http://www.marxist.com/science-old/bigbang.html An impressive series of arguments in contention with Big Bang. For a more informative address to this issue, please Google: 'Arguments against the Big Bang Theory'.
On the other hand it does explain a bit about Marxists: they think that 10 is more than 100 times larger 3.5. :shrug:
That Rascal Puff If your point is that you disagree with Truly Yours, Ophiolite. You've clarified that. On the other hand, you do not otherwise qualify your disagreement. Dywyddyr: On the other hand it does explain a bit about Marxists: they think that 10 is more than 100 times larger 3.5. That Rascal Puff The immediate above entry invites a reminder that it is off topic, and, a disclaimer on my part that I am an advocate of Marxism. I really know very little of what Marxists think.
Completely unconvincing. It starts off with many incorrect assumptions about what the Big Bang Theory actually is, mischaracterizes the development of the theory, and makes unfounded accusations that it isn't scientific but rather mystical. Only the scientifically illiterate would find this article worth reading.
Nope: that's part of the text, part of their argument against the Big Bang. Innumeracy rarely works. I see, you're an advocate of Marxism but you don't know what Marxists think? That fits with the above, surely...
Kaidu: Perhaps that wasn't phrased to meet your approval, but you do know what I do - and do not - mean.
To abbreviate what can be an extended discussion, the Big Bang is based on a creationist premise. Whereas, in the words of Hume and Locke: "Nothing begets nothing". To maintain otherwise is unscientific and unconvincing; 'mystical'. Also, your last sentence of disagreement is distilled opinion.
You mean it was phrased incorrectly? Oh, okay. NOW I realise what you meant. I had noticed on a couple of other occasions that you have some trouble with English. Nope. And their particular field of physics was..? Also wrong. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92761
It most certainly is not based on a creationist premise, it's based on the well supported observation that the universe is expanding. The Theory does not say anything about the initial conditions. The idea that something can come from nothing is supported by modern physics. Nothingness is a state of mathematical symmetry, where positive forces balance negative ones. "Something" is the result of broken symmetry, which results in a lower energy state, making something much more likely than nothing. Something comes from nothing because "something" is more stable. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf
And yet. Dark matter gives us this amazing result: http://www.ras.org.uk//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1695&Itemid=2 http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4480
Once again Kai links to the nonsense of someone else on a topic neither he nor the other person understands. For instance, the section on neutrinos. The author suggests neutrinos were found to have mass by a "miraculous" conversion in particle physics and implies this was to solve the issue of what cold dark matter is. Firstly, the experiments of neutrino mass and dark matter mass have nothing to do with one another, they relate to entirely different phenomena. Secondly, the mass of the neutrino, despite their abundance, is not enough to get anywhere near the amount of material suggested by dark matter. Thirdly, neutrinos are 'hot', they move relativistically. The author shows in three different ways, on a single topic, he has no knowledge of the history of particle physics, experimental results, the models in question and obviously have no interest in checking if his information on topics he hasn't ever actually studied is anywhere close to true. And thus we see neither does Kai. Why learn anything when you can just say "I agree with that guy because I don't like what you're saying, even though I don't understand it". For those interested he does precisely the same with string theory over in Pseudoscience, in his thread. He parrots someone who has absolutely no knowledge of string theory and then tries to convince those of us who actually do know, work in and read string theory that we're misunderstanding it or missing something he, in his extensive lack of reading, knows. And amazingly, he has been pushing his work in the physics community for 40 years. That's enough time for most people to pick up something just by osmosis. Not Kai!
Oh, well. After all, we finally got rid of that obnoxious Reiku and his ignorant buddy Kanada. This nut job will eventually pass along to his just reward also. (Sci oblivion.)
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon To abbreviate what can be an extended discussion, the Big Bang is based on a creationist premise. ” Dyw: Nope. Kai: “ Whereas, in the words of Hume and Locke: "Nothing begets nothing". ” Dyw: And their particular field of physics was..? Kai: As you probably know, they were philosophers. On the other hand, not even a magician really makes something from nothing. “ To maintain otherwise is unscientific and unconvincing; 'mystical'. ” Dyw: Also wrong. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92761 Kai: This provided thread is entitled 'Nothingness and the rise of something'. It is a mixed collection of pros and cons about whether or not something can come from nothing'. I happen to be among those who maintain that something cannot come from nothing.
Exactly. Not the sort of people you go to for science. Yes, the thread wavered back and forth (opinions from non-scientists and scientists alike). However, the first post gave links, including one (also given by Spidergoat, above) to a physics paper that shows how something could come from nothing: thus refuting your contention that
“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon As you probably know, they were philosophers. ” Dyw: Exactly. Not the sort of people you go to for science. Kai: “ This provided thread is entitled 'Nothingness and the rise of something'. It is a mixed collection of pros and cons about whether or not something can come from nothing'. I happen to be among those who maintain that something cannot come from nothing. ” Dyw: Yes, the thread wavered back and forth (opinions from non-scientists and scientists alike). However, the first post gave links, including one (also given by Spidergoat, above) to a physics paper that shows how something could come from nothing: thus refuting your contention that “ "Nothing begets nothing". To maintain otherwise is unscientific and unconvincing; 'mystical'. ------------------------------------------------------- Kai: There are three provided links in 'Nothingness and the rise of something'. The first two are categorized as philosophy - which you neutralize. The third link comes up: 'Page not found'.
Ah, so you merely looked at the titles of the links... The PDF is physics, with the mathematics. Then check your connection: all 3 work for me.
We are agreed to disagree, spidergoat - whether or not the Big Bang is a creationist initiative is an ongoing argument among formally recognized academic elements and has been disputed for a long time. Your link to a philosophy source is disputed by Dyw, forthright - because it is a philosophical dissertation - whereas, my disagreement is not with your link, my disagreement is based on the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy; for reasons, I anticipate no need (in this company), to explain.
I see you like to misrepresent other people. As I have stated, the link from Spidergoat (and also referenced by myself) is NOT a philosophical one, it's physics. If you're unsure that I did actually say this please re-read my post: - #17. The one directly above your claim that I dispute it, posted 3 minutes before that (false) claim. And bearing in mind that physics itself states that the laws of physics break down at the Big Bang what makes you think that mass-energy conservation should hold at that point?