The True Origin of The Universe?

In reply to DMOE, re: your #66 post.

I said I was sorry if you felt I was intruding on what, according to your predicate, a "no invitation to reply" Topic. I am not "new" to posting.

I "fully understand" that you are also angry...If you wanted to tell me to FO!, then why use the convoluted expressionisms of a 19th.C "English fop?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fraggle Rocker, so in the 6,384 days since Carl Sagan's passing the BB theory has changed from being a theory on the origin of the Universe to a hypothesis "that the Big Bang resulted in the existence of the universe itself."?

Fraggle Rocker, pointing out to me that "It's hypothesized that the Big Bang resulted in the existence of the universe itself." is very profound considering the " 2.) " of my OP ;

But still, Awesome...that makes the second profound knowledgeable nugget i have read on SciForums today. And it also included a list of sorts.
If you are interested in the other nugget - see Post #1144 at : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists/page58

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gerry Nightingale,

1.) - I said "relatively new to SciForums"...

2.) - Sorry, but you "fully MIS-understand"...

3.) - I am not even the least bit "angry"...

4.) - If you wanted to tell you to "scram" then I would have told you to "scram"...

5.) - As for your "the convoluted expressionisms of a 19th.C "English fop?" "...??!!

Gerry Nightingale, the easiest way to have a discussion on "Einstein/Bose "condensate" ", is to start a Thread. You claim to have Posted before so that should be easy for you to do.

It would be more respectful to Start your own new Thread, rather than to insert yourself into an active one, with the primary intent of steering it to what you want to discuss.

So...please...pretty please, even...?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

100% dinky di correct.

While I can basically agree with that Fraggles, I always like to add the proviso "as we know it"

Again, spot on. I have supplied a couple of excellent articles and extracts, about how logically, and within the known laws of physics and GR, the Universe may well have been the "Ultimate free lunch"

 

As this thread has become a well deserving homage to Carl Sagan I thought you gentlemen would enjoy a few video links.

[video=youtube;rbfOqgQVKmI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbfOqgQVKmI[/video]

The first is possibly Sagan's first televised appearance. he is so unimportant at the time that the astronomer Thornton Leigh Page speaks first. Dr. Page is a bit of a hoot because he lights his pipe part way through the piece and nobody finds this objectionable. How times have changed! Also the good man wears an eye patch. I have to wonder if he didn't hurt himself on one particularly enthusiastic night at the telescope. Sagan is even at this point in his career quite charismatic.

I am surprised to here him liken UFO enthusiasts to deeply religious people. it puts me in mind of his quotation of 1 John 3 before one of the sections of his novel Contact : "Again I say, we are telling you about what we ourselves have actually seen and heard, so that you may share the fellowship and the joys we have."

I find it quite heart-warming that this famous agnostic scientist would see fit to quote scripture to explain how his characters returning from 'first contact' were not believed.

I include his last interview just because it is shows how little he had changed (in his character), and how sympathetic to human needs he was.

[video=youtube;U8HEwO-2L4w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HEwO-2L4w[/video]

By the way, a while back I read that Sagan never actually said, "billions and billions" in any of his pieces as he was so often parodied as doing - except for a parody of himself he once did. It's always a mark of a great man that he can make fun of himself.

Oh, and Sagan is more properly referred to as Doctor, not Mister Sagan. The man did have a PhD in astronomy and astrophysics after all.

I hope you enjoy the links.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yep, I find his style quite fascinating and convincing.
And although a cynical critic of UFO claims, he would always logically conclude that ETI was almost certain.

I find him more atheistic in belief [and as illustrated in links I have given] then agnostic.
The Agnostic tag comes about I think, because of his polite, humble style and giving all creationists he debated a fair go.

Yes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah the Mr quite fascinated me when I first saw it used, as did the remark "this fellow Sagan"or words to that effect.[I'm too busy to check it out.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I'm also sure he didn't mind being called just plain old Carl.

Yes, thanks...particularly that first video.

 

Right. He says as much early in the first video.

I called him an agnostic because I am not sure he called himself an atheist. These two videos alone suggest he was an agnostic, rather than an atheist. You're certainly right about his polite, humble style.

 

The big bang theory is a theory and not a law of science. Laws of science are considered the closest science has to truth, while a theory is part way to the truth or else it would be called a law. If BB theory was a law, we would take home all our tools, put them in a museum, and say we are finished. Technically, the big bang theory is part science truth, and part mythology, since it is not considered a law of science.

The mythology aspect of BB is important since this is how you connect to the layman. The common man may not be able to follow the elaborate mathematical and experimental staging needed to prove the claims of the theory. In other words, if you gave the layman the raw data would he draw the same conclusion or just stretch his head? They would need to blindly accept this proof based on faith in the experts. The mythology of the BB is something the layman can participate in, allowing the vague abstractions of science truth, an intuitive bridge for the masses.

Conceptual considerations to help deal with the BB mythology aspect.

The speed of light is the same in all space-time references. However, energy, which travels at the speed of light, is not absolute to all references. Rather energy is relative to reference due to blue and red shift. Matter, such as mass, protons, electrons, charge, will appear as the same matter entities, regardless of reference. Only their energy is relative. These are absolute, like the speed of light, yet matter does not travel at the speed of light.

Based on these observational paradoxes, one may infer that observations of space-time requires energy to become manifest. Energy provides the variability link needed to highlight the relative nature of space-time, so it can be characterized. Without energy, you would not be able to see space-time, since absolutes, like the speed of light, will not highlight any contrast in space-time. Space-time is given center stage, in physics theory, but if the houselights are off (no energy) the play will not appear to begin.

Matter, without energy, by being an absolute, regardless of reference, like the speed of light, would not be useful to highlight space-time to our experimental equipment, since one could not use this to characterize space-time if there is no energy. We need energy to bring out the contrast to our equipment. The time zero of BB is based on energy contrasting space-time; stage lights appear.

What this means is, hypothetically, if space-time was already here, before BB, you can't tell until energy creates the needed contrast. If we only had the speed of light reference, which is different from energy, by being absolute, this will not highlight space-time. If matter appeared, from the speed of light reference, but without energy, these two absolutes or pillars of the universe will not contrast space-time either. The primordial atom could be there for some time or in many guises, but time zero will still be based on when energy creates the contrast.

 

Fraggle Rocker, OK, fair enough.

Wellwisher, no part of a theory is mythology - this is a horrendous misunderstanding of science!

 

Notes on Scientific Laws, Theories and Hypotheses
A very common mistake of non-scientists and, believe it or not, some scientists, is to fail to correctly distinguish between scientific laws, theories and hypotheses. The difference is not just semantics. Conceptually, a scientific law is something very different from a theory. Following are some definitions, followed by some explanation and a few examples.

Scientific Law A scientific law is an empirical (ie based on experimental evidence) statement of great generality of something which seems to always be true.

Scientific Hypothesis A scientific hypothesis is a tentative explanation of an observation or pattern which has been observed in nature.

Scientific Theory A scientific theory is an explanation of a natural phenomenon with a broad range of significance and application.

The chief distinction between a scientific law, on the one hand, and a theory or hypothesis on another, is that a law is a generalization. It is NOT an explanation. It is the result of induction. It is an empirical (ie based on observation alone) statement of something which always appears to be true.
Hypotheses and theories, on the other hand, are an attempt to explain what has been observed. Often scientists form theories to explain laws.
There are two important distinctions between scientific hypotheses and theories. Remember that these two concepts are fairly similar to one another, while a law is something very different. Theories and hypotheses are both explanations, but a theory is different, in general, in that;
1. It has much more experimental support and
2. It is a much broader statement, with a wide variety of potential applications
than a hypothesis. Hypotheses are more tentative, but even more importantly, they apply to a rather specific and narrow set of circumstances, while a theory applies to a great number of problems.
The distinction is best explained by using practical examples which most of us are at least somewhat familiar with.
Laws:
1. The Law of Gravity. This law tells us the size of the gravitational force, but it does not explain why gravity exists or even why it is as strong as it is.
2. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that every experiment ever done leads to the conclusion that energy is always conserved. It is an empirical fact, but it is not an explanation. The second law of thermodynamics is extremely successful at predicting what processes are spontaneous, but it cannot explain why entropy increase causes spontaneity.
Theories:
1. The theory of evolution is a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) because it has very broad applications and explanatory power. We can explain the entire fossil record and the genetic code of all plants, animals and other forms of life using this theory. It is the breadth of the theory more than the amount of support which makes it a theory. In fact, the day it was published (1859 by Darwin) it was already a theory, not just a hypothesis, not because of all the support (the support was still fairly weak at the time) but because of the wide range of things it could explain.
Consider the following two predictions/explanations:
a. Compound A will prevent the spread of bacteria B because….
b. Compounds in the category A will have broad ability to kill microbes because….
Explanation a. is a hypothesis, while explanation b. is a theory. Explanation a. covers a very specific example and it does not have broad implications. Explanation b. is about a whole category of compounds and their application in a very broad range of microbes.

Sample question: Law, theory or hypothesis?
a. In every case, male birds are either similar or more colorful than their female counterparts .
b. Zinc in the diet will lower the rate and intensity of viral outbreaks.
c. There is a strong connection between nutrition and a variety of cancers.
Answers:
a. is a law. It is a statement of something which appears to always be true, but it is not an explanation of anything.
b. is a hypothesis. It is a very specific prediction about the connection between one thing and one other thing.
c. is a theory. It is a broad statement that nutrition in general can have an impact on a range of very different kinds of cancer.

 

Are you fair dinkum? I really don't believe you are.
Scientific theories are not 100% certain, because science itself and all its different disciplines, are always open for new knowledge from new data obtained over the course of time.
Again, like the other "doubting Thomas's" you have failed to answer the little question I have put re Newtonian theory. You know the one bout what will happen if you jump up in the air?

Obviously, we all accept what will happen as FACT, don't we?
Don't we accept as fact, [after 2000 years of geocentricism] that we revolve around the star we call Sun?
The same goes for other theories, such as the BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution, SR, GR, and Evolution.
A scientific theory matures and becomes more and more positive, as it continues to match our observations.
Sometimes a scientific theory becomes so entrenched, in certainty, it is often logically labelled FACT.
For you to deliberately call such theories a myth in line with creationism, is so far out left field, it is absolutely crazy stuff.

 

@ leopold

Great Post #87, leopold!

I learned all that more than 35 years ago. That is the Real Science that I adhere to.

For whatever reason, it appears that "some" choose not to adhere to Real Science.

There is no doubt in my mind that your Post #87, will be ignored, again for whatever reason, by the exact same "some" mentioned above.

Again, leopold, great Post #87.

- edited to add : Wow! By the time I got around to composing and Posting the above...Post #88 got Posted.

 

It's only our brother creationists in arms that would suggest that would claim they follow the scientific method and peer review when they only adhere to myths

It will be ignored for a couple of genuine reasons...[1] It fails to recognise that scientific theories gain certainty over time and continuing matching observations, [2] That although most of the points put by leopold are basically correct, due to the obvious creationist agenda, individual points are taken out of context, and fail the big picture test.

 

A mistake that always reveals our God botherer friends, conspiracy adherents and alternative theorist pushers, is that they fail the scientific method as a whole, and will awlays deride peer review.

They fail dismally the following points.....


[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:


with the following as a very important addendum.....

 

To illustrate how even as far back as St Augustine in the 4th century, he said something to the effect that the world was not born in time, rather that time came into existence with the world.
That can readily be applied to 21st century cosmology with the BB-Inflationary theory not happening in space and time, but rather that space and time [or more correctly space-time, came into existence [as we know them] with the BB itself.

Einstein then showed that space-time are intregal when we talk of the Universe, and like the matter/mass that has now evolved, this space-time can be bent twisted, warped by the presence of matter/mass creating the effects we call gravity.

The wonderful thing about the discipline of cosmology and the BB, is how it fits in so beautifully with the predictions and postulates of SR and GR.

The whole story from the first 10-35 sec instant, when Inflation occured and the Superforce started to decouple, the evolution of those first fundamentals, then full atoms of the light stuff, to stars, planets, and eventually life from the guts of those stars.

All aspects fit in together like a hand in a glove, smooth deductive progressive reasoning, without too much [if any] contradictions, up until the present day, when we are able to logically contemplate the ultimate free lunch, with regards to this Universe, rather then the myth associated from when we first climbed down out of the trees.

Divine creation?
Who needs it?

 

I am going to try ONE MORE TIME !!

The True Origin of The Universe?
Whether by some kind of "Creation" or some kind of "Spontaneous Event", does it in any way change the conditions or properties or fundamental laws of the Universe as they are NOW?

 

Why is this so difficult to answer?

No. The universe now is as it is, regardless of the origins.