Science isn’t always the answer.

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
9,892
Reaction score
2,517
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,


BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?
[/QUOTE]
why be the elephant in the room ...
(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

1591218680513.png

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter.
Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars
and galaxies we see today."
So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."
◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"
Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª
◈ Electromagnetism
◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)
Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

1591222323347.png


✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy?
(RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.


FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

1589969410040.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
474
Points
85
RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,


BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?
why be the elephant in the room ...
(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter.
Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars
and galaxies we see today."
So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."
◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"
Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª
◈ Electromagnetism
◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)
Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:



✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy?
(RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.


FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

1589969410040.png

Most Respectfully,
R
[/QUOTE]
If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).
.
- the boomerang theory

the cyclical event occurs when the expelled matter completes its finite angle of trajectory back to the point of origin that begins the process of recompaction by the impetus of its initial expulsion to the exact time when all matter is converted back to energy and the tipping point is again established so that the compacted energy is released from compaction to convert back to matter.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,589
Reaction score
3,744
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ ding, et al,


BLUF: Science evolves (obviously over time). These evolutionary changes gradually alter our perception of the universe.

We do know the universe was created from nothing. Do you even thermodynamics?
(COMMENT)

Yes, I think I have a reasonable grasp of thermodynamics and entropy. But there is much more going on in this concept of the Big Bang (the theory that a near instantaneous expansion even occurred). And in contemporary cosmology - the difference between the SHOES (Supernovae) measurements in the search for Hubble constant and that of the (Plank methodology) in the calculations of the Hubble constant have cause some very important controversies among cosmologist. And no, I don't want to get into that minefield; besides, it takes us farther away from the issue of "[E]vidence for God's existence."

Now I say that knowing the exception of the subatomic ball (the energy in the Plank Epoch that formed the first particles) of the singularity (see BreezeWood supra Post) and the heat (energy) 'vs' unified (super) force (weak, strong, electromagnetic, gravity) balance prior to expansion is important. Now that could generate the question on the source of the initial energy and the subatomic element that eventually formed into Quarks, Leptons and Bosons. That source - could be - "[E]vidence for God's existence." This observation is sometimes referred to as the "Theory of First Motion" (see Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Motion" ). [And there is even a question about "gravity" since there was no matter and no space-time fabric yet.]

We do know it popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and began to expand and cool.
(COMMENT)

No, we simply hold to the theory. Something happened 13.8 Billion years ago, that we can only hypothesize. We assume it was a dark release. This dark release (radiation) was pressured by something, we are not sure, but there was no light (photons) in the Plank Epoch.

Do you really want to get into a science discussion where you will be arguing against science?
(COMMENT)

I'm not sure were you derived this. We are not sure about the shape of the Universe. We are not sure if the rapid release radiated in a certain direction, or if the release was omnidirectional. Is there a void at the point of origin shaping the Univers like a donut? IF not, THEN does that not imply that matter is still being created?

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

1589969410040.png

Most Respectfully,
R
But I do want to get into it because entropy can be described a number of different ways. One way is disorder but this seems vague to me. Another way to describe it is that there are no perfectly efficient energy to mass or mass to energy transfers. Do you understand what this means for the fate of an infinite acting universe?

It means that as time approaches infinity all objects will equilibrate. So we know from the SLoT that the universe had a beginning.

We also know - for the same reason - that matter and energy cannot be an eternal source for creating universes.

Which leaves us knowing that the universe was created from nothing.

That energy materialized out of thin air so to speak.
Another way to describe it is that there are no perfectly efficient energy to mass or mass to energy transfers. Do you understand what this means for the fate of an infinite acting universe?
.
your dismissal is in fact the proof for a cyclical event, equally reflective occurrences ... moment of singularity.


Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?
.
why be the elephant in the room ...
No. It is realistic and pragmatic. You have no understanding of science.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,589
Reaction score
3,744
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,


BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?
why be the elephant in the room ...
(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter.
Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars
and galaxies we see today."
So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."
◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"
Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª
◈ Electromagnetism
◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)
Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:



✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy?
(RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.


FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

1589969410040.png

Most Respectfully,
R
There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,589
Reaction score
3,744
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
the boomerang theory

the cyclical event occurs when the expelled matter completes its finite angle of trajectory back to the point of origin that begins the process of recompaction by the impetus of its initial expulsion to the exact time when all matter is converted back to energy and the tipping point is again established so that the compacted energy is released from compaction to convert back to matter.
Mathematical models designed to work around the infinities yielded by Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations which have no basis in physics are horseshit. The bullet does not return to the barrel.

There are no perfect transfers from energy to matter and matter to energy. None. What your crackpot mathematician is describing ass fucks the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
474
Points
85
RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,


BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?
why be the elephant in the room ...
(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter.
Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars
and galaxies we see today."
So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."
◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"
Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª
◈ Electromagnetism
◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)
Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:



✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy?
(RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.


FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

1589969410040.png

Most Respectfully,
R
There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.
We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.
.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...
 

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
61,036
Reaction score
17,284
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.
Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.
Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.
Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.
Science is filled by those who assume and those who have an agenda.
Try to get telescope time for a thesis that threatens the status quo. It ain’t happening.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
46,801
Reaction score
8,630
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
34,550
Reaction score
5,309
Points
1,140
I believe that humans are too arrogant in thinking that they can determine our true origins by using science. We make our hypotheses based on “laws of nature” that we assume have to be true. I believe that The secrets of the universe are far too advanced for the human mind to comprehend. We as a species need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not in charge of anything, and that god determines all.
Actually science never assumes anything is true. That's what science and the scientific method are all about.
Ideally true. However, some scientists assume the universe had no cause despite the many observations of cause and effect. Simply - while science is a source of truth, as is the Bible, interpretations or accurate observations and Scriptures are sometimes interpreted the wrong way. One way to overcome this problem is realizing truth cannot contradict itself.

In short, all Scriptures on any subject, and all scientific observations on any subject, must be interpreted in harmony to determine truth.

Sadly, some assume this is not possible. Thankfully in most cases this is possible.
Nice straw man, but scientists don't assume things as a general rule. It's pretty much the antithesis of the scientific method.

I think you're assuming they assume these things without any proof.
Science is filled by those who assume and those who have an agenda.
Try to get telescope time for a thesis that threatens the status quo. It ain’t happening.
Conspiracy theories are fun!!

Not terribly productive though...
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
46,801
Reaction score
8,630
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Its true unliked theories are blacklisted and denied time by the majority.
Nonsense. Upending theories is how scientists get famous. If a theory is ridiculed and left behind, it is on the evidence.
LOL is that why consensus is sought now instead of testing, the idiot climate people use computer models instead of actual scientific tests and NOT one of those models is accurate truthful or useful because they don't know enough to program them.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
41,408
Reaction score
3,977
Points
1,855
LOL is that why consensus is sought now instead of testing
Also nonsense
the idiot climate people use computer models instead of actual scientific tests
Silly lie

and NOT one of those models is accurate truthful or useful because they don't know enough to program them.
Says who? Some uneducated slob with no experience or education in their fields? The models have been surprisingly accurate.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
46,801
Reaction score
8,630
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
LOL is that why consensus is sought now instead of testing
Also nonsense
the idiot climate people use computer models instead of actual scientific tests
Silly lie

and NOT one of those models is accurate truthful or useful because they don't know enough to program them.
Says who? Some uneducated slob with no experience or education in their fields? The models have been surprisingly accurate.
Ok retard show me the scientific study by computer model where they can plug in the know instances in the past and the model recreates them?
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
41,408
Reaction score
3,977
Points
1,855
Ok retard show me the scientific study by computer model where they can plug in the know instances in the past and the model recreates them?
Uh.... that is literally how ever single model is tested...

Dude, you know less than nothing about any of this. How can you sit there and seriously think you have outsmarted trained, career scientists? Wouldn't you first think, "Oh, maybe I just don't know what the hell I'm talking about..."
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
46,801
Reaction score
8,630
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
Ok retard show me the scientific study by computer model where they can plug in the know instances in the past and the model recreates them?
Uh.... that is literally how ever single model is tested...

Dude, you know less than nothing about any of this. How can you sit there and seriously think you have outsmarted trained, career scientists? Wouldn't you first think, "Oh, maybe I just don't know what the hell I'm talking about..."
LOL and yet they don't actually do it. Go ahead link to a computer model test that recreated a weather disaster in 1960 1970 or 1980? Hell I will settle for 1990. By the way NOT ONE computer model they have used as actually predicted the future they have all been way off.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
41,408
Reaction score
3,977
Points
1,855

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,858
Reaction score
615
Points
155
On one hand you're saying the scientific study of the universe is arrogant because it's all "too much for our tiny human minds to absorb" (paraphrasing), then on the other hand you say something arrogant like this;

"We need to realize that God determines all."

We can't stop asking questions because people like you claim all the answers are in a magic book written by barefoot peasants 2500 years ago.

You want to be religious and save the world, preach about ending wars and getting rid of our mega-arsenal of nuclear weapons.
So much wrong in a few sentences. For one, our nuclear weapons is what has prevented WW III due to MAD. If COVID-19 was shown to be a biological weapon from China, then what? Would we go to war over it? Asia seems relatively unscathed compared to the United States and Europe.

God is the answer and we find creation science honors God's work.

Does evolution honor your "god of the world?" It must if you are willing to go into the Lake of Fire for it.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
46,801
Reaction score
8,630
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
LOL and yet they don't actually do it.
Another silly lie.
Go ahead link to a computer model test that recreated a weather disaster in 1960 1970 or 1980? Hell I will settle for 1990.
Oops, that's weather. We are talking about climate. Try to focus.

By the way NOT ONE computer model they have used as actually predicted the future they have all been way off.
Another silly lie.
If one can not do weather one can not do climate dumb ass. Name ONE of the computer models that got it right link to it with the predictions and the facts.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top