The Creator of the Particle

The "primordial particle" thing is a result of bad science writing and using old Big Bang models in discussions. The shape of the Universe is what mathamaticians would call "flat," that is, infinite and Euclidean (spherical models have been invalidated since the Universe doesn't have enough matter). An universe that expands yet is infinite may sound crazy, but that is how the majority of cosmologists coceive of our universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll be sure to let Georges Le Maitre know if I chance across him in seance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not exactly correct, Hipparchia.

Briefly, these three scientists feel the universe is ordered enough to wonder about the possibility:
The late Sir Fred Hoyle (you've heard of him, I trust?) said,

Albert Einstein (1935):

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (This is somewhat out of context; Dr Hawking is not advocating the existence of God, but he clearly thinks there is a coherence to the universe bordering on a formal organization.)

Okay, that's not an unqualified endorsement of what is currently called "Intelligent Design"; however, they all admit the organization of the universe gives rise to the suggestion.

And this doesn't begin to list those scientists who developed the ID concept.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly, when Intelligent Design is mentioned without qualification it typically and reasonably taken to be the ID espoused by creationists. None of the three scientists you cite would have followed that vision of intelligent design, so my remark stands.

Secondly, Hoyle remained wedded to the notion of a Steady State Universe till the end. As such, his perception of Intelligent Design revolved more around the origin and evolution of life, than the creation event. I don't think his colleague Wickramasinghe ever quite got on board the concept of directed pan spermia to the same extent.

Thirdly, you are being altogether too cute to interpret Einstein's words as evidence of support for an ID perspective. At best they would be consistent with Wheeler's (you've heard of him I trust) Participatory Anthropic Principle.

Fourthly, try quoting the entire passage you have extracted Hawking's comments from and support for the ID concept evaporates.

Fifthly, no, you haven't begun to list the scientists who developed the ID concept, because in so doing they were not behaving as scientists.

 

Not scientists in general, or not at all? So that means BB is the only theory agreed upon by scientists? That makes this discussion even more interresting...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry to have troubled you, Hipparchia.

Had I known you were a circular logic buff, I would not have bothered.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Still in the learning curve here,
Archie

 

Srap the intelligent design theories and look at the latest theories in circular and multi-dimensional universes. You ask, "Why is it so difficult to accept that something always was?" Equally I ask why is it so difficult that something came from nothing? Particles? E=MC2. This eliminates the need for particles. Yet with a multi-dimensial universe - or string theory - we can easily imagine another universe akin to or before ours (big bang) that had laws of physics completely different than ours: laws that don't require the interchange of energy to particles. We still haven't been able to figure out what that 90% of dark matter out there is? No particles are seen to explain it.

Don't get stuck in limited imagination.

 

whew, that's a pretty large amount of dark matter. No, the estimates of energy density are more like 70% dark energy, 26% dark matter and 4% baryonic matter