A Scientist Visits Kentucky's Creation Museum

[cnm]

That's brave.

 

[MaxGrit]

How do you create something out of nothing?

How?

You tell me. You're the rabbi.

Well I could assume a magic mythical being did it... or I could try to find an answer. What should I do?

A rabbi atheist. Oh mummah...

It's amongst a younger generation of cosmologists, string theorists and bubble universe theorists and the like, where problems with something out of nothing theories are proving most vexing.

There was never "nothing". Matter/energy have always existed and will always exist.

Nope. You're wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How?

You tell me. You're the rabbi.

Well I could assume a magic mythical being did it... or I could try to find an answer. What should I do?

A rabbi atheist. Oh mummah...

It's amongst a younger generation of cosmologists, string theorists and bubble universe theorists and the like, where problems with something out of nothing theories are proving most vexing.

There was never "nothing". Matter/energy have always existed and will always exist.

Nope. You're wrong.

Onus is on you to prove me "wrong".

 

[FA_Q2]

You tell me. You're the rabbi.

Well I could assume a magic mythical being did it... or I could try to find an answer. What should I do?

A rabbi atheist. Oh mummah...

It's amongst a younger generation of cosmologists, string theorists and bubble universe theorists and the like, where problems with something out of nothing theories are proving most vexing.

There was never "nothing". Matter/energy have always existed and will always exist.

Nope. You're wrong.

Onus is on you to prove me "wrong".

That would be incorrect. You would need to prove that as correct - it was your claim. More importantly, you just made a claim that is what Ice has been trying to attack - a definite that is not based on actual face. As we do not have any workable theories that predate the big bang, we have no way of knowing that matter and energy 'always existed.' The rules that seem to govern the universe are posited to not even have existed at that point - possibly time itself did not exist - so how can you make a concrete statement like that without all the knowledge?

That is the realm of faith - not science.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well I could assume a magic mythical being did it... or I could try to find an answer. What should I do?

A rabbi atheist. Oh mummah...

It's amongst a younger generation of cosmologists, string theorists and bubble universe theorists and the like, where problems with something out of nothing theories are proving most vexing.

There was never "nothing". Matter/energy have always existed and will always exist.

Nope. You're wrong.

Onus is on you to prove me "wrong".

That would be incorrect. You would need to prove that as correct - it was your claim. More importantly, you just made a claim that is what Ice has been trying to attack - a definite that is not based on actual face. As we do not have any workable theories that predate the big bang, we have no way of knowing that matter and energy 'always existed.' The rules that seem to govern the universe are posited to not even have existed at that point - possibly time itself did not exist - so how can you make a concrete statement like that without all the knowledge?

That is the realm of faith - not science.

The singularity from which the big bang occurred was comprised of matter/energy.

The Cyclical Theory Universe corresponds with the existing Big Bang Theory and resolves many of the unknowns.

Cyclic model - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Endless Universe - Ask the Authors

In both theories, the part of the universe we observe is tiny patch of a much larger, perhaps infinite space. In the conventional Big Bang theory, different parts of the universe have widely different physical properties and, some theorists believe, different laws. According to this idea, the properties of the region of the universe we observe are highly atypical of the universe on average and are set by random chance. Hence, our ability to understand the universe as a whole is limited by the fact that we can only see a small part of it.

In the Cyclic Theory, the universe is the same almost everywhere, so the laws and properties we see are typical of the whole. Hence, the Cyclic Theory restores the hope that the universe is simple and comprehensible to us even though we are only able to observe it from a limited vantage point.​

Scientists have detected the gravitational wave pattern predicted in the Cosmic Background Radiation that would be present in a Cyclical Theory Universe.

My position is based upon scientific knowledge, kindly refrain from imposing your superstitions on me.

 

[cnm]

So is that the consensus?

 

[cnm]

Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble
http://www.nature.com

03 June 2014

Premature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe, argues Paul Steinhardt1.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble
http://www.nature.com

03 June 2014

Premature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe, argues Paul Steinhardt1.

A single math error does not invalidate the Cyclical Theory. That happens all the time and is part of the peer review process. The article states that they are still waiting for more detailed data from other sources. This is how science works and the process is unfolding.

Stay tuned.

 

[cnm]

Stay tuned.

I don't think this is a single math error. In any case I get IceWeasels point, people are taking apparently scientific positions on faith. Fair enough, I hadn't seen it before.

Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

http://www.nature.com

The search for gravitational waves must begin anew. The problem is that other effects, including light scattering from dust and the synchrotron radiation generated by electrons moving around galactic magnetic fields within our own Galaxy, can also produce these twists.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I wonder how many of his brain cells died due to lack of oxygen.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Stay tuned.

I don't think this is a single math error. In any case I get IceWeasels point, people are taking apparently scientific positions on faith. Fair enough, I hadn't seen it before.

Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

http://www.nature.com

The search for gravitational waves must begin anew. The problem is that other effects, including light scattering from dust and the synchrotron radiation generated by electrons moving around galactic magnetic fields within our own Galaxy, can also produce these twists.

Science is not faith, period. The religious right have an agenda to demonize science because they feel threatened by knowledge. Science is science and if they can't handle it that is their problem.

Gravitational Waves

How Can We Detect Gravitational Waves?

Artist's concept of LISA.


Since the waves are so weak when they reach us, scientists had to use their imaginations to come up with instruments sensitive enough to detect such slight variations in space-time. Interferometry is the technique astronomers use to detect small stretches in space-time. The technique requires test masses to be set at a large distance from each other.Lasers make continuous measurements of the distance between each of the test masses. The masses are free to move so that when a gravitational wave passes, the distance between the masses will fluctuate. That is, space-time will be stretched. The lasers record this variation in distance, and the scientists know that a wave has passed. The greater the distance between the masses, the more sensitive the lasers are to small fluctuations. There are currently several ground-based detectors in operation or under construction, including LIGO (USA), VIRGO (Italy/France), GEO (Germany/Great Britain), and TAMA (Japan). The space-based observatory LISA is scheduled to launch in 2011.

BICEP2 was just one of many methods to detect gravitational waves. You don't stop science because a single result provides ambiguous results that could have come from an alternative source. That isn't how science works. You gather data from as many different sources as possible and then analyze all of the data and once you have eliminated all of the other explanations you can conclude that you have detected what you set out to observe or come to the conclusion that the scientific results rule out that theory as being feasible.

Science is more about patience than breakthroughs. The original results for gravitational waves should not have been made public without peer review. Scientists make mistakes, that it what the system is set up to correct. Let's follow the process and see what the end results will be in a decade or so when all the data is finally collected and analyzed.

Logically the Cyclical model for the Universe makes the most sense because it means you don't need to come up with answers to irrelevant questions like "who made the universe". Everything else works in cycles so why not the Universe? What makes it the exception? Why does it have be "created" by "magic"?

 

[cnm]

Logically the Cyclical model for the Universe makes the most sense because it means you don't need to come up with answers to irrelevant questions like "who made the universe". Everything else works in cycles so why not the Universe? What makes it the exception? Why does it have be "created" by "magic"?

Hardly 'scientific' reasoning as well as being flawed in that a cycle has to start somewhere unless it has always existed, which isn't much of a variation on the steady state idea. Well, apart from being cyclic. IceWeasel has a point about taking as 'fact' ideas with very little or no evidence to back them up. I hadn't seen it before. At the moment we just don't know. We're allowed to say that.

 

[cnm]

Actually, 'who made the universe' or 'how did it all happen' is the most interesting question there is as far as I can see. That it may be ignored at the moment for lack of knowledge to answer it is a very narrow case of irrelevance.

 

[FA_Q2]

Stay tuned.

I don't think this is a single math error. In any case I get IceWeasels point, people are taking apparently scientific positions on faith. Fair enough, I hadn't seen it before.

Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

http://www.nature.com

The search for gravitational waves must begin anew. The problem is that other effects, including light scattering from dust and the synchrotron radiation generated by electrons moving around galactic magnetic fields within our own Galaxy, can also produce these twists.

Science is not faith, period. The religious right have an agenda to demonize science because they feel threatened by knowledge. Science is science and if they can't handle it that is their problem.

Gravitational Waves

How Can We Detect Gravitational Waves?

Artist's concept of LISA.


Since the waves are so weak when they reach us, scientists had to use their imaginations to come up with instruments sensitive enough to detect such slight variations in space-time. Interferometry is the technique astronomers use to detect small stretches in space-time. The technique requires test masses to be set at a large distance from each other.Lasers make continuous measurements of the distance between each of the test masses. The masses are free to move so that when a gravitational wave passes, the distance between the masses will fluctuate. That is, space-time will be stretched. The lasers record this variation in distance, and the scientists know that a wave has passed. The greater the distance between the masses, the more sensitive the lasers are to small fluctuations. There are currently several ground-based detectors in operation or under construction, including LIGO (USA), VIRGO (Italy/France), GEO (Germany/Great Britain), and TAMA (Japan). The space-based observatory LISA is scheduled to launch in 2011.

BICEP2 was just one of many methods to detect gravitational waves. You don't stop science because a single result provides ambiguous results that could have come from an alternative source. That isn't how science works. You gather data from as many different sources as possible and then analyze all of the data and once you have eliminated all of the other explanations you can conclude that you have detected what you set out to observe or come to the conclusion that the scientific results rule out that theory as being feasible.

Science is more about patience than breakthroughs. The original results for gravitational waves should not have been made public without peer review. Scientists make mistakes, that it what the system is set up to correct. Let's follow the process and see what the end results will be in a decade or so when all the data is finally collected and analyzed.

Logically the Cyclical model for the Universe makes the most sense because it means you don't need to come up with answers to irrelevant questions like "who made the universe". Everything else works in cycles so why not the Universe? What makes it the exception? Why does it have be "created" by "magic"?

No, science is not faith.

What is also not science is making positive claims and demanding they are factual. Claims like the universe has always existed. A cyclical universe does not require a universe that always existed nor is there proof that such a claim is valid. The detection of gravitational waves may lead credence to this not being the FIRST cycle but there is nothing to show that it is the 15th, 100th or one of an infinite number of cycles.

THAT is why I called your earlier statement out and why that has a closer relation to 'faith' than 'science.' You are making assumptions that are not based on observable evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Stay tuned.

I don't think this is a single math error. In any case I get IceWeasels point, people are taking apparently scientific positions on faith. Fair enough, I hadn't seen it before.

Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

http://www.nature.com

The search for gravitational waves must begin anew. The problem is that other effects, including light scattering from dust and the synchrotron radiation generated by electrons moving around galactic magnetic fields within our own Galaxy, can also produce these twists.

Science is not faith, period. The religious right have an agenda to demonize science because they feel threatened by knowledge. Science is science and if they can't handle it that is their problem.

Gravitational Waves

How Can We Detect Gravitational Waves?

Artist's concept of LISA.


Since the waves are so weak when they reach us, scientists had to use their imaginations to come up with instruments sensitive enough to detect such slight variations in space-time. Interferometry is the technique astronomers use to detect small stretches in space-time. The technique requires test masses to be set at a large distance from each other.Lasers make continuous measurements of the distance between each of the test masses. The masses are free to move so that when a gravitational wave passes, the distance between the masses will fluctuate. That is, space-time will be stretched. The lasers record this variation in distance, and the scientists know that a wave has passed. The greater the distance between the masses, the more sensitive the lasers are to small fluctuations. There are currently several ground-based detectors in operation or under construction, including LIGO (USA), VIRGO (Italy/France), GEO (Germany/Great Britain), and TAMA (Japan). The space-based observatory LISA is scheduled to launch in 2011.

BICEP2 was just one of many methods to detect gravitational waves. You don't stop science because a single result provides ambiguous results that could have come from an alternative source. That isn't how science works. You gather data from as many different sources as possible and then analyze all of the data and once you have eliminated all of the other explanations you can conclude that you have detected what you set out to observe or come to the conclusion that the scientific results rule out that theory as being feasible.

Science is more about patience than breakthroughs. The original results for gravitational waves should not have been made public without peer review. Scientists make mistakes, that it what the system is set up to correct. Let's follow the process and see what the end results will be in a decade or so when all the data is finally collected and analyzed.

Logically the Cyclical model for the Universe makes the most sense because it means you don't need to come up with answers to irrelevant questions like "who made the universe". Everything else works in cycles so why not the Universe? What makes it the exception? Why does it have be "created" by "magic"?

No, science is not faith.

What is also not science is making positive claims and demanding they are factual. Claims like the universe has always existed. A cyclical universe does not require a universe that always existed nor is there proof that such a claim is valid. The detection of gravitational waves may lead credence to this not being the FIRST cycle but there is nothing to show that it is the 15th, 100th or one of an infinite number of cycles.

THAT is why I called your earlier statement out and why that has a closer relation to 'faith' than 'science.' You are making assumptions that are not based on observable evidence.

So existing matter/energy isn't "observable evidence"?

 

[cnm]

We plain do not know that it's always been. We don't.

 

[FA_Q2]

Stay tuned.

I don't think this is a single math error. In any case I get IceWeasels point, people are taking apparently scientific positions on faith. Fair enough, I hadn't seen it before.

Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

http://www.nature.com

The search for gravitational waves must begin anew. The problem is that other effects, including light scattering from dust and the synchrotron radiation generated by electrons moving around galactic magnetic fields within our own Galaxy, can also produce these twists.

Science is not faith, period. The religious right have an agenda to demonize science because they feel threatened by knowledge. Science is science and if they can't handle it that is their problem.

Gravitational Waves

How Can We Detect Gravitational Waves?

Artist's concept of LISA.


Since the waves are so weak when they reach us, scientists had to use their imaginations to come up with instruments sensitive enough to detect such slight variations in space-time. Interferometry is the technique astronomers use to detect small stretches in space-time. The technique requires test masses to be set at a large distance from each other.Lasers make continuous measurements of the distance between each of the test masses. The masses are free to move so that when a gravitational wave passes, the distance between the masses will fluctuate. That is, space-time will be stretched. The lasers record this variation in distance, and the scientists know that a wave has passed. The greater the distance between the masses, the more sensitive the lasers are to small fluctuations. There are currently several ground-based detectors in operation or under construction, including LIGO (USA), VIRGO (Italy/France), GEO (Germany/Great Britain), and TAMA (Japan). The space-based observatory LISA is scheduled to launch in 2011.

BICEP2 was just one of many methods to detect gravitational waves. You don't stop science because a single result provides ambiguous results that could have come from an alternative source. That isn't how science works. You gather data from as many different sources as possible and then analyze all of the data and once you have eliminated all of the other explanations you can conclude that you have detected what you set out to observe or come to the conclusion that the scientific results rule out that theory as being feasible.

Science is more about patience than breakthroughs. The original results for gravitational waves should not have been made public without peer review. Scientists make mistakes, that it what the system is set up to correct. Let's follow the process and see what the end results will be in a decade or so when all the data is finally collected and analyzed.

Logically the Cyclical model for the Universe makes the most sense because it means you don't need to come up with answers to irrelevant questions like "who made the universe". Everything else works in cycles so why not the Universe? What makes it the exception? Why does it have be "created" by "magic"?

No, science is not faith.

What is also not science is making positive claims and demanding they are factual. Claims like the universe has always existed. A cyclical universe does not require a universe that always existed nor is there proof that such a claim is valid. The detection of gravitational waves may lead credence to this not being the FIRST cycle but there is nothing to show that it is the 15th, 100th or one of an infinite number of cycles.

THAT is why I called your earlier statement out and why that has a closer relation to 'faith' than 'science.' You are making assumptions that are not based on observable evidence.

So existing matter/energy isn't "observable evidence"?

Not of an affirmative that the universe is eternal. That affirmative is not necessarily a solid conclusion of the observable evidence. All we can posit is that the universe has expanded before and contracted. Before that, who knows. What we 'know' at this moment is not a nessisarily a confirmation of what happened billions of years ago.

You state specifically that this model is the best one because you don't have to come up with answers to irrelevant questions like "who made the universe." That is not a scientific view but rather a cop out. You are essentially stating that you prefer this model because you don't want to address the implications of it being incorrect. Ironically, this is exactly what religions do - they come up with an answer so they don't actually need to fall back on the "I don't know."

What interests me is why that is somehow less preferable than avoiding the question entirely. Perhaps because it is cleaner and more elegant? Science does not have a problem with not knowing and, quite frankly, there is a LOT that is unknown. There is much that I don't think will ever be known either tbh (such as weather or not the universe had a beginning or how that beginning really occurred or is "X" really the smallest universal building block).

It is also rather ironic to claim that science has managed to prove the universe is eternal when current science has a very poor understanding of time in the first place.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You state specifically that this model is the best one because you don't have to come up with answers to irrelevant questions like "who made the universe." That is not a scientific view but rather a cop out.

Onus is on you to prove that I said that.

Lying about what I actually posted merely exposes your lack of reading comprehension skills.

This is what I actually posted;

Logically the Cyclical model for the Universe makes the most sense​

I never said that it was the "best one". I said that it was the most logical because it makes the most sense.

You also failed to comprehend the meaning of the Cyclical model. Let me try explaining it to you again. Please pay attention this time.

A Universe that has always existed and will always exist is consistent with the Laws of Physics. It doesn't require any magic sky fairy to "create" anything because the Universe has always existed. It doesn't require that your sky fairy have magical "omnipotence" because that is a logical paradox. It doesn't require you to engage in cognitive dissonance.

Instead it is sane and reasonable understanding of the facts that we have today together with a logical extrapolation both into the past and the future. Yes, we might learn something new in the future that alters the Cyclical Model but at this point it remains the most logical explanation.

Now if sane reasonable logic is a "cop out" in your world then sobeit. But amongst scientists believing that your sky fairy "created" the Universe is the real cop out.

 

[FA_Q2]

You state specifically that this model is the best one because you don't have to come up with answers to irrelevant questions like "who made the universe." That is not a scientific view but rather a cop out.

Onus is on you to prove that I said that.

Lying about what I actually posted merely exposes your lack of reading comprehension skills.

This is what I actually posted;

Logically the Cyclical model for the Universe makes the most sense​

I never said that it was the "best one". I said that it was the most logical because it makes the most sense.

You also failed to comprehend the meaning of the Cyclical model. Let me try explaining it to you again. Please pay attention this time.

A Universe that has always existed and will always exist is consistent with the Laws of Physics. It doesn't require any magic sky fairy to "create" anything because the Universe has always existed. It doesn't require that your sky fairy have magical "omnipotence" because that is a logical paradox. It doesn't require you to engage in cognitive dissonance.

Instead it is sane and reasonable understanding of the facts that we have today together with a logical extrapolation both into the past and the future. Yes, we might learn something new in the future that alters the Cyclical Model but at this point it remains the most logical explanation.

Now if sane reasonable logic is a "cop out" in your world then sobeit. But amongst scientists believing that your sky fairy "created" the Universe is the real cop out.

Who said anything about the sky fairy creating anything?

It was not a lie - you are determined that the cyclical model (and the idea that the universe is eternal) is the most 'logical' simply because you then don't have to address a question of how the universe came into being.

There is nothing more unscientific than that. It is not 'local' to assume one thing because there are fewer questions involved.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You state specifically that this model is the best one because you don't have to come up with answers to irrelevant questions like "who made the universe." That is not a scientific view but rather a cop out.

Onus is on you to prove that I said that.

Lying about what I actually posted merely exposes your lack of reading comprehension skills.

This is what I actually posted;

Logically the Cyclical model for the Universe makes the most sense​

I never said that it was the "best one". I said that it was the most logical because it makes the most sense.

You also failed to comprehend the meaning of the Cyclical model. Let me try explaining it to you again. Please pay attention this time.

A Universe that has always existed and will always exist is consistent with the Laws of Physics. It doesn't require any magic sky fairy to "create" anything because the Universe has always existed. It doesn't require that your sky fairy have magical "omnipotence" because that is a logical paradox. It doesn't require you to engage in cognitive dissonance.

Instead it is sane and reasonable understanding of the facts that we have today together with a logical extrapolation both into the past and the future. Yes, we might learn something new in the future that alters the Cyclical Model but at this point it remains the most logical explanation.

Now if sane reasonable logic is a "cop out" in your world then sobeit. But amongst scientists believing that your sky fairy "created" the Universe is the real cop out.

Who said anything about the sky fairy creating anything?

It was not a lie - you are determined that the cyclical model (and the idea that the universe is eternal) is the most 'logical' simply because you then don't have to address a question of how the universe came into being.

There is nothing more unscientific than that. It is not 'local' to assume one thing because there are fewer questions involved.

When you have the logical and reasonable Cyclical Model you don't have to waste time on your sky fairy questions because the logical and reasonable Cyclical Model makes those questions irrelevant. Something that has always existed was never "created".

Obsessing over something for which there is a reasonable and logical explanation means that it is your problem that you are still consider your sky fairy questions to be relevant.

So it is your obsession with irrelevant sky fairy questions is unscientific.