Big Bang Bunkum?

Astronomy, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Mathematics & Physics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#21  Postby newolder » Nov 19, 2019 3:57 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:...
When you are dealing with physics in which much of what we see in space is relatively static observations, you require to delve into the deeper philosophical and logical analysis with more care than simply looking. ...


I cannot imagine what you mean by "relatively static" since the electromagnetic doppler effect is used to measure speeds of objects across the universe and also contributes to our understanding (i.e. the red shift) of the CMBR.

Here's an example image to help clarify. In the image below, a star (a pulsar at lower right) has been ejected out of a supernova bubble/shell at a speed in excess of 1000 km/s and is travelling fast enough that it will escape the Milky Way's gravity well.

Image

Relatively static, my arse. :lol:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6543
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#22  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 19, 2019 4:01 pm

I'm doubting a lot of people who can't recognize that science isn't merely observations and that you still need to prioritize formal logic above mere induction. When you are dealing with physics in which much of what we see in space is relatively static observations, you require to delve into the deeper philosophical and logical analysis with more care than simply looking. Evidence is not simply the observations alone.


So about that evidence.

Do you intend to share any for your alternative model?

Also, for clarity, science doesn't actually operate on 'formal logic', which isn't to say that there are no applications of it within science, but rather that the indisputable primacy in terms of scientific standards is observational data, i.e. evidence. And there's no 'mere induction' - it's how hypothesis formation begins.

You can't use logic to decree something in science, you still have to actually go and find it existing empirically.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25324
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#23  Postby hackenslash » Nov 19, 2019 4:10 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mmmmm salad. I'll have to try topping it with popcorn too!

I'm doubting a lot of people who can't recognize that science isn't merely observations and that you still need to prioritize formal logic above mere induction. When you are dealing with physics in which much of what we see in space is relatively static observations, you require to delve into the deeper philosophical and logical analysis with more care than simply looking. Evidence is not simply the observations alone.

Do you have something you know regarding the physics here?


This smacks of somebody who's read twenty words off wikipedia on logic in science and has come away with something that would be better suited to grace the back of a cereal packet.

For the record, science is restricted neither to observation nor to inductive reasoning, mere or otherwise. It also utilises deductive and abductive reasoning routinely. This is a topic I've covered at some length elsewhere:

http://www.hackenslash.co.uk/2016/04/de ... n-and.html

Relatively static observations? Do me a lemon.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21431
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#24  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 19, 2019 4:14 pm

hackenslash wrote:
For the record, science is restricted neither to observation nor to inductive reasoning, mere or otherwise. It also utilises deductive and abductive reasoning routinely. This is a topic I've covered at some length elsewhere:

http://www.hackenslash.co.uk/2016/04/de ... n-and.html

Relatively static observations? Do me a lemon.


Be careful, or we'll be revisiting the relata of a property-exemplification nexus in no time flat. Not on your watch, though.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Nov 19, 2019 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28573
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#25  Postby hackenslash » Nov 19, 2019 4:15 pm

:mrgreen:
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21431
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#26  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 19, 2019 4:19 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:Evidence is not simply the observations alone.


Perhaps not, but with too much reasoning from (what somebody designates as) the evidence, and not enough evidence for the reasoning, we get crap like the expanding earth hypothesis, whose proponents say a lot of similar shit about the politics of the plate tectonics hegemony.

Call it selective attention, if you like. This thread was opened by a troll. Actually, by the sock puppet of a troll. Is this really where you want to defend your Alamo?

Scott Mayers wrote:When you are dealing with physics in which much of what we see in space is relatively static observations, you require to delve into the deeper philosophical and logical analysis with more care than simply looking.


I'll tell you what, Professor. Go spend some time with George Djorgovski's course "The Evolving Universe" at Coursera. It's open to one and all, though aimed at Caltech freshmen. Spend a few weeks absorbing the lectures and testing your learning with the quizzes that go along. You won't bother if you think stuff like that is the same as having the Gospel read to you, an illiterate.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28573
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#27  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 19, 2019 4:53 pm

newolder wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
newolder wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:...

I'm asking anyone finding faith in this to clarify their own trust of this. ...

Thank you.


There is no "steady state" model that accounts for our observations that every galaxy (or galaxy group bounded by its own gravity) is moving away from every other at an accelerating rate.

That's odd to state. Are you assuming that the Steady State means a "Static" state? What do you understand as the "Steady State" distinction interpretation means?

A steady state (for the universe) is one that does not change in general character (the density of galaxies, for example) over time. A universe that is observed to have evolved from no galaxies (at the time/epoch of last scattering) through the dark ages when no stars shone, into the star and galaxy formation era and on into a phase of accelerating expansion - is by no means describable as a "steady state" universe and a different model is required to match said observations.


"Steady" in the Steady State means that time as well as local space HAS to be defaulted to be presumed the same. That is the prime significance that MUST be started off with. It is a theory based upon assuming that physics should not be judged beyond our capacity to measure things locally, which must include all times. Otherwise you lead to a perversion in the evolution of physics to try to make what you see FIT with the desired interpretion.

The specific principle is called the "Perfect Cosmological Principle" that adds that should we go back to any time, the physics can only be understood to be the same as we can detetermine where we are. The Big Bang is dependent upon interpreting expansion going backwards leads to a time and space that where both do not exist in our Universe AND where a presumed fixed and 'special' quantity of energy exists. THAT implies a physics that we cannot experience locally, such as the inability to PRESENT the possibility that you can compress any amount of matter into a point.

The density is correctly assumed to be the same by extended inference, yes. But as to obsevations denying this is actually occurring, I would have to address how this was determined too beforehand. And the task is daunting and would better be done by stepping way back to earlier pivotal errors in the foundations that lead to this.



The current temperature of the relic CMBR is close to 2.7 K. Running the concordance (Lambda-CDM) model backwards to tlast scattering~380 000 years, yields a temperature of a few thousands of Kelvin degrees that corresponds to the ionisation energies of hydrogen.

The specific temperature here means nothing if the abient temperature can never BE 0 K anyways. That is, the average energy cannot possibly be seen as zero EVER regardless of model. So the logic is not distinct. When you look back in space (and thus time), what do you understand or expect a Steady State version to imply and why?


A "steady state" model must make matter appear so as to maintain a steady state rather than, as observed, the average matter density decreasing at late time. The concordance model is often presented in cartoon form like the image below (from wikipedia), where time evolution is from bottom to top. Current observations are used to build this model and there is no section that can be described as "steady state".

Yes, and we have evidence like 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' that provide this. But instead, keeping the inferences "dark" is just postponing things until someone can find a justification that will retrofit that to the BBT.

...OR because most cannot imagine what alternatives could be, the present theory defaults instead to a fill-in-the-gaps justification to impatiently draw a conclusion that what they see is 'miraculous'. Much of the Big Bang model is developed by trying to make what they observe fit with the assumption of a singularity in a post hoc fashion.

When you say 'observed', as though what is asserted IS 'observed' is similar to "if it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" mentality. I used the 'walking on water' analogy to show how what appears odd should not be presumed to mean we need interpreted that correctly.



Image

If the CMBR was not very close to thermal equilibrium then the early Universe would have evolved to produce a current night sky that would be more "blotchy" i.e. have greater contrast between light and dark patches, than the observed distribution of galaxies and CMBR accounts for.

This is post hoc when SEEKING evidence for what one hopes to justify as both a hot origin and smaller actual space. It doesn't establish why you shouldn't expect to find this in a Steady state type model.


The "steady state"model is rejected by observation. I don't know what I would expect of a "steady state" model to have in terms of background temperature - what would you expect?


...or rejected by an interpretation of an observation. Asking what a steady state theory should 'expect' of a background temperature is like an apologist asking what alternative scientific theory justifies Jesus' capacity to walk on water as though we already agree on the 'evidence' of the record prior to establishing whether the act occurred. I'm not confident that the background radiation represents what existed as energy in a prior time when many other more locally rational explanations have yet to be thought of.



I have no faith in this model. Instead, the model is in concordance with the current data set and any future observations may cause a shift to a different model.

You are welcome.

Then do you have a LACK of 'faith' in a Steady State model and why? What and why do you think what we see has a literal singularity rather than the illusion of one (like the vanishing point of parallel lines that appear to converge but we know doesn't)?

Faith (belief without evidence) is irrelevant here. We don't observe any singularity - the furthest we can "see" backwards in time is the isotropic (to 1 part in 105) CMBR and discussion of the "flatness" of the intervening spacetime is an ongoing project.


The Big Bang is absolutely dependent upon an assumption that all of space converges backwards to a point where no space existed. That the age of the Universe is given makes it FINITE. I already know we don't observe a singularity. But the Big Bang still assumes it is and that there is a magical unknown zone between that point and the furthest back we see in time that is just ignored. Inflation theory is added afterwards knowing that 14 Billion years isn't sufficient time to have even what we see. THAT is fixing the interpretation of what we see to 'fit' into what people want.

If this kind of reasoning is justified, then so is the relgious person's claim that treats their 'God' as a singularity with the gap of unknown there. And when asked how you can presume a TIME in the past in which some God put us here, they offer the similar rationale of a "God (who) works in mysterious ways. But that the patterns we see today can't be fit into the rationalization of our local TIMES, they borrow the 'evolutionary' theory of God's potential to change reality in the same way.

Why is the irrationality permitted in science where the same argument we use against religions are expected to hold?
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 39

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#28  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 19, 2019 4:59 pm

Cito wrote:I'll tell you what, Professor. Go spend some time with George Djorgovski's course "The Evolving Universe" at Coursera. It's open to one and all, though aimed at Caltech freshmen. Spend a few weeks absorbing the lectures and testing your learning with the quizzes that go along.


To publicize my intention: I am going to take this course in January. Don't want to start it on the November date as I've got way too many deadlines piling up before Chrimbo, but next year it's the first (hopefully of many) that I will sit.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25324
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#29  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 19, 2019 5:06 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
"Steady" in the Steady State means that time as well as local space HAS to be defaulted to be presumed the same. That is the prime significance that MUST be started off with.


Got a reference to support that? Think of me asking that question after each one of your declarative sentences. Alternatively, you could just abandon trying to make reality conform to your declarative sentences.

Scott Mayers wrote:
The specific principle is called the "Perfect Cosmological Principle" that adds that should we go back to any time, the physics can only be understood to be the same as we can detetermine where we are.


That looks like a patented Scott Mayer Declarative Sentence™ to me. I'll look up the documents straightaway.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Nov 19, 2019 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28573
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#30  Postby newolder » Nov 19, 2019 5:06 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:...

"Steady" in the Steady State means that time as well as local space HAS to be defaulted to be presumed the same. That is the prime significance that MUST be started off with. It is a theory based upon assuming that physics should not be judged beyond our capacity to measure things locally, which must include all times. Otherwise you lead to a perversion in the evolution of physics to try to make what you see FIT with the desired interpretion.


Then you have supplied a further reason for the dismissal of a "Steady state" model of the universe. There is no universal now as evidenced by application of both Special and General Relativity theory.

The specific principle is called the "Perfect Cosmological Principle" that adds that should we go back to any time, the physics can only be understood to be the same as we can detetermine where we are. The Big Bang is dependent upon interpreting expansion going backwards leads to a time and space that where both do not exist in our Universe AND where a presumed fixed and 'special' quantity of energy exists. THAT implies a physics that we cannot experience locally, such as the inability to PRESENT the possibility that you can compress any amount of matter into a point.


If you are concerned by Big bang inflationary cosmology then I'd be happy to supply you with links to some other testable ideas on cosmology. :thumbup:

The quote tags are beginning to confuse my tiny brain from here onwards so I'll leave the remainder of your post until I feel able to contribute further.

ETA Nope. I read the rest of your screed and have nothing further to add other than: Your concern over the initial singularity is shared amongst many theoretical cosmologists in the 21st Century. As I said above, I can post some links, if you like.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6543
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#31  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 19, 2019 5:12 pm

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_06

Science relies on evidence

Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all science.

...

Performing such tests is so important to science because in science, the acceptance or rejection of a scientific idea depends upon the evidence relevant to it — not upon dogma, popular opinion, or tradition. In science, ideas that are not supported by evidence are ultimately rejected.


So again, I am asking for something that is inescapably necessary whenever science is being discussed. Where is the evidence for this steady state model which is not already better explained by other models?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25324
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#32  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 19, 2019 7:11 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
The term, faith, when I use it is to be sure that one understands where they are just 'gambling' on what they support.


I don't believe that's true. There's no 'gamble'. There's evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports a particular model but doesn't support other models. The point is that there may yet be other undiscovered models which even better fit the data, but we can't appeal to them in the hypothetical.

Again, all scientific knowledge - even something fundamental like that the Earth orbits the Sun - remains permanently expressed within terms of a confidence bar. We are highly confident that the Earth orbits the Sun - the confidence is derived from the observations which corroborate that, and the lack of observations which don't conform. The same goes for cosmic expansion ala The Big Bang.

Neither of these are a 'gamble' - I think that's an equivocation.

NO, I am being neutral with the word. The meaning of 'faith' is a 'trust or gamble in strong confidence' for some reason or another about something. My point is about how the Steady State is 'rejected' without logical justice yet the Big Bang is not rejected from the start for its counter-logical origins in thought alone. Then a preference FOR the Big Bang is begged upon the inductive preference regardless of its relative weakness over the deduction based upon a singularity as inferred uniquely as true. That one 'trusts' this kind of thinking without being willing to prove how the deduction to reject the Steady State is a faith and when no one is willing to justify the foundational logic that DOES disprove BBT on mere logical grounds using only our logic and local factors we already all agree to outside of the religious thinkers.

How, for instance, does one not notice the contradiction that a singularity (that IS used as a foundation necessary for a origin in time and space) but then, as you did above, accept that there is no evidence of a 'singularity'? In other words, you are having your cake and eating it too if you toss your hands up in the air when asked about an origin of time and space exists, YET still pretend it does for the sake of keeping a theory in that NEEDS to justify that a singularity exists prior to assuming it. It is more unbelievable to presume a theory based upon a foundation that doesn't exist then one that does. Why the Steady State theory should be weakly dismissed (inductively) but the BBT not dismissed strongly (deductively) from its foundations is at issue here.


Scott Mayers wrote: But many actually make it taboo to even speak for the Steady State and against the Big Bang with any skepticism, in a very religious like way.


Ok, so let's talk about Creationism. Creationists often make the same claim - that it's taboo to talk about evolution being wrong, and that proponents of evolution treat it in a religious way.

Would you say this is accurate?

For me, it's a scam. In reality, they have a belief they want to be lent undue credence that abjectly fails to live up to the standards set by evolutionary theory, and because they simply cannot compete on even ground, they seek to make diversionary attacks rather than actually providing evidence that cannot be explained by evolution, or offer evidence for their own claims.

I've seen the same with many topics: the electric universe is a good example from within physics. The same issues abound. Unable to offer any good reason to accept the proposition of an electric universe, the proponents instead seek to disparage the accepted model including claiming that the orthodoxy represses their views as heretical. The usage of religious language is meant to convey, as was yours, that the rejection is religious rather than scientific; faith-based rather than evidence-based.

So I think that the onus here should firmly on your shoulders to provide material support for an alternative model to the consensus rather than just have a litany of accusations about how your preferred theory is allegedly unfairly treated.

That the religious use the logic in rhetoric in similarity is due to them attempting to throw the same irrationality back in our faces. Evolution is a good example. The BBT utilizes evolutionary theory inappropriately to excuse the laws of physics themselves to have been 'evolved' in an odd reversal but nevertheless religious. Religion can and is being used within science to rationalize. While the overt extreme right-wing Evangelical religions utilitize poor argument, what gets overlooked is the more liberal religious Catholics that are used to support the same irrationality but in FAVOR of evolution. It is NOT a surprise that the Big Bang theory derived out of a priest's head.

When I point out the 'religiousity' I see being used in science, it is not necessarily biased ONLY to those right-wing extremes.

As to burden of proofs, the same argument is also demanded of the religious (in any extremes) to beg us to disprove the whole of the bible before we are permitted to construct a non-religious reality. That the politics used against the anti-science religious extremes are used almost universally as poor samples of obvious defect is beating up on the weakest of the concerns while it conveniently deflects attention away from the kind of religious thinking that is more 'democratically' accepted, even thought the faulty thinking occurs there with more success and power.


Scott Mayers wrote: When you experience censorship by merely questioning the logic by some people on this issue, and have tactics used against you to distort your reputation, I have to try to determine why.


When did this happen?
When I've written on specific other sites I will not mention here, I've had successful logical arguments deleted or buried wholesale, including bullying by selectively keeping posts that lack sense without context of what gets deleted. This authoritarianism by those supposedly claiming to promote science is just direct proof (for me) that there is actual political manipulation to save the BBT. And the fact that I lack ''ownership" of these sites to validate the abuses further acts to make me (or others potentially?) appear as irrational. And even your own addition of this:

This smacks of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I don't agree to the comparison. I'm atheist and use logic in a different way than most to show the irrationality of the extremes of the religious thinking DIRECTLY. I have less problem being able to help those without a need to insult them. In contrast, I give a lot of MORE charity to those supporting the Big Bang theory BY even the presumably non-religious people who don't seem able to hack the same kind of reflected abuse they dish out. I will insult those who insult where they think they are an exceptionally authoritative.

I am as skeptical against the theories or behaviors within science that gets abused using the same menality in hypocrisy. I EXPECT this community should be MORE willing to be challenged without feeling insulted by mere doubt. My use of comparing religious thinking in my own 'peer group' is necessary to the appropriate skepticism needed to be more scientifically skilled. Most supporters appear to be 'religiously scientific' rather than rationally adopted thinkers when they expect you to get with the program and first BELIEVE in the present paradigm until you've invested THROUGH the institutes before being privileged to challenge anything.

In the example above, the hard fact is that religious beliefs are simply not scientific, so consequently they cannot be taught in the science classroom. Teachers who refuse to teach the syllabus and subvert the curriculum to teach their personal religious beliefs have no right to be paid to do so - they are failing at their jobs.

If a purportedly scientific model of the universe cannot compete because it lacks merit or evidence, and consequently does not get published as it simply cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it is not 'censorship' - it is failing to meet the standards required of all publications.

The original need for the peer review is obsolete when we have the internet that should appeal to ALL people to participate. The only prior reason for going through particular prescreening was due to limits of space in publications. The referee system needs to be overthrown.

But I'm not talking about merely the 'formal' expressions of thought but to the censoring in 'informal' settings, like this. The kind of behavior this fosters is what caused generations of historical monuments and history of noverl poltical states to utterly distroy the prior history. Why would it be necessary to hide content if it is not a concerning threat logically? Do you think the masses are defaulted to be so stupid? I know many do and am disgusted by this arrogance.


Scott Mayers wrote:The first part is at least trying to determine when or where someone is simply having a 'faith' in the general science rather than a personal 'knowledge' of it. If supporting a theory by mere voting suffices, then we are reduced to many of the problems that religious apologists are correct in holding against the skeptic, such as I am myself.


Can we move away from this abstract and start looking at material evidence. I may be ignorant here, but I am not seeing anything raised except your personal statements. Who has been censored, where are these attacks on reputation occurring, what is the evidence for this alternative model, what papers have failed to be published etc.?


I don't believe that it is wise to point out particular people or other sites, etc. If and where I get censored, I stop going to those places and preferentially like to have any material that I wrote on those sites to be kept wholesale or deleted wholesale. The only way I can overcome this is with power that I don't have access to.

If you want to look at "material evidence", so do I. I need to know the justification that the Big Bang was kept in spite of foundational factors. In this thread I was only responding to the post asserting something presumably obvious that is not. If you want to understand the foundational conern, I'll open up a different thread on that. I do have some extant threads in other sites that I begun this effort. And it begins with discussing the possibilities of spaces and boundaries and certain paradoxes some have over others.

If you pop over to the website called uncommondescent - you'll see the exact same types of criticism being made about their preferred "theory" (it's not a scientific theory) of Intelligent Design and how it's being unfairly treated because they see it as being superior to the modern evolutionary synthesis. But their claims wholly lack merit.

I've already stated my standard: consensus. I see no reason to lend belief to something that is not accepted by the consensus of professional scientists in an expert field, whereas I see accepting that consensus as eminently justified given the provisions I've already made about how scientific method works.

So you are saying that countering a consensus is possible even if you are deplatformed, censored, or insulted, etc, by the POWERS of those able to censor?


Scott Mayers wrote:I am not religious because I actually KNOW something (gnostically) but many are atheist merely for its popularity in some crowd, or some trend, and are at best, agnostically atheist.


I'm going to have to ask you to support claim like this Scott because this is the same format in which you've couched assertions in the other thread.

"Many are atheist because X" - on what are you basing that claim?

I would say there's only one statement you can make there that is necessarily true as a default definitional statement - that atheists are atheist because they don't believe in gods - and that any addenda you'd like to add to that would need to have material support to validate the claim.

The fact that you think 'support' has value when you expect this in the form of a parade or protest in numbers used to get political attention. I only need to point out the predominance of request for outside authority when no matter how much SOCIAL stats you could draw, as your own belief that this is needed to be sure you prefer the weaker 'inductive' (popular appeal) to win a logical argument. If you don't like my statement, that's too bad. I am permitted to express this without a need to prove as this is informal and only an aside. If you dislike it, you stated it and I will try not to raise it again. But note that you cannot propose a counter assumption implied when you DENY what I say on this. Just speak for yourself. You are NOT the whole of some scientific community, even if the potential majority could share your view against me on this.


I am not religious not because I know something, but because I don't believe in the thing which is a belief (theism). But I am also not religious about my disbelief: show me evidence to the contrary, and I will change my mind just like that. The same goes for everything. Perhaps I am being unrealistic here and in reality I would fail to live up to this standard, but I believe it's true, and it is how I came to hold most of the positions I would state in the affirmative.

And I disagree. I am a Gnostic Atheist and DO have an ability to undo other's religion. You are claiming an 'agnostic' stance but cannot demand the hypocritical belief that NOTHING CAN EVER BE CERTAIN (except for this statement!)


Scott Mayers wrote: The same goes with science. Some support some theories within it on faith, which to me, is counter to the need to be more skeptical as a good aptitude in science.


As I already rejected this, I will repeat it: this is a false equivalence.

Religious belief is not evidence-based. Scientific 'belief' is evidence-based. People taking as true the consensus position of scientists in the field is not remotely equivalent to the manner of faith in which religious beliefs are held. I think you have this wholly mistaken.

Claiming it is a false equivalence doesn't prove it is not either. If you want to own your uncertainty, you should own it, not me. I think there are degreess of people in science. But to deny me from asserting that "some X are Y", you are negating it and further attempting to speak for some whole class: if NOT "Some theories within it (is based) on faith" then you are implying a universal: "No theories within science is based on faith" as though it is a perfect institute imune from political or social abuses.


Scott Mayers wrote: The physics extremes (cosmos and atomic) are often trusted simply for the virtue of all that comes in between.


I think you're going to need to unpack that as I can't perceive any meaning within that sentence at all.
That you can have valid trust for most of sciecne, doesn't mean ALL of science is infallible. Cosmological observation, for instance cannot be reproduced unlike chemistry. Chemistry also is more certain than say, the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, the science regarding the extremely small.


Scott Mayers wrote: But all cults/religions begin similarly by establishing good rationale up front but then pull the rug out from its adherents once they've got them hooked enough to stop asking questions and then default to faith in its authorities with feverish protectionist against those who dare to raise questions of them thereafter.


See above for why this is a false equivalence.

If I ask you to believe in Christianity, all I can do is offer you arguments and tell you to pray.

If I ask you to believe in evolution, I can show you the reams of evidence.

If you were disinterested in looking at the evidence, or if it was too difficult for you to do so, you would still be justified to accept evolution if you understood how scientific method works.

That is not equivalent to a religious belief.

You cannot compare ALL sciences on par with one another. Biological evolution is provable with ease. But the Big Bang or the Copenhagen interpretation of QM use different kinds of thinking that deals methods of thought that lack the same certainty of the rest.

Note that I can prove evolution to a religious person using logic alone and their own base propositions of belief, where you might fail for thinking that 'concensus' of scientists is a better approach.

This effort to speak here is getting too lengthy and distracting of the issue. If you disagree still, let's agree to disagree and move on. I can open a thread on spacial expansion that addresses my own thinking from the foundations of both SS and BB theories. My role in this thread was only to determine why those who claim to trust the CMBR as speaking for itself without being as clear or simple as it is being used by many. See the Chewbacca Defense for my own interpretation of how I the CMBR is being used. It is an intimidation tactic to assert support by tossing out some proof as 'apparent' to speak on something when it doesn't. I want to know if others in the voting 'concensus' are actually credible to the issues they vote for.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 39

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#33  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 19, 2019 7:29 pm

I apologize to the others above for not yet responding. As long as you're patient, I WiLL try to respond. I need a break for now.

IF you are interested in seeing a set of threads from PhilosopyNow forums where I discuss spacial limits that might help understand where I see foundational problems with the theory of Big Bang versus Steady State, see Bricks in the Universe's Walls It is one of three related threads where I discuss singularities as one type of 'wall', points in space (walls at a point) as another, and with this one link, a large spacial wall. These are philosophical discussions on the physical LIMITS of various possibilities that all contribute to this topic.

I believe I linked all three to each other within the threads.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 39

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#34  Postby Macdoc » Nov 19, 2019 7:36 pm

Do you understand what Occam's Razor is about ??

Have you not understood from every single responder that what you see as a useful dialogue is not.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 15954
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#35  Postby Thommo » Nov 19, 2019 9:07 pm

I thought this was a pretty fair summary of the big bang theory:
The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model for the observable universe[1][2][3] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[4][5][6] The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state


One of the things to draw attention to is that yes, the singularity that comes at the limit of the extrapolation can be legitimately criticised because it is not conventionally understood as being central to the theory. That seems to cover at least one misunderstanding in this thread.

A second misunderstanding might be in using the Copenhagen interpretation, which isn't science, of Quantum Mechanics, which is science, to criticise science via analogy with the science of Chemistry. If the Copenhagen interpretation is fuel for criticism of anything, it's fuel for criticism of philosophy, which is what it is more accurately an example of (although I would hesitate to say it's going to be a strong or effective criticism even then).

I thought this was a pretty good summary of the four basic lines of evidence for TBBT as well, it's basic, but that seems to be about appropriate for this thread:
https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/lear ... ng/bb_evid
1. Redshift of Galaxies
...
2. Microwave Background

Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.

3. Mixture of Elements
...
4. Looking back in time

It outlines briefly the four main independent lines of evidence which point to an initial hot dense state from observations, and indicates what alternate hypotheses have failed to explain.

This page offers a suprisingly clear and succinct summary of the Steady State Hypothesis and how evidence emerged that contradicts it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
Problems with the steady state model began to emerge in the 1950s and 60s, when observations began to support the idea that the universe was in fact changing: bright radio sources (quasars and radio galaxies) were found only at large distances (therefore could have existed only in the distant past), not in closer galaxies. Whereas the Big Bang theory predicted as much, the steady state model predicted that such objects would be found throughout the universe, including close to our own galaxy.
...
For most cosmologists, the definitive refutation of the steady state model came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory. The steady state model explained microwave background radiation as the result of light from ancient stars that has been scattered by galactic dust. However, the cosmic microwave background level is very even in all directions, making it difficult to explain how it could be generated by numerous point sources and the microwave background radiation shows no evidence of characteristics such as polarization that are normally associated with scattering. Furthermore, its spectrum is so close to that of an ideal black body that it could hardly be formed by the superposition of contributions from a multitude of dust clumps at different temperatures as well as at different redshifts.


There also seems to have been a rather idiosyncratic use of the term "faith". Faith as conventionally defined, in its senses relevant to science, is:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2) : complete trust
(3) : something that is believed especially with strong conviction


This is distinct from a gamble, in which one may or may not have a high degree of confidence, and in which what matters is that something is at stake based on an uncertain outcome.

Whilst we could semantically quibble about exactly how "complete" trust must be before it becomes a complete trust and thus faith in that sense - for example, am I "completely" sure the sun will rise tomorrow? - the point about science is that confidence should be held only as is commensurate to the evidence. It is reasonable to think the observable universe arose from a hot dense state precisely because we have abundant evidence that supports that hypothesis and does not support competing hypotheses.

There also seems to be a bit of a muddle surrounding formal logic. Formal logic is essentially mathematical logic, and whilst it's a set of powerful tools it is seldom used directly by most people in most walks of life, including science and philosophy.

Objections to science (e.g. in this case to inferences of singularity from TBBT or support for a steady state model) are invariably made informally, but are expected to roughly conform to the principles of logic such that they could hypothetically be formalised were it required. It tends not to be a useful exercise to conduct though as it's incredibly difficult to interpret even for trained logicians and impossible for the layman. Akin to asking for this thread to be explained in binary instead of plain English, perhaps.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26473

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#36  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 20, 2019 4:37 am

Macdoc wrote:Do you understand what Occam's Razor is about ??

Have you not understood from every single responder that what you see as a useful dialogue is not.

Contrary to responses challenging what you may think I lack knowing, I assure you that I'm far more ahead of this than you could fathom. I'm am very skilled and knowledgeable in logic and scientific methodology. My discussion here isn't formal with you.

For those who prefer linking to arguments NOT of your own capacity to argue, then just opt out of discussing things with me. My challenge here was to get those who think they 'know' to prove they actually know. If you can't argue how YOU know, than I'll presume you don't. Anyone can copy and paste or link material from others.

This isn't my thread and I've exhausted what I can say here. You're welcome to join me on a discussion on the limits of space when I open a thread or find one already opened. It was actually why I found this site a while back and forgot. If some of you guys could get your heads out of your need to bully people safely behind your anonymity, we might get somewhere.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 39

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#37  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 20, 2019 5:04 am

Scott Mayers wrote:The original need for the peer review is obsolete when we have the internet that should appeal to ALL people to participate. The only prior reason for going through particular prescreening was due to limits of space in publications. The referee system needs to be overthrown.


So you say.

Scott Mayers wrote:I don't believe that it is wise to point out particular people or other sites, etc. If and where I get censored, I stop going to those places and preferentially like to have any material that I wrote on those sites to be kept wholesale or deleted wholesale. The only way I can overcome this is with power that I don't have access to.


Well, poor little you. We have the referee system needing to be overthrown, and now you're complaining about the limitations of the "internet thread publication" model. There are vanity presses you can send your stuff to if you want it published indelibly.

Don't you see that the problem you face is not really everyone else's problem?
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Nov 20, 2019 5:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28573
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#38  Postby Thommo » Nov 20, 2019 5:10 am

Cito di Pense wrote:So you say.


The classic UPR.

Still, he also says he's knowledgeable in logic and scientific methodology, so maybe something which demonstrates a greater knowledge than has been shown thusfar will be forthcoming. Maybe his skill will even extend as far as identifying the informal fallacy of poisoning the well. Who is to say? :ask:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26473

Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#39  Postby Macdoc » Nov 20, 2019 5:37 am

I have changed my opinion on "Scott Mayers" and his word salad....he's a fucking market garden... :roll:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/w ... st-5443295

wonder if he has a gig getting paid by the word

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtop ... 66#p308653

:coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 15954
Age: 72
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#40  Postby Thommo » Nov 20, 2019 6:03 am

I quite like this response in that thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/w ... 043/page-7
Perhaps I should expand on this a little. A recurrent theme in your posts is that you see problems with the way science is done--scientists are too unwilling to consider new ideas, too quick to shut down discussion, too quick to accept a theory if it's proposed by a person with the right reputation, etc. These are your opinions, but again: how do I know your opinions are worth anything?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26473

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Physical Sciences & Mathematics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest