Competing cosmologies

Study matter and its motion through spacetime...

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Competing cosmologies

#1  Postby Macdoc » Jun 07, 2019 6:47 pm

Found this a good read - decided not to add it to the nonsense in the U from nought mess

Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

Image
A recent challenge to Stephen Hawking’s biggest idea — about how the universe might have come from nothing — has cosmologists choosing sides.



https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicis ... -20190606/
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
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 16514
Age: 72
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#2  Postby Scott Mayers » Jan 28, 2020 5:23 am

Since "science" today is about prioritizing observation over logic and the act of observing is dynamic, any discussion regarding cosmological origins cannot be used to infer any literal origin of space and time.

The theories that are based upon the appearance of an origin, such as a singularity where time and/or space is non-existent, is itself logically unsound AND hypocritical to be called 'science' since you require to know time or space exists on the other side of such a singularity. As such, the most you can infer is an apparent singularity in the way you can assert a 'vanishing' point in a two-dimensional drawing as the illusion of convergence. "Existence" begs time and space as axiomatic.

If you believe you have found an indirect 'scientific' rationale to prove this, you have to overthrow the concept of testability. That is, since it cannot be testable by the standards expected of methodology, it cannot be even be logically validated from the axioms used within science itself.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 74

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#3  Postby Macdoc » Jan 28, 2020 5:49 am

Your "theology" just reeks.....go play in the godbotherer forums....
Maybe you and Jamest can get together and figure it all out "logically"
...fucking pathetic the pair of you. :roll:
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
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 16514
Age: 72
Male

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

Re: Competing cosmologies

#4  Postby Scott Mayers » Jan 28, 2020 6:41 am

Macdoc wrote:Your "theology" just reeks.....go play in the godbotherer forums....
Maybe you and Jamest can get together and figure it all out "logically"
...fucking pathetic the pair of you. :roll:

Theology? I am an athiest. :smug: What does my response relate to theology? :ask:

This IS a site on 'rational skepticism', isn't it? Can you respond to my post or is this about me as a person from prior disagreements and/or interpretations from elsewhere? [ad hominem]

Note that I place quotes around the word, "science", because I'm referring to the meaning of it as understood by practice, not that I am against the concept and validity of it. That is, "science" comes from meaning "to see", and is only in used in contrast to mere "logic", which used to mean "to look" but has evolved to be separated from the act of observing and relegated to the "analysis" of what we see more specifically.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 74

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#5  Postby Scott Mayers » Jan 28, 2020 7:13 am

from the article wrote:Hawking, in his brilliance, saw a way to end the interminable groping backward in time: He proposed that there’s no end, or beginning, at all. According to the record of the Vatican conference, the Cambridge physicist, then 39 and still able to speak with his own voice, told the crowd, “There ought to be something very special about the boundary conditions of the universe, and what can be more special than the condition that there is no boundary?”


I agree to Hawking but feel that his own reparations miss the point that the Big Bang itself is more likely wrong. If it is infinite, it reduces to the "Steady State" model on mere logical grounds.

[By the way, note that the meeting was at the Vatican. ?? What is that about if not suspect of religious affiliation to the Big Bang?]
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 74

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#6  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 8:42 am

Scott Mayers wrote:Note that I place quotes around the word, "science", because I'm referring to the meaning of it as understood by practice, not that I am against the concept and validity of it. That is, "science" comes from meaning "to see", and is only in used in contrast to mere "logic", which used to mean "to look" but has evolved to be separated from the act of observing and relegated to the "analysis" of what we see more specifically.



Your version isn't science: it's hubris.

Science clearly works - you can see it all around you.

What inventions, discoveries, and applications have you arrived at through "logic"?

If you want to set this up as a contest between scientific methodology and whatever your methodology is, then you'd better put up and show that you can compete.
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: 27286
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#7  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 8:43 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
I agree to Hawking but feel that his own reparations miss the point that the Big Bang itself is more likely wrong. If it is infinite, it reduces to the "Steady State" model on mere logical grounds.


And your equations, proofs, evidence etc?

More likely? Show your working to arrive at such a probabilistic claim.

You 'agree to Hawking' - I'm sure he rests in peace then.


Scott Mayers wrote:[By the way, note that the meeting was at the Vatican. ?? What is that about if not suspect of religious affiliation to the Big Bang?]


By the way Mr Logic, that's logically fallacious: a genetic fallacy coupled with a well poisoning.

Religious people can do science too - the problem is when certain people elevate their ideology above the methodological suppositions, then regardless of whether they're religious or not, they become incapable of doing science.
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: 27286
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#8  Postby Scott Mayers » Jan 28, 2020 10:50 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:Note that I place quotes around the word, "science", because I'm referring to the meaning of it as understood by practice, not that I am against the concept and validity of it. That is, "science" comes from meaning "to see", and is only in used in contrast to mere "logic", which used to mean "to look" but has evolved to be separated from the act of observing and relegated to the "analysis" of what we see more specifically.



Your version isn't science: it's hubris.

Science clearly works - you can see it all around you.

What inventions, discoveries, and applications have you arrived at through "logic"?

If you want to set this up as a contest between scientific methodology and whatever your methodology is, then you'd better put up and show that you can compete.


:? :?

Who is saying science doesn't work? I sure as hell didn't.

I take issue with the FACT that the Big Bang model IS a 'religious' model about the Cosmic ORIGINS, not about science as a subject. If you are actually going to compete with me in words here, lets deal with what is given here. Hawking asserted doubt about a singularity as representing something where nothing is needed beyond it to argue from. This came at a time when all the old guard of phyicists died off and "In God We Trust" got added to the U.S. Dollar. And so it conveniently hides the FACT that the major distinction between the Steady State model and the Big Bang was precisely about this problem. The Steady State theory argues in defiance of the Big Bang precisely because of the logical disconnect of assuming an "origin" at a specific time when matter that is DEFINED as a function or property DEPENDENT upon space is non-existent. THAT is the concept inferred of the convergence of space and time that derived the justified response of how one can infer an instantaneous fixed quantity of matter/energy to appear.

If you want to discuss this, it helps if you have some understanding of logic and paradoxes. If you are assuming me as some anti-science or religious propagandist, you are simply wrong or are intending to be hostile for whatever problems you have about others.

Spearthrower wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
I agree to Hawking but feel that his own reparations miss the point that the Big Bang itself is more likely wrong. If it is infinite, it reduces to the "Steady State" model on mere logical grounds.



And your equations, proofs, evidence etc?

More likely? Show your working to arrive at such a probabilistic claim.

You 'agree to Hawking' - I'm sure he rests in peace then.

I agree to this:
“Asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless, according to the no-boundary proposal, because there is no notion of time available to refer to,” Hawking said...
as it is clear in my context.

"Equations, proofs, evidence etc?" is begging without need here. [or you are attempting to set up a Straw Man/Scarecrow to attack with ease?] I am responding to the nature of the debate regarding a Universe that has no beginning. I agree to this point but disagree to the retrofitting of it to the Big Bang theory when this concept DEFINES the Steady State assumption AGAINST the Big Bang model.

Are you denying this very important factor of the history of science? Or are you wanting a link to someone famous to assert this for your faith in authorities?

Spearthrower wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:[By the way, note that the meeting was at the Vatican. ?? What is that about if not suspect of religious affiliation to the Big Bang?]



By the way Mr Logic, that's logically fallacious: a genetic fallacy coupled with a well poisoning.

Religious people can do science too - the problem is when certain people elevate their ideology above the methodological suppositions, then regardless of whether they're religious or not, they become incapable of doing science.

The functional meeting was at the "Pontifical Academy of Sciences" in a place specifically designated as an institute of religion. This was also in response to Mardoc's comment implying that I was religious with your added clear insult of me as being anti-science when you said, "Science clearly works" as though I stand against the who subject.

And on 'fallacies', pointing out one requires explanation of your thinking because they are mostly context errors and are not universally applicable. There is no genetic fallacy with respect to this topic because I am not arguing an irrelevant connection to the modern theory that is still dependent upon denying the Steady State's LOGICAL meaning and its presumed demise. Given it was considered 'dead' and 'wrong', which led power to accepting the Big Bang, it needs addressing. I was not poisoning the well because I am also not rejecting a claim merely because it has a religious connection. It is also actually relevant in context to the meet being at the Vatican.


"Steady State": the steady existence of the Cosmos through both time and space. Hawking's position is an attempt to appear 'novel' within the context of the Big Bang theory due to the politics involved. What he was doing was re-entering the main definition of the Steady State model in a climate that is intolerant of it. Big Bang favors a generic Diestic God at minimal. The Steady State lacks this and actually counters MORE significant religious beliefs than the Big Bang. It is relevant because of how science as an institute becomes politicized for the need of public supports.
Scott Mayers
 
Name: Scott Mayers
Posts: 74

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#9  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 12:44 pm

Who is saying science doesn't work? I sure as hell didn't.


I agree to Hawking but feel that his own reparations miss the point that the Big Bang itself is more likely wrong.


If it's 'wrong' then it doesn't work. So yeah, you did say that science doesn't work - and you promoted yourself and an undefined methodology you call 'logic' as superior to it.
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: 27286
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#10  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 12:44 pm

"Equations, proofs, evidence etc?" is begging without need here.


So in other words, you don't have anything scientifically relevant at all on which you base your opinion.

I know.
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: 27286
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#11  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 12:48 pm

The functional meeting was at the "Pontifical Academy of Sciences" in a place specifically designated as an institute of religion.


So you respond to the problem identified with your genetic fallacy by adding another genetic fallacy; that a scientific institute is location within a religious one.


This was also in response to Mardoc's comment implying that I was religious with your added clear insult of me as being anti-science when you said, "Science clearly works" as though I stand against the who subject.


You are anti-science - you've shown it many times. What you do is play a shell game with science where you pretend that the things you agree with (on poorly explained grounds) are acceptable science, whereas the things you don't agree with (on poorly explained grounds) are wrong - failing to understand that is not how science works. In fact, you have never shown the slightest bit of competence with regards to science at all.

Call it an insult if you like, but that's precisely how you come across. The cap fits.
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: 27286
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#12  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 12:49 pm

And on 'fallacies', pointing out one requires explanation of your thinking because they are mostly context errors and are not universally applicable.


Quite clearly, I did.

Spearthrower wrote:Religious people can do science too...
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: 27286
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#13  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 12:50 pm

Hawking's position is an attempt to appear 'novel' within the context of the Big Bang theory due to the politics involved.


The politics involved.

HA!

Not the evidence, the scientific discourse, the years of research... no, it's political - but only because you want to politicize it so you can pretend it's not scientific.
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: 27286
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#14  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 12:51 pm

Big Bang favors a generic Diestic God at minimal.


Poppycock.
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: 27286
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#15  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 28, 2020 12:53 pm

If you want to discuss this, it helps if you have some understanding of logic and paradoxes.


Ok, so it thereby follows that if you want to discuss it, then it would also help if you had some understanding of logic and paradoxes.

Given your record, I don't think it apparent that you do. You have a high self-regard, that's for sure, but that doesn't suffice as a proxy for actual knowledge.
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: 27286
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Competing cosmologies

#16  Postby Destroyer » Jan 28, 2020 2:54 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Hawking's position is an attempt to appear 'novel' within the context of the Big Bang theory due to the politics involved.


The politics involved.

HA!

Not the evidence, the scientific discourse, the years of research... no, it's political - but only because you want to politicize it so you can pretend it's not scientific.


I think that you are doing Scott Mayers a disservice here, Spearthrower. What he is saying is precisely as science stands today: observation tells us that the universe is expanding i.e., from a very specific point in time. This is the inflation model of the universe based upon observation, the big bang model. However, the maths in quantum physics leads to an infinite universe i.e., the steady state model. Both are based upon observation, but they do not agree.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1832
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#17  Postby Animavore » Jan 28, 2020 3:14 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Hawking's position is an attempt to appear 'novel' within the context of the Big Bang theory due to the politics involved.


The politics involved.

HA!

Not the evidence, the scientific discourse, the years of research... no, it's political - but only because you want to politicize it so you can pretend it's not scientific.


I think that you are doing Scott Mayers a disservice here, Spearthrower. What he is saying is precisely as science stands to today: observation tells us that the universe is expanding i.e., from a very specific point in time. This is the inflation model of the universe based upon observation, the big bang model. However, the maths in quantum physics leads to an infinite universe i.e., the steady state model. Both are based upon observation, but they do not agree.


But surely Big Bang theory is compatible with an infinite universe, at least in some models? For instance in one Sean Carroll book (I think it was The Arrow of Time) he said the universe may have always been infinite, but also in an incredibly dense, low entropy state, before some catalyst set it rapidly off toward a less dense, higher entropy state, which is still in motion. So the universe was always there, if true, just in a different state.

Other models include things like a multiverse.

I really don't see a need for any deistic god with the Big Bang theory, I don't know where the leap to this assertion comes from. And I don't think the Steady State theory, as it was in its day, is plausible given it required extra matter from no where to keep forming new galaxies in the gaps between galaxies as they spread apart, nor do I think it's a necessary fit for an infinite universe. Maybe some other version of Steady State can be rescued in a multiverse theory, but certainly not the one of Hoyle.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 43471
Age: 41
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#18  Postby Macdoc » Jan 28, 2020 3:22 pm

Yes there is a competing view called somewhat tongue in cheek ...the Big Bounce


How the Universe Got Its Bounce Back

Image

Humans have always entertained two basic theories about the origin of the universe. “In one of them, the universe emerges in a single instant of creation (as in the Jewish-Christian and the Brazilian Carajás cosmogonies),” the cosmologists Mario Novello and Santiago Perez-Bergliaffa noted in 2008. In the other, “the universe is eternal, consisting of an infinite series of cycles (as in the cosmogonies of the Babylonians and Egyptians).” The division in modern cosmology “somehow parallels that of the cosmogonic myths,” Novello and Perez-Bergliaffa wrote.

In recent decades, it hasn’t seemed like much of a contest. The Big Bang theory, standard stuff of textbooks and television shows, enjoys strong support among today’s cosmologists. The rival eternal-universe picture had the edge a century ago, but it lost ground as astronomers observed that the cosmos is expanding and that it was small and simple about 14 billion years ago. In the most popular modern version of the theory, the Big Bang began with an episode called “cosmic inflation” — a burst of exponential expansion during which an infinitesimal speck of space-time ballooned into a smooth, flat, macroscopic cosmos, which expanded more gently thereafter.



00:00
/
22:19
With a single initial ingredient (the “inflaton field”), inflationary models reproduce many broad-brush features of the cosmos today. But as an origin story, inflation is lacking; it raises questions about what preceded it and where that initial, inflaton-laden speck came from. Undeterred, many theorists think the inflaton field must fit naturally into a more complete, though still unknown, theory of time’s origin.

But in the past few years, a growing number of cosmologists have cautiously revisited the alternative. They say the Big Bang might instead have been a Big Bounce.

Cosmologists have shown that it’s theoretically possible for a contracting universe to bounce and expand. The new work resuscitates an old idea that directly challenges the Big Bang theory of cosmic origins.


https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-boun ... -20180131/

more

Mayers is a just a gadfly with an agenda.

Brane theory certainly would support either a bang or a bounce...but nothing supports a steady state. :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
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 16514
Age: 72
Male

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

Re: Competing cosmologies

#19  Postby Destroyer » Jan 28, 2020 3:43 pm

Animavore wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Hawking's position is an attempt to appear 'novel' within the context of the Big Bang theory due to the politics involved.


The politics involved.

HA!

Not the evidence, the scientific discourse, the years of research... no, it's political - but only because you want to politicize it so you can pretend it's not scientific.


I think that you are doing Scott Mayers a disservice here, Spearthrower. What he is saying is precisely as science stands to today: observation tells us that the universe is expanding i.e., from a very specific point in time. This is the inflation model of the universe based upon observation, the big bang model. However, the maths in quantum physics leads to an infinite universe i.e., the steady state model. Both are based upon observation, but they do not agree.


But surely Big Bang theory is compatible with an infinite universe, at least in some models? For instance in one Sean Carroll book (I think it was The Arrow of Time) he said the universe may have always been infinite, but also in an incredibly dense, low entropy state, before some catalyst set it rapidly off toward a less dense, higher entropy state, which is still in motion. So the universe was always there, if true, just in a different state.

Other models include things like a multiverse.

I really don't see a need for any deistic god with the Big Bang theory, I don't know where the leap to this assertion comes from. And I don't think the Steady State theory, as it was in its day, is plausible given it required extra matter from no where to keep forming new galaxies in the gaps between galaxies as they spread apart, nor do I think it's a necessary fit for an infinite universe. Maybe some other version of Steady State can be rescued in a multiverse theory, but certainly not the one of Hoyle.


There is no need for any deistic god with the big bang theory. I am not in agreement with Scot Mayers about that. However, modelling finite mass with infinitely propagating waves into a single formula will be the only determining factor as regards to compatibility.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1832
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Competing cosmologies

#20  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 28, 2020 4:06 pm

Destroyer wrote:
There is no need for any deistic god with the big bang theory. I am not in agreement with Scot Mayers about that. However, modelling finite mass with infinitely propagating waves into a single formula will be the only determining factor as regards to compatibility.


Destroyer, you seem to recognize the words modeling, finite/infinite, propagating, mass, waves, factor, determining, and compatibility, but you need be able to to put them together in a sentence that other people can parse. What you have there has meaning only for you. For example, you may be the only person in history to have written "infinitely propagating waves" and then referred them only to a 'formula' rather than to the wave equation that generates them.
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: Fay Smask
Posts: 29101
Age: 23
Male

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

Next

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest