Big Bang Bunkum?

Astronomy, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Mathematics & Physics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Big Bang Bunkum?

#1  Postby juju7 » Sep 26, 2017 10:59 am

https://thesciencepage.com/no-big-bang- ... beginning/

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a “Big Bang” did the universe officially begin.Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#2  Postby DavidMcC » Sep 26, 2017 11:31 am

I'm sure you've already seen my article on cosmology, but just in case:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/physics/loop-quantum-gravity-t9397-100.html#p1211883
Continued here:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/physics/loop-quantum-gravity-t9397-120.html#p1213199
In a nutshell, ideas of what space-time actually is need revising if an adequate explanation for the many things that cosmologists cannot (by their own admission) explain is to be achieved.
It implies a multiverse, based on Lee Smolin's idea that a universe is a black hole.

BTW, the stand-alone big bang is, indeed, bunkum - see my article.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66
Male

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

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#3  Postby DavidMcC » Sep 28, 2017 12:16 pm

For the benefit of those who haven't read my article linked above, it does not mean that the universe has always existed, only that the ""hyperspace continuum" has always existed (see the article).
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66
Male

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

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#4  Postby Andycraydoll » Aug 01, 2018 6:04 pm

Thanks, man
Andycraydoll
 
Name: Benedict Camberpruff
Posts: 4

Country: Unated States
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#5  Postby Macdoc » Aug 01, 2018 6:17 pm

Funny how I can still "hear" the Big Bang ..



:roll: :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: 15950
Age: 72
Male

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

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#6  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 18, 2019 9:29 am

@ Macdoc

I find the utility of asserting the CMBR as sufficient to prove the Big Bang over the (or any) Steady State model lacking conclusion. That is, many take the radiation as meaning it IS proof of a 'hot' origin, whereas the Steady State simply "lacked" an explanation.

I am begging others to expand upon this as it only raises more questions than answers.

First off, we cannot actually reach 0 Kelvin. As such, it is reasonable that the ambient temperature in the dark regions of space SHOULD be of a temperature slightly above 0 K regardless. For us to even see through space, requires each point in space to have at least the energy of at least light from any perspective around such points.

One technical aspect of this regards the spectra of energy of this energy as being a 'black body'.

Given you just posted this as though it obviously speaks for itself to you, can you defend the progress of the evidence that leads to the unique conclusion that the phenomena is actually representing a hot origin personally? Or are you just trusting the scientific authority without actually knowing?

I'm asking anyone finding faith in this to clarify their own trust of this. Other prior logical issues regarding expansion also needs to be addressed but this particular observation is uniquely claimed as "driving the nail in the coffin of the Steady State Model".

Thank you.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 39

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#7  Postby newolder » Nov 18, 2019 10:17 am

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.

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.

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.

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.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6542
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#8  Postby Macdoc » Nov 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Given you just posted this as though it obviously speaks for itself to you, can you defend the progress of the evidence that leads to the unique conclusion that the phenomena is actually representing a hot origin personally? Or are you just trusting the scientific authority without actually knowing?


hardly unique ...follow the evidence which you patently have not.....do you actually know how the CMB was discovered?

I might help to educate you on climate if you are an honest enquirer
....there is lots out there on early universe.....go for it.

Now brane theory and string theory ...I have nothing but a hunch as the provability is wanting tho some glimmers out there on both.

Esoteric physics does not yield to "common sense".
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: 15950
Age: 72
Male

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

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#9  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 19, 2019 1:27 am

Given you just posted this as though it obviously speaks for itself to you, can you defend the progress of the evidence that leads to the unique conclusion that the phenomena is actually representing a hot origin personally? Or are you just trusting the scientific authority without actually knowing?


This is an intriguing notion I have encountered before; it appears to suggest that one must garner the same degree of expert knowledge as specialists in highly technical fields before accepting their findings as valid.

Of course, it has to be noted that this is already part of the process of scientific knowledge acquisition as relevant experts will review any report before publication, and other teams of scientists working in that particular narrow field will be checking and testing the findings to see if they're reproducible under the same conditions.

My position would be that it is the process itself which is largely trustworthy, and one shouldn't be expected to devote their lives to checking every statement made by a team of experts, but rather to hold such finds as distinct possibilities (i.e. 'valid', not 'true') until proven otherwise. This is, of course, not to say that scientific method cannot be exploited or fail at times, but there is a self-correction process both through other knowledgeable human agents actively seeking falsification of a hypothesis, and the fact that any claim must ultimately stand up to the only valid arbiter: further observations.
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: 25315
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#10  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 19, 2019 4:11 am

Macdoc wrote:
Given you just posted this as though it obviously speaks for itself to you, can you defend the progress of the evidence that leads to the unique conclusion that the phenomena is actually representing a hot origin personally? Or are you just trusting the scientific authority without actually knowing?


hardly unique ...follow the evidence which you patently have not.....do you actually know how the CMB was discovered?

Yes, I know how it was discovered. What has 'how' got to do with anything?

The same story is told repeatedly everywhere about Bell Lab's attempt clear the microwave antenna with bird crap presuming they should not be receiving any noise.

But why they should or should not expect to find no noise is not clearly justified.

Do you know of that justification?


I might help to educate you on climate if you are an honest enquirer
....there is lots out there on early universe.....go for it.

So are you saying that you know the justification? If so can you tell me how you understand what I asked in above? Note I'm responding to your apparent understanding of the chain of the evidence and need to determine how those assuming something so obvious is so obvious on this issue.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 39

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#11  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 19, 2019 4:32 am

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?


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?


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.


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)?
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 39

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#12  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 19, 2019 5:19 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Given you just posted this as though it obviously speaks for itself to you, can you defend the progress of the evidence that leads to the unique conclusion that the phenomena is actually representing a hot origin personally? Or are you just trusting the scientific authority without actually knowing?


This is an intriguing notion I have encountered before; it appears to suggest that one must garner the same degree of expert knowledge as specialists in highly technical fields before accepting their findings as valid.

Of course, it has to be noted that this is already part of the process of scientific knowledge acquisition as relevant experts will review any report before publication, and other teams of scientists working in that particular narrow field will be checking and testing the findings to see if they're reproducible under the same conditions.

My position would be that it is the process itself which is largely trustworthy, and one shouldn't be expected to devote their lives to checking every statement made by a team of experts, but rather to hold such finds as distinct possibilities (i.e. 'valid', not 'true') until proven otherwise. This is, of course, not to say that scientific method cannot be exploited or fail at times, but there is a self-correction process both through other knowledgeable human agents actively seeking falsification of a hypothesis, and the fact that any claim must ultimately stand up to the only valid arbiter: further observations.

Fair enough. I understand the impracticality of being able to absolutely doubt everything. But there are other prior questions regarding the logical paradoxes of boundaries of space that is non-resolvable with a real singularity (versus a virtual one) to which should rule out a Big Bang interpretation from the get go.

But while the logic of from the intial premises that derive a Big Bang interpretation is at extreme odds, it was oddly not ruled out regardless. That is, the deductive rationale leads to paradoxes with the Big Bang but NOT the Steady State version. Yet an inductive interpretation of what the CMBR represents is given supreme rational to overthrow the Steady State (a weaker logic for being at best an inductive observation ...and one not able to be repeated either).

Given deduction on the same logic rules over induction, which is never able to assure anything with certainty, how did the Big Bang get a pass with such ease but the Steady State get tossed out? This might need a digression elsewhere on 'expansion' and logic but helps express why I am asking others. I don't get how others think that you can put faith in the appearance of the INTERPRETATION of an observation that leads to contradiction rather one that doesn't. Dislodging the Steady State upon a counter 'confirmation' that weakly supports (via being inductive only) the Big Bang interpretation.

Here's the sense I'm getting comparing it to how I see religious arguments:

Looking at some observation that appears as someone walking on water at a distance, one theory proposes that a real person was walking on water (because it appears so) by observation,... while another proposes that we cannot know what we see but locally (IN TIME AND SPACE) we do not see people actually able to walk on water, so it likely isn't wise to infer that what appears as one is walking on water is not justified.

The Big Bang seems like the first type of explanation that has passed the anti-logical test from the get go. (ie, the rationality of a singularity to be anti-logical AND anti-empirical given you cannot interpret the observation as ruling out a virtual appearance of a singularity) The Steady State version on the other hand lacks this paradox deductively nor does it make exception to the rule of emirical trust in local understandings of time and space. [That is, it doesn't presume a time that is 'special' whereby the laws we seek of physics breaks down}

Thus, my questioning of people who seem to trust that the Big Bang has superceded rationally over the Steady State. It feels like a cheat that needs explaining.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 39

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#13  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 19, 2019 5:40 am

Scott Mayers wrote:Thus, my questioning of people who seem to trust that the Big Bang has superceded rationally over the Steady State. It feels like a cheat that needs explaining.



For me, I simply lack the ability to challenge it. I also lack the time to spend really delving into it... but mostly, the ability. And that's just for one topic; the thought of this being a requirement for all claims made in all fields seems fantastical. I'm a biologist; I never studied physics beyond G.C.S.E., I have the mathematical skills of a nematode (as has been established by empirical tests on this very forum), so this claim, like so many others, is simply not amenable to me validating or falsifying it.

But then, I still appreciate how scientific method works, and see it operate effectively in my own field rooting out and exposing problems with models as new data arises. I feel that trusting the scientific consensus is justified so long as one understands that scientific knowledge is always 'as best we can tell given the available evidence'; that people better equipped than me with strong motives to challenge orthodox claims have actually done the tests that could plausibly falsify an erroneously held position, and that the massive scientific endeavour occurring all the time comprised of hundreds of thousands of specialists all round the world should be routinely turning up obvious problems with models which are falsely held as being true.

Of course, there's always the old Kuhnian paradigmatic shift where the very ground of knowledge is a false premise, but we can't reasonably appeal to that in the absence of evidence which doesn't conform to our existing models but which would require a paradigmatic shift were it to exist. There should be a high bar to such an appeal, especially when consilience minimizes our uncertainty and current models are fertile.

So my answer to this, and it's a non-specialist response, is that the reason we can have 'faith' is because of scientific consensus, but no, this 'faith' is not anything like religious faith which is not based on empirical evidence and is not the product of scientific method.
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: 25315
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#14  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 19, 2019 6:34 am

@Spearthrower,

Thank you. That is what I want from others...the honesty.

The particular topics on the physics extremes are 'safe' in that whatever is or is not true or accepted will not affect things as long as the 'local' science is practical. By "local" here, I mean any hard sciences that are within our proximaty to deal with. There is politics involved with both extremes of Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics that I cannot pinpoint yet other than to the fact of institutions, whether educational or political, that get in the way.

The term, faith, when I use it is to be sure that one understands where they are just 'gambling' on what they support. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The physics extremes (cosmos and atomic) are often trusted simply for the virtue of all that comes in between. 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.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 39

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#15  Postby Macdoc » Nov 19, 2019 7:17 am

Oh for fuck sakes ....another one ala Jamest that thinks he can determine reality via logic and in love with a diet of word salad.....thin fare that.
Tiresome.

Since you are questioning an evidence derived theory ...perhaps you can offer an equally evidenced based counter theorem. :popcorn:

: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: 15950
Age: 72
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#16  Postby newolder » Nov 19, 2019 8:33 am

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.


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".
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?

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.

Future gravitational wave sensors (like the planned LISA space-based instrument) will be able to "see"/hear/observe the nature of gravitational fluctuation spectra from times before last scattering.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6542
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#17  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 19, 2019 9:39 am

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.


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.


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?

This smacks of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

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.


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.?

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.


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.

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.


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.


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.


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.
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: 25315
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#18  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 19, 2019 10:46 am

Scott Mayers wrote:@Spearthrower,

Thank you. That is what I want from others...the honesty.

The particular topics on the physics extremes are 'safe' in that whatever is or is not true or accepted will not affect things as long as the 'local' science is practical. By "local" here, I mean any hard sciences that are within our proximaty to deal with. There is politics involved with both extremes of Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics that I cannot pinpoint yet other than to the fact of institutions, whether educational or political, that get in the way.

The term, faith, when I use it is to be sure that one understands where they are just 'gambling' on what they support. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The physics extremes (cosmos and atomic) are often trusted simply for the virtue of all that comes in between. 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.


Sure, when somebody just practices argument for its own sake, the 'gamble' is on whether that rhetoric is going to fly. There's no other 'gamble' in defending an idea with evidential support when significant contrary data are not present to suggest the idea is a 'gamble' in the first place. It's not censorship to point out to you that you don't put your shoes on before you put on your socks.

It's already been pointed out to you (several times now) that supporting or defending an idea is not really the acid test, except for (y'know) self-styled rhetoricians or debate captains. The way to undermine a theory or idea is to find some data that conflicts with it, which is how science works. If you're talking about something other than science, and are just complaining about the rhetoric that people use as soon as you pop up with boilerplate yammering about "accepting theories or ideas on faith", you've just seen exactly what's going to happen in response to your own (largely-vacuous) rhetoric. It's true that people accept theories and ideas without understanding the background and without offering any remarks on why that acceptance is forthcoming. You can quote individual posts in this very thread which are doing exactly that. Be careful about which one(s) you choose to quote if you want to go down that road.

Pro-tip for you: Don't uppercase areas of study like cosmology or quantum mechanics unless you're citing the title of a course or monograph on the topic. It's not the folks possessing what you might consider an overweening confidence in those theories who show that kind of stealthy, but also somewhat back-handed, respect. Where you're coming from, you'd be better off placing the names in scare-quotes.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Given you just posted this as though it obviously speaks for itself to you, can you defend the progress of the evidence that leads to the unique conclusion that the phenomena is actually representing a hot origin personally?


Yeah, this is one way to approach the problem. Only, it's the rhetorical strategy of trying to put your interlocutor on the back foot absent any attempt to show you can answer your own cross-examination. The courtroom adage is never to ask a question for which you don't know the answer. Another little pro-tip: by so separating the adverb personally from its verb, you've delivered a little unintentional comedy. If it was your intent to poke fun, all the better for you.
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: 28572
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: Big Bang Bunkum?

#19  Postby hackenslash » Nov 19, 2019 2:23 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:The same story is told repeatedly everywhere about Bell Lab's attempt clear the microwave antenna with bird crap presuming they should not be receiving any noise.


This is a horrendous oversimplification. It's not that they presumed that there should not be any noise, but that they should be able to identify the source of any radiation. They went through a painstaking process of removing every potential source, including 'white dielectric material', but failed to find a source, not least because of the way the signal was distributed across the sky.

But why they should or should not expect to find no noise is not clearly justified.

Do you know of that justification?


The justification is that radiation radiates from a source.

It's worth noting that there is no 'the' big bang model. All empirically adequate cosmologies have a big bang in them. The name is a matter of historical contingency but, these days, the big bang is nothing more nor less than the name we have for the observed expansion of the universe.

The more obvious question is why anybody still puts any stock in any flavour of steady state when the data do not support any such model. It fails to align with observations of the evolution of the universe, most notably in the central posit of steady state, namely the constancy of the energy density, which is observed not to be unchanging.

The only sense in which it's 'taboo' to talk seriously about steady state cosmology is in the same way it's taboo to talk about the Noachian fantasy fludd in geology, or baraminology in biology. You can't expect to hang on to a career in science if you support fringe lunacy that's overwhelmingly falsified by observation, or whose origin is nothing more than hanging on to a presupposition, all of which apply to steady state models, because the energy density of the universe is not steady, and the only reason it ever had any serious attention is that the physicists of the early 20th century wanted the universe to be eternal an unchanging (also the source of what Einstein called his greatest blunder).

Not to be believed by a thinking person who has even a rudimentary grasp of the issues.
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?

#20  Postby Scott Mayers » Nov 19, 2019 3:43 pm

Macdoc wrote:Oh for fuck sakes ....another one ala Jamest that thinks he can determine reality via logic and in love with a diet of word salad.....thin fare that.
Tiresome.

Since you are questioning an evidence derived theory ...perhaps you can offer an equally evidenced based counter theorem. :popcorn:

:coffee:

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?
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 39

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Physical Sciences & Mathematics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest