You've done no such thing. What you've done is:
P1. X is not a claim about Y.
C. Therefore X is not about Z.

DavidMcC wrote: If you disagree with that, then please explain how we have many local starts of the universe, all from nothing.

I thought you understood the concept of the burden of proof David?

Burden of proof? There is no such thing as proof in science, Thomas, it's a maths concept. In science, there is only strength of evidence.
The problem with cosmology is that it is mostly by mathematicians who are looking for uses for their abstract mathematical proofs. That's not the way to do science, and it's why there is so much rubbish in cosmology.

DavidMcC wrote:Burden of proof? There is no such thing as proof in science, Thomas, it's a maths concept.

And that's a silly semantic dodge.
The burden of proof is a concept; that someone making a claim has the job/burden of providing evidence for that claim.

DavidMcC wrote: In science, there is only strength of evidence.

Again, the burden of proof isn't about the mathematical concept, it's about the burden of proving (through evidence) that your claim is true.

DavidMcC wrote:The problem with cosmology is that it is mostly by mathematicians

Citation?
Are you not aware that cosmologist is a seperate field of study with it's own departments at universities world-wide? And that said field of study is not limited to mathematics.

DavidMcC wrote: who are looking for uses for their abstract mathematical proofs. That's not the way to do science, and it's why there is so much rubbish in cosmology.

Again, can you provide evidence for that claim, because that's not what I know of cosmology.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Burden of proof? There is no such thing as proof in science, Thomas, it's a maths concept.

And that's a silly semantic dodge.
The burden of proof is a concept; that someone making a claim has the job/burden of providing evidence for that claim.

DavidMcC wrote: In science, there is only strength of evidence.

Again, the burden of proof isn't about the mathematical concept, it's about the burden of proving (through evidence) that your claim is true.

DavidMcC wrote:The problem with cosmology is that it is mostly by mathematicians

Citation?
Are you not aware that cosmologist is a seperate field of study with it's own departments at universities world-wide? And that said field of study is not limited to mathematics.

DavidMcC wrote: who are looking for uses for their abstract mathematical proofs. That's not the way to do science, and it's why there is so much rubbish in cosmology.

Again, can you provide evidence for that claim, because that's not what I know of cosmology.

It's the mathematicians who put forward their maths as cosmology who need to show evidence for their unscientific claims, which stem almost entirely from the fact that the universe is expanding. I am the one who refers to actual evidence, as I showed in the LQG thread years ago (I'm sure you've seen it - I referenced it enough times in response to queries from others (who, BTW, mostly have a more rational attitude than you).
My dismissal of the cosmological rubbish coming out of the maths community is not a claim, it's an informed opinion. My claims are in the LQG thread. Have you even read it?

PSD, I will not bother to reply further if your posts continue in this bad tempered, sycophantic-to-the-famous vein.

... Science is not served well by arguing on the basis that "the great and the good" know best. It is served by science-based challenges to the established views. Havinf said that, I was not posting my cosmology merely to be different, but because I believe it is a better cosmology than the rest.

DavidMcC wrote:... Science is not served well by arguing on the basis that "the great and the good" know best. It is served by science-based challenges to the established views. Havinf said that, I was not posting my cosmology merely to be different, but because I believe it is a better cosmology than the rest.

Have you had your cosmology published and peer reviewed?

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Burden of proof? There is no such thing as proof in science, Thomas, it's a maths concept.

And that's a silly semantic dodge.
The burden of proof is a concept; that someone making a claim has the job/burden of providing evidence for that claim.

DavidMcC wrote: In science, there is only strength of evidence.

Again, the burden of proof isn't about the mathematical concept, it's about the burden of proving (through evidence) that your claim is true.

DavidMcC wrote:The problem with cosmology is that it is mostly by mathematicians

Citation?
Are you not aware that cosmologist is a seperate field of study with it's own departments at universities world-wide? And that said field of study is not limited to mathematics.

DavidMcC wrote: who are looking for uses for their abstract mathematical proofs. That's not the way to do science, and it's why there is so much rubbish in cosmology.

Again, can you provide evidence for that claim, because that's not what I know of cosmology.

It's the mathematicians who put forward their maths as cosmology who need to show evidence for their unscientific claims, which stem almost entirely from the fact that the universe is expanding.

1. I could not care less.
2. Our local representation of the universe is expanding, we don't know about the universe as a whole.

DavidMcC wrote: I am the one who refers to actual evidence, as I showed in the LQG thread years ago (I'm sure you've seen it - I referenced it enough times in response to queries from others (who, BTW, mostly have a more rational attitude than you).

It's ironic that you criticise my rational attitude by posting a personalised accusation, rather than adressing the points I've made.

Also, you've only made assertions so far.

DavidMcC wrote:
My dismissal of the cosmological rubbish coming out of the maths community is not a claim, it's an informed opinion. My claims are in the LQG thread. Have you even read it?

This is a complete red herring.
You claimed the BB, which isn't a mathematical theory, is not cosmology.
When asked for evidence, you derail the discussion by talking about your opposition to mathematicans dabbling in cosmology.

DavidMcC wrote:PSD, I will not bother to reply further if your posts continue in this bad tempered, sycophantic-to-the-famous vein.

More personalised invective, based on a fantastical representation of my posts in this thread.

DavidMcC wrote:... Science is not served well by arguing on the basis that "the great and the good" know best.

No-one in this thread has made that claim David. It's something you just made up and our now criticising as if it bears any relevance to this thread. It doesn't.

DavidMcC wrote: It is served by science-based challenges to the established views. Havinf said that, I was not posting my cosmology merely to be different, but because I believe it is a better cosmology than the rest.

This thread isn't about your cosmology.

David wrote:
the big bang theory does not make sense as a cosmology It needs my cosmology

Well then go and get it peer reviewed if it is as good as you think it is

surreptitious57 wrote:

David wrote:
the big bang theory does not make sense as a cosmology It needs my cosmology

Well then go and get it peer reviewed if it is as good as you think it is

Why should I bother. My cosmology is the only rational one, whatever a few people on this site may say. Also, I'm retired. I also realise, as I said before, that most so-called cosmologists are just mathematicians looking for extra work.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:... Science is not served well by arguing on the basis that "the great and the good" know best.

No-one in this thread has made that claim David. It's something you just made up and our now criticising as if it bears any relevance to this thread. It doesn't.
...

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.
PS, have you not heard of the theory of "inflation", under which the entire universe has the same fundamental constants? It is widely accepted, and I am shocked that you did not even bother to mention that you reject it (by implication).

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

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:... Science is not served well by arguing on the basis that "the great and the good" know best.

No-one in this thread has made that claim David. It's something you just made up and our now criticising as if it bears any relevance to this thread. It doesn't.
...

Ha!
In effect they most definitely ARE assuming that Stephen Hawking knows best,

Who's 'they' David?
Again, the topic of this thread is not your dislike of mathematicians dabbling in cosmology.
I asked you to demonstrate how the Big Bang theory is not cosmology.
You then derailed the thread with your comments about mathematicians.

DavidMcC wrote: in spite of the logical inconsistencies of his claim concerning the origin of the universe.

Again, how is this in anyway relevant to the topic of this thread or my question?

DavidMcC wrote:
PS, have you not heard of the theory of "inflation", under which the entire universe has the same fundamental constants? It is widely accepted, and I am shocked that you did not even bother to mention that you reject it (by implication).

Maybe if you engaged with what people actually wrote, rather than the fantasies you keep making up, you'd not be so shocked all the time. Ffs.

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]

I see that you're choosing to ignore Thomas' suggestion that you engage with what he writes.