So you actually understand the time existed before the Big Bang. Finally we agree.
The True Origin of The Universe?
- Thread starter dumbest man on earth
- Start date
So you actually understand the time existed before the Big Bang. Finally we agree.
Are you saying Quantum Mechanics and Relativity should be discarded out of the science? What theories then do you believe in?
According to the BB time [ and common sense]time did not exist before t=0.
In fact as I said, the BB does not speak of anything before 10-43 seconds.
A QGT will throw light on the quantum/Planck era.
Do you understand yet?
Until a validated observable QGT is formulated, whatever you say about before t=0, is just speculation.
It's not a matter of believing in anything. It's a matter of being objective, using common sense and logic, and recognising what the data is telling us.
And that is our Universe-space-time evolved and expanded from a hot dense state.
According to the BB time [ and common sense]time did not exist before t=0.
In fact as I said, the BB does not speak of anything before 10-43 seconds.
A QGT will throw light on the quantum/Planck era.
Do you understand yet?
Until a validated observable QGT is formulated, whatever you say about before t=0, is just speculation.
It is completely irrelevant what absolute time it is. It's artificial book-keep information, an abstract time reference frame like the birth of Jesus.
I was replying to this:
- "When Reality is being discussed, reified abstractions should not be presented at all, let alone be presented as Fact!"
Do you agree with that?
Huh???
Whatever. The point is you can accept or reject what you like. This forum is not mainstream science and this is not accepted peer review. It makes no difference in the greater scheme of things, what you accept or what you reject.
It obviously and logically will not change anything.
Mainstream science and the concrete theories of the BB, SR and GR are revealing the Universe before us from 13.83 billion years ago, up until today, and even predicting trillions of years into the future.
Not really. The poster in question seems of the subjective opinion that reality does not exist in anything other then what he can touch, feel, or smell.
Take spacetime for example. It has been measured and documented via GP-B for starters.
Take time and space, which Newton thought were absolute, and Albert showed otherwise.
All these things have a reality about them, as has been shown and observed.
Some chose though to ignore such reality, as it offends their take on life in general and other beliefs.
Mamma mia! If you are up there, please help us Superman.
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
Hey paddoboy,
Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. More complicated solutions may ultimately prove to be correct in the long run, but—in the absence of near certainty—the fewer assumptions that can be made, the better.
Applying the principle of Occam's Razor can shift the burden of proof in a discussion to the more complicated theory(ies). The razor states that one should choose/ prefer simpler theories first unless simplicity can be traded for the greater explanatory power of a more complicated theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Your quote paraphrases Einstein's humorous quote:
"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein
He also said:
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. More complicated solutions may ultimately prove to be correct in the long run, but—in the absence of near certainty—the fewer assumptions that can be made, the better.
Applying the principle of Occam's Razor can shift the burden of proof in a discussion to the more complicated theory(ies). The razor states that one should choose/ prefer simpler theories first unless simplicity can be traded for the greater explanatory power of a more complicated theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Your quote paraphrases Einstein's humorous quote:
"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."
EinsteinHe also said:
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
Giggle-giggle.
Numbers and equations will always work out to match observation. You can always cram in constants and crap to make them work. What I was pointing out that has changed from 700 years ago to now, is understanding behind those numbers, what you call "reality". It should be pretty clear then there is no such thing as objective reality, but that it changes, it evolves with the time. And sometimes, it devolves, like in the case of QM, SR and GR. I'll write my next book about it, I'll call it: human history of science - the full circle: from sorcery to science, and then back to magic.
Nothing good comes from intellectual overconfidence. And when something does come out, it's usually just ignorance.
I am quite aware of that. Einstein in effect was paraphrasing Occam's razor obviously.
Einstein besides being a very humble human being, [something which some of our alternative pushers should take not of] was also had a great sense of humour.
His explaining of relativity was a cracker....
Sit on a hot stove for a minute and it seems like an hour: Sit with a hot Blonde for an hour, and it seems like a minute.
[or words to that effect]Scientific theories strive to model reality as close as possible. And over the last 100 years or so, scientific theories such as the ones I have mentioned, have been shown time and time again, to be as close to objective reality as one would hope to be.
The incredible technological advancements culminating in probes throughout our solar system such as Spitzer, Planck, Kepler, the HST, the "soon to be launched" JWST and many others, are helping in that objective reality.
I'll say it again, the Newtonian mechanics of gravity is not wrong. It is simply less accurate then GR.
The melding of our prominent theories such as BB, SR, GR, Evolution and Abiogenesis are as solid as one would want.
You can argue with that all you want. But let's see you offer something better.
No, all is not known as yet, and it will be a long time before it is.
Biggest problems in cosmology today is getting a better handle on DE, DM and the problem with melding QM and GR.
I humbly stand by my claims as a layman re the solidity and concreteness of those theories mentioned.
That's not to say their won't be some tinkering around the edges, but the overall picture of the main gist of what those theories tell us should remain as is.
As I have said, a future QGT will almost certainly encompass the BB.
I'm not intellectually over confident, and I don't believe mainstream cosmology is either for the reasons I have stated.
How close to objective reality do you believe the heliocentric solar system is? Considering we had over 2,000 years of objective reality in a geocentric solar system?
This is 2014. The instruments I have mentioned, are revealing the Universe's secrets to us at ever increasing rates.
Mistakes and misinterpretations will happen. But the scientific method and peer review, will in the main keep us on a path to knowledge.
Your faith in science is as strong as it is blind. That's why you'll go to science-heaven, and I'll burn in science-hell. Just teasing, you're all right.
You do know we have three alternative pushers here that all claim to rewrite 20th/21st century physics and all have ToE's?
And they all love me to boot!
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
paddaboy,
I, for one. Yup, we're buddies, but I am unaware of the other two guys and ToE's.
Yeah, Einstein besides his abilities in math, physics, and theoretical physics, had a good grasp of both language and humor, and an eye for the ladies
I, for one. Yup, we're buddies, but I am unaware of the other two guys and ToE's.
Yeah, Einstein besides his abilities in math, physics, and theoretical physics, had a good grasp of both language and humor, and an eye for the ladies
Last edited:
Hmmm, I wasn't actually referring to you, so that means we have 4 ToE's.
if you do have one, I hope you do the right thing with it.
Best of luck..
forrest noble
Registered Senior Member
paddoboy,
My ToE is a 400 page long book, online free. The value the theory has going for it is that it's probably the ultimate Occam's Razor candidate. According to this model everything in reality is quite simple in that all concepts in physics (mathematics aside) could be taught in junior high school -- nothing accordingly is complicated or has a complicated answer concerning any question in reality.
As to luck, I'm sure I'll need it since there will be a steep hill to climb that must start from experiments and observations that must contradict mainstream theory and instead support the new theory.
My ToE is a 400 page long book, online free. The value the theory has going for it is that it's probably the ultimate Occam's Razor candidate. According to this model everything in reality is quite simple in that all concepts in physics (mathematics aside) could be taught in junior high school -- nothing accordingly is complicated or has a complicated answer concerning any question in reality.
As to luck, I'm sure I'll need it since there will be a steep hill to climb that must start from experiments and observations that must contradict mainstream theory and instead support the new theory.
Your attitude sees you streets ahead of the other three It would seem.
Like I said, best of luck, seriously.