The Limits of Science

[james bond]

Big Bang wasn't disproved by anything from the James Web satellite.

I don't think one can prove the Big Bang happened. The JWST just showed that evolution didn't happen because we have the bodies in a mature state. It wasn't from particles and billions of years that galaxies formed. One can't even prove the universe started 13.7 B years ago and that they started from particles. OTW, we would not see mature bodies all around. We would see smaller bodies in the distant past and they grow as they spread out. We do not see this growth of bodies or galaxies. We just see the expansion. Will this expansion end one day? Yes. Nothing can continue to grow forever. Certainly, not 13.7 B years.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't think one can prove the Big Bang happened. ...

The universe expands. So yesterday it was a little more little than today. Same yesterday and the day before yesterday and so on. One day it had been maximal little and a yesterday did not exist any longer.

What's wrong? The physics of the universe and/or or xor our form to think in mathematical structures ... or nothing?

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't think one can prove the Big Bang happened. The JWST just showed that evolution didn't happen because we have the bodies in a mature state. It wasn't from particles and billions of years that galaxies formed. One can't even prove the universe started 13.7 B years ago

13.799±0.021 billion years. But physicists don't say so - they speak for example about the redshift of light which they measure. And in our current knowledge this gives this value in years. The first approximation in a long row of values started with about 6000 years and the last approxiamition came - as far as I know - from CERN when they discovered there the god damned Higgs particle.

and that they started from particles.

Who says so? The whole universe had perhaps once a size less than an electron - and a short time before - if there had been any "there" and any time "before" it had perhaps not existed at all and came from an unknown "first cause" (a first cause is by the way uncaused, otherwise it would not be a first cause).

OTW, we would not see mature bodies all around. We would see smaller bodies in the distant past and they grow as they spread out. We do not see this growth of bodies or galaxies.

The space itselve expands in gigantic cosmic dimensions - accelerating. In the future will come a day when we nowhere will be able to see any other galaxy any longer.

We just see the expansion. Will this expansion end one day? Yes.

Why?

Nothing can continue to grow forever. Certainly, not 13.7 B years.

Indeed the speed of the expansion of the universe accelerates. And what do you call "nothing" in this context? The universe is the only everything we are able to know concrete. Where is the "nothing" which you compare with the whole universe? I agree that within the universe nothing is able to grow forever. But the universe on its own?

 

[james bond]

The universe expands. So yesterday it was a little more little than today. Same yesterday and the day before yesterday and so on. One day it had been maximal little and a yesterday did not exist any longer.

What's wrong? The physics of the universe and/or or xor our form to think in mathematical structures ... or nothing?

It's expanding, but not evolving. Just added space and time. It's not being added by new bodies to or else we would've noticed. There are so many bodies that the expansion shows how vast the universe it. The bodies are just as they were created, but moving. They're revolving around the main stars. How could something just pop up and rotate around the main stars , but we have no more added bodies? Don't believe the liars.

 

[zaangalewa]

It's expanding, but not evolving.

Strange idea. What do you compare here?

Just added space and time.

... I do not think you try to understand what you speak about on your own. Mass for example expands time. So in a black hole for example could exists no time at all but an infinite space. This someone is able to say with some plausiblity although we are not able to know what's going on in a black hole - if there is going on something at all. But a black hole is 100% universe - the whole energy of a black hole is here in our universe. But what to say about the universe? The sum of all energy of the universe seems to be 0. So if you could be outside of the universe (although it exists not any outside of the universe) and you could take a look at the universe then it would not exist. There is no energy. So in fantasy could be in every point all around you an endless number of universes. But such an idea is without any scientific plausibility - it shows only how we are able to think.

It's not being added by new bodies to or else we would've noticed. There are so many bodies that the expansion shows how vast the universe it.

From which point of view "vast"? And why and how do we know that our natural laws here are all over the universe the same natural laws? We never saw any exception of this rule - that's all - and that's why we call such rules "true".

The bodies are just as they were created, but moving.

I don't know what you try to call "bodies" here. Do you speak about a mathematical body or theory - or do you speak about energy in whatever form?

They're revolving around the main stars.

Which main stars? 99.9% of the solar system is the sun. 0.1% is some dust also in form of planets.

How could something just pop up and rotate around the main stars , but we have no more added bodies?

Masses bow the spacetime. So planets fly always on a straight line around their central star. But this balance is not perfect. The moon for example leaves the Earth - but Phobos will collide with his planet Mars.

Don't believe the liars.

¿Liars? People who do not think the same what you think?

 

[hadit]

Physics outran mathematics' ability to describe empirical evidence by the early 1970's.

As for the alleged disproving of the 'big bang', what they see could just as easily be the effects of the early masses center of gravity finally being drawn back to the much larger center of mass of all matter, i.e. they finally ran out of energy to keep moving away and are now being pulled back. Sooner or later all the other masses still moving out will reach that horizon as well.

We don't even know how many actual dimensions there are. Einstein spent much of his time after his most famous theories were published, based on applying 4th degree equations to empirical observations, on trying to solve 5th degree equations. String theory is now used as a panacea, despite the absurdities it presents.

Actually, the strongest current theory is that the universe is expanding, that the expansion is accelerating, not slowing down, and will eventually achieve as close to absolute zero as quantum fluctuations allow.

 

[james bond]

Strange idea. What do you compare here?

The JWST showed us that it is and was a mature, i.e. adult, universe from the beginning.

What is an infant planet? Nobody teaches that one planet is an infant, i.e. just born, but that is the assumption with the Big Bang, That universal bodies just come into existence. We observe nothing of the sort and now we know that was the case in the past. Remember, we thought that we had an infinite universe before. We see there is expansion of the universe or galaxies moving away from each other and collisions, but no new galaxies nor new bodies.

... I do not think you try to understand what you speak about on your own. Mass for example expands time. So in a black hole for example could exists no time at all but an infinite space. This someone is able to say with some plausiblity although we are not able to know what's going on in a black hole - if there is going on something at all. But a black hole is 100% universe - the whole energy of a black hole is here in our universe. But what to say about the universe? The sum of all energy of the universe seems to be 0. So if you could be outside of the universe (although it exists not any outside of the universe) and you could take a look at the universe then it would not exist. There is no energy. So in fantasy could be in every point all around you an endless number of universes. But such an idea is without any scientific plausibility - it shows only how we are able to think.

I'm not arguing against the universe expanding and spacetime. However, one has to ask where the energy to do this came from? We know we can't just create energy, but it can only be converted.

Moreover, it's the black hole that is the death of planetary bodies as it seems to destroy matter. We also see collisions of bodies through our telescopes, so the destruction of matter is part of our universe. No birth as such claimed with the Big Bang. Is that what you think/observe with the black holes? You can think that, but have no evidence for it.

From which point of view "vast"? And why and how do we know that our natural laws here are all over the universe the same natural laws? We never saw any exception of this rule - that's all - and that's why we call such rules "true".

It's Hubble's Law which deals with the expansion of the universe, but not its beginning. If there was a beginning or even a Big Bang, then there had to be creation of energy which is impossible.

...

Masses bow the spacetime. So planets fly always on a straight line around their central star. But this balance is not perfect. The moon for example leaves the Earth - but Phobos will collide with his planet Mars.

Again, the death of universal bodies. No new creation even from black holes.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Logically you can't fit all the universe in a single spot without it exploding out.

 

[zaangalewa]

The JWST showed us that it is and was a mature, i.e. adult, universe from the beginning.

What is an infant planet?

What do you call "infant!" in such a context and why do you mean the expansion of the space is a kind of biological evolution? That's weird.

Nobody teaches that one planet is an infant, i.e. just born, but that is the assumption with the Big Bang,

?

That universal bodies just come into existence.

?

We observe nothing of the sort

What do you not observe? And what for heavens sake do you try to speak about?

and now we know that was the case in the past. Remember, we thought

Who is "we"? What means "to think" now? What to "rememeber"?

that we had an infinite universe before.

When before? The universe is flat so it is infinite - very simple.

We see there is expansion of the universe or galaxies moving away from each other and collisions, but no new galaxies nor new bodies.

We see always only the past when we take a look into the universe. Light has a speed.

I'm not arguing against the universe expanding and spacetime.

I don't have a big idea about what you try to say or to argue.

However, one has to ask where the energy to do this came from? We know we can't just create energy, but it can only be converted.

While the entropy grows.

Moreover, it's the black hole that is the death of planetary bodies as it seems to destroy matter. We also see collisions of bodies through our telescopes, so the destruction of matter is part of our universe. No birth as such claimed with the Big Bang. Is that what you think/observe with the black holes? You can think that, but have no evidence for it.

?

It's Hubble's Law which deals with the expansion of the universe, but not its beginning. If there was a beginning or even a Big Bang, then there had to be creation of energy which is impossible.

How do you explain that you waste energy now, part of the universe?

...


Again, the death of universal bodies. No new creation even from black holes.

I do not understand what you like to say. Do you say we do not exist?

 

[james bond]

What do you call "infant!" in such a context and why do you mean the expansion of the space is a kind of biological evolution? That's weird.

Don't give me that. I explained it clearly. There are no new planets or any other bodies. Everything was created at the same time because JWST shows us from the past to compare to today.

What are you going to tells us? That there was a spike in temperature at some cosmic nowhere/nothing point and suddenly the universe boomed itself into space, time and importance lol? That the past universe was much different from today?

We know this now and that the universe had a beginning and that favors creation.

 

[ReinyDays]

F = G (m1m2)/r^2 ...
[where F = force, G = gravitation constant, m1 = mass of body 1, m2 = mass of body 2 and r = distance between] ...

The two-body problem seems easy enough, and all three of Kepler's Law can be derived from this ... the three-body problem would have three equations, and we'd use the partial derivatives to quantify the motion of the three body around each other ... a major pain in the ass ... not that it can't be done, but here's statistical methods that give satisfactory results ... four-body problem is six equations and don't think the partials here have ever been committed to paper ... no way are you getting discreet solutions without FTL travel ...

Fluid mechanics suffers from this as well ... no one sits down with a slide rule to solve Navier/Stokes equations ...

 

[zaangalewa]

Don't give me that. I explained it clearly. There are no new planets or any other bodies. Everything was created at the same time because JWST shows us from the past to compare to today.

What are you going to tells us? That there was a spike in temperature at some cosmic nowhere/nothing point and suddenly the universe boomed itself into space, time and importance lol? That the past universe was much different from today?

We know this now and that the universe had a beginning and that favors creation.

I don't have any idea what this is what you speak about. What do you expect from physics?

 

[zaangalewa]

F = G (m1m2)/r^2 ...
[where F = force, G = gravitation constant, m1 = mass of body 1, m2 = mass of body 2 and r = distance between] ...

The two-body problem seems easy enough, and all three of Kepler's Law can be derived from this ... the three-body problem would have three equations, and we'd use the partial derivatives to quantify the motion of the three body around each other ... a major pain in the ass ... not that it can't be done, but here's statistical methods that give satisfactory results ...

Not really satisfying. We have a determined system without unknown parameters - but are not able to say what really will happen. We have "to guess" and to try to find best ways how to guess. This limits our ablity to predict what really will happen in longer term - although it is completely predetermined what will happen.

four-body problem is six equations and don't think the partials here have ever been committed to paper ... no way are you getting discreet solutions without FTL travel ...

Fluid mechanics suffers from this as well ... no one sits down with a slide rule to solve Navier/Stokes equations ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Not really satisfying. We have a determined system without unknown parameters - but are not able to say what really will happen. We have "to guess" and to try to find best ways how to guess. This limits our ablity to predict what really will happen in longer term - although it is completely predetermined what will happen.

I'm not sure we have need for exact answers to these problems ... we don't have any three-body problems at hand, other than the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn system ... and approximations are fine for finding the solar system's barycenter for our heliocentric orbiting satellites ... they have correction rockets attached ...

As I said ... in weather study, these issues are far worse ... takes the fastest computer in the world several weeks to accurately predict tomorrow's temperature ... and by then it's useless information ... and again here the approximations are perfectly fine, give or take 20ºC, couple feet of rain and none-of-your-damn-business which way the wind blows ...

Airlines avoid this problem by having their pilots call ahead and get the current weather five minutes before they land ... assuming the weather won't change ... doesn't always work, Stapleton is so large, she has different weather at different parts of her runways ... 737s have been blown off into the medians ...

 

[zaangalewa]

I'm not sure we have need for exact answers to these problems ...

Pragmatism is unimportant in this context. The problem is that we think in a "wrong" deterministic way.

we don't have any three-body problems at hand, other than the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn system

In case of the sun you can ignore all many-body-problems with mass because the mass of the sun dominates everything.

... and approximations are fine for finding the solar system's barycenter for our heliocentric orbiting satellites ... they have correction rockets attached ...

The scientific problem is that we are not able to solve a completely determined system.




Start the next 2 videos together
-----




-----

As I said ... in weather study, these issues are far worse ... takes the fastest computer in the world several weeks to accurately predict tomorrow's temperature ... and by then it's useless information ... and again here the approximations are perfectly fine, give or take 20ºC, couple feet of rain and none-of-your-damn-business which way the wind blows ...

The problem is that not any computer at all is able to solve the basic problem in such contextes. And a computer is a universal machine which is able to simulate every other machine. Very short: There's a "life" outside of machines - even if we build a simple machine like a triple pendulum.

The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Aristotle

Airlines avoid this problem by having their pilots call ahead and get the current weather five minutes before they land ... assuming the weather won't change ... doesn't always work, Stapleton is so large, she has different weather at different parts of her runways ... 737s have been blown off into the medians ...

 

[james bond]

I don't have any idea what this is what you speak about. What do you expect from physics?

A bunch of equations.

 

[james bond]

I was once very angry about "the three body problem" (or "the many body problem") because I never heard from it in school. If I had known about it I had perhaps made something in another way in my life. The "two body problem" is easily solveable by Kepler's laws. The three body problem is only in some cases solveable. From my point of view it shows to us that "chaos" - in the mathematical sense of this word - is a kind of living order basing on natural laws for which we have not a good intuition.




A good comparison is perhaps that we are able to simulate a coffee stain with a lot of computer-power which really looks like a coffee stain - but not a very special concrete single coffee stain which we see in nature because we are not able to see the very concrete start parameters and all disturbing elements.

Maybe this article is better for alang1216.

I talked about it it above, but just confused zaangalewa.

JWST detected something weird that has puzzled the scientists. What do you think?

Scientists Puzzled Because James Webb Is Seeing Stuff That Shouldn't Be There

Scientists have long thought early galaxies to be chaotic, misshapen messes — but new James Webb imagery proves that theory to be completely false.

futurism.com

 

[Quasar44]

That is funny, but somehow, I doubt that. At this point, we are still moving forward on many fronts, confirming earlier theory and disproving others, while throwing out new hypothesis to be confirmed or disproven.

The most pressing need is what is the mysterious dark matter and dark energy

 

[zaangalewa]

A bunch of equations.

A what?

 

[zaangalewa]

james bond

One of the basic "problems" of natural science is it to need mathematics which is a spiritual science. But this not means physics and mathematics are the same. It is not clear whether we invent mathematics (~psychology) or whether we discover mathematics (physics) - but it should be clear that we discover physics and physics is not fantasy. Physics exists independent from us. And only experiments and observations tell us what's true in physics. We have to ask nature whether we are right or wrong if we like to find something out about our natural background. What you say about natural science sounds in my ears always only like empty phrases without any real background.