BB Theory - Popular Myth Or Scientific Fact

[Wiploc]

It would take a long time at the particle level, a simulation could be run based on the theory. The results of the simulation might exactly match what we see today. That still would not prove the BB happened. It would say that gven the theortical initial conditions the model predicts reality today. It is a good theory.

This is not a criticism of the Big Bang theory but rather a denial of all science that investigates events that happened in the past. The Cambrian explosion, ice ages, dinosaurs, the Hadean eon. All good theories. Didn't really happen, though.

False equivalence.

I don't get it. Are you saying that you can reproduce the Cambrian explosion in a laboratory? What distinction are you making?

 

[atrib]

Srgumnt from authority. They no more, are scientists, thetefore the BB event is true.

The initial conditions are theoretical.

The BBT doesn't make a claim regarding the initial conditions, i.e. at t=0. But the stuff that happened after the so-called Planck epoch is well understood. You clearly do not know this, which is a shame, since the information is widely available at no cost on the internet. You even deny that the universe is expanding, which is akin to holding the view that the earth is flat.

A syllogism is valid as long as conclusion follows from premises with no logical falcies. Given the hypotetcal initial conditions are true, then the BB theory follows.

The inertial conditoins can never be validated.

Still waiting for you to point out what is wrong with the BBT, the data and/or the model. I'm asking for specific criticisms, not vague handwaving. I'm not holding my breath, since your ego will not allow you to acknowledge that you may not know enough to have a meaningful opinion on the subject.

 

[Wiploc]

Srgumnt from authority. They no more, are scientists, thetefore the BB event is true.

The initial conditions are theoretical.

The BBT doesn't make a claim regarding the initial conditions, i.e. at t=0. But the stuff that happened after the so-called Planck epoch is well understood. You clearly do not know this, which is a shame, since the information is widely available at no cost on the internet. You even deny that the universe is expanding, which is akin to holding the view that the earth is flat.

It's not clear to me what he doesn't know. He's talking about some issue having to do with the big bang, but he won't specify what. It may be that his only issue is with some version of quantum foam "before" the Planck epoch. He just won't say. He's just not telling. He declines all invitations to clarify.

A syllogism is valid as long as conclusion follows from premises with no logical falcies. Given the hypotetcal initial conditions are true, then the BB theory follows.

The inertial conditoins can never be validated.

Still waiting for you to point out what is wrong with the BBT, the data and/or the model. I'm asking for specific criticisms, not vague handwaving. ...

Yes, Steve, we're waiting. Please let us know the specific topic of this thread.

 

[steve_bank]

Myth o absolute truth.




I never said there was something fundamentally wrong with the theory. The theory is crafted to predict reality today from an event, so the theory works because it is designed to work. Part of it is trial and error.

A latter day astronomer finds observation does not meet theory. There apears to be anseen function.

The unseen element is appropriately termed dark matter, and is given proper
ties that bring theory in line with observation. That s how models evolve. No different than engineering, at least in the work I did. The scientific method.

To me objective science is limited to that which can be ex[erinetally deomstred. The BB can not be deonstrted. It is an extreme extrapolation back in time. It isbased on the liits of our ability to detect EM radiation across the spectrum. It is based on around 100 years of modern astronomy out of the time of the universe.

I started the threads to see where the discussion went, curiosity.


It appears I am in the single minority here as to the initial conditions and the event being theoretical and unprofitable. It appears everybody else here takes the BB and all it entails as the 'gospel truth' so to speak. Which is what I was wondering about.

 

[bilby]

Myth o absolute truth.




I never said there was something fundamentally wrong with the theory.

Yeah, you did. You presented a false dichotomy, both horns of which imply that the theory lacks merit. The theory is neither "myth", nor is it "absolute truth".

The theory is crafted to predict reality today from an event, so the theory works because it is designed to work.

That's simply a false assertion on your part. The theory predicts what we will see as we look back in time (taking advantage of the fixed value of c) and it has been experimentally demonstrated to be accurate.

Part of it is trial and error.

Part of the Scientific Method is trial and error. That's a characteristic of ALL scientific theories.

A latter day astronomer finds observation does not meet theory. There apears to be anseen function.

Oh, no! If you need to change your theory to accommodate new observations, that will shake the whole foundation of your faith, leaving you forced into [shudder] science.

The unseen element is appropriately termed dark matter, and is given proper
ties that bring theory in line with observation. That s how models evolve. No different than engineering, at least in the work I did. The scientific method.

So what was the point of the above ramblings? You have oh-so cleverly identified that there's no problem whatsoever with adjusting the theory to match reality, and that that's normal and routine science. So, why the OP?

Yes, Steve, we're waiting. Please let us know the specific topic of this thread.

To me objective science is limited to that which can be ex[erinetally deomstred.

No shit, Sherlock.

The BB can not be deonstrted.

Sure it can, as long as c<∞

It is an extreme extrapolation back in time. It isbased on the liits of our ability to detect EM radiation across the spectrum. It is based on around 100 years of modern astronomy out of the time of the universe.

Indeed it is. So, what?

I started the threads to see where the discussion went, curiosity.


It appears I am in the single minority here as to the initial conditions and the event being theoretical and unprofitable.

It appears you are in the single minority here in not understanding what the theory you are denigrating actually says.

It appears everybody else here takes the BB and all it entails as the 'gospel truth' so to speak.

No, they just understand it. And you are insulting them on the apparent basis that "if you don't understand, nobody does", so anyone who accepts it as a theory must be doing so, not as a matter of comprehension, but of unthinking faith.

That's incredibly arrogant and rude, as well as being an embarrassing parading of your own ignorance in public.

Which is what I was wondering about.

You have still failed to explain what your purpose was in starting this thread. But the very strong implication is that you were seeking validation of your ignorant beliefs, and have retreated to insult when it wasn't forthcoming.

 

[Jarhyn]

The BB can not be deonstrted

This is false. First, we can demonstrate the initial spin-up of a system like ours from "nothing" and see if it is consistent with the big bang theory. This is an experimental validation.

We can look for consequences of this created in our model, and see if the secondary consequences are accounted for. This is a second form of experimental validation.

Essentially, models of astrophysics have implications to the sizes, distributions, and emissions of objects in space, and additional corollaries that such theories imply, not all of which would be formed from observations but some of which may LATER be observed.

When these predictions pan out, it makes for experimental verification of the model that insisted it must be the case, and invalidation of models which would forbid what is seen.

 

[Wiploc]

It appears I am in the single minority here as to the initial conditions and the event being theoretical and unprofitable.

No, you're just making that up. Bertrand Russell said something like this: "When the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold a contrary position. And when the experts disagree, the layman does well not to hold any opinion."

I believe the experts are agreed that the universe is flying apart like a big explosion. I agree with the experts.

Now let's consider questions like these:
- What happened before the big bang?
- Did anything happen before the big bang?
- Does it make sense to talk about "before the big bang"?
- How (if time only arose when the big bang began) could a cause exist?

If there is a scientific consensus on any such questions, I don't know about it. Therefore, per Russell, I do well to avoid forming vain opinions on such subjects.

In fact, much of the time, when scientists talk about such things, I not only don't smell consensus, I can't even tell what they're saying.

Here's what I do know: Asimov hedged when he talked about the beginning of the universe. He said something like, "The universe began at the big bang -- or at least we can say that it did, because we don't know what happened before that."

In A Brief History of Time, Hawking made a very similar move.

So my position on whether the universe began is that I don't know, and as far as I can tell, nobody else knows either.

===

More to come. I have to break for dinner. Don't respond to this until I finish.

 

[Wiploc]

Continuing:

I hear the occasional claim that the universe began with the big bang, but I hear this from Christians, not from scientists.
And Christians don't mean that everything began then; they just mean some stuff began at the big bang.

One Christian was so adamant about this supposed scientific consensus, that I went on campus and found a cosmologist. I put the question to him, something vaguely like this: Is there scientific consensus on what caused the big bang, or whether anything caused it, or what happened before the big bang, if anything?"

He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."

So I don't have an opinion on these questions myself.

And it's rude of you to pretend that I do. It's just irritating. I don't know what you get out of it.

People have worked hard to try to draw the subject matter of this thread from you. What is it that you really want to discuss? At first you just stalled, and now, suddenly, you are now dancing in the end zone as if you got there legally.

You can keep acting like a troll if you want, but don't expect me to keep feeding you.

 

[Jarhyn]

It appears I am in the single minority here as to the initial conditions and the event being theoretical and unprofitable.

No, you're just making that up. Bertrand Russell said something like this: "When the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold a contrary position. And when the experts disagree, the layman does well not to hold any opinion."

I believe the experts are agreed that the universe is flying apart like a big explosion. I agree with the experts.

Now let's consider questions like these:
- What happened before the big bang?
- Did anything happen before the big bang?
- Does it make sense to talk about "before the big bang"?
- How (if time only arose when the big bang began) could a cause exist?

If there is a scientific consensus on any such questions, I don't know about it. Therefore, per Russell, I do well to avoid forming vain opinions on such subjects.

In fact, much of the time, when scientists talk about such things, I not only don't smell consensus, I can't even tell what they're saying.

Here's what I do know: Asimov hedged when he talked about the beginning of the universe. He said something like, "The universe began at the big bang -- or at least we can say that it did, because we don't know what happened before that."

In A Brief History of Time, Hawking made a very similar move.

So my position on whether the universe began is that I don't know, and as far as I can tell, nobody else knows either.

===

More to come. I have to break for dinner. Don't respond to this until I finish.

Sorry. You're getting a response early.

First, I think it is in fact profitable to ask what if anything may be said about systems at the point where their time reaches back to a singular point.

I have talked at length about the fact that systems of time may have a "instantiation" beyond which multiple different equally valid instantiators can invoke.

I was explaining this to another software engineer today, soon to be the husband of my husband's sister, that the operation of ANY instantiated system is only going to make sense from the perspective of the system starting from the first post-initiation frame.

This is in fact experimentally observable.

It is also the case, observing such mechanics of systems instantiated upon fields, that if some system is instantiable within other frameworks, all such frameworks upon which it is instantiated are equally valid and real as it's origin:

If both Bilby and I feed the same seed and raws into an instantiation engine, we are equally creators of the same world until one or both of us do something that differentiates the systems, and that doesn't differentiate even specifically to "Bilby's copy" and "Jarhyn's copy" but rather to "the copies differentiated this way, and the copies differentiated that way".

Such modification doesn't even differentiate between the copy created by Bilby and the copy created by someone lying saying they are Bilby.

The denizens have no way of knowing whether their Bilby is a false bilby or a true one. At best they can say "some schlub with what appears to be unlimited power to change our world which calls itself Bilby stands before us claiming they created the universe as we understand it."

There is no more available truth to them than that. There simply is no way for them to interrogate or access "outside" beyond the constrained dimension of input that "Bilby" provides.

You could not even claim as "Bilby" (read: 'God'), at least not honestly that their universe only ever came into existence as the result of the process you observed bringing it into existence. It could as easily precipitate as a Boltzmann Brain outside the observable region of the universe, with a VERY different instantiation process.

 

[Wiploc]

You could not even claim as "Bilby" (read: 'God'), at least not honestly that their universe only ever came into existence as the result of the process you observed bringing it into existence. It could as easily precipitate as a Boltzmann Brain outside the observable region of the universe, with a VERY different instantiation process.

If this were a different thread, I might channel Penny, from The Big Bang Theory:

[Wrong thread]
"Yeah, I don't understand that."
[/wrong thread]

But, in this thread, I'm going to channel Steve:

[channeling Steve]
"So you admit that you buy into the myth of the initial big bang conditions."
[/channeling Steve]

 

[Jarhyn]

You could not even claim as "Bilby" (read: 'God'), at least not honestly that their universe only ever came into existence as the result of the process you observed bringing it into existence. It could as easily precipitate as a Boltzmann Brain outside the observable region of the universe, with a VERY different instantiation process.

If this were a different thread, I might channel Penny, from The Big Bang Theory:

[Wrong thread]
"Yeah, I don't understand that."
[/wrong thread]

But, in this thread, I'm going to channel Steve:

[channeling Steve]
"So you admit that you buy into the myth of the initial big bang conditions."
[/channeling Steve]

@ channeled Steve, the universe simulation I'm pointing at verifiably, observably begins it's process of advancing through Planck seconds (frames) from an expansion from initial conditions, at which point any model of universal progression within it devolves to seeming nonsense, mostly because the nature of all simulations in isolation function thus, that the system is agnostic to it's container.

 

[bilby]

"Bilby" (read: 'God')

Oh, I invariably do.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Bilby" (read: 'God')

Oh, I invariably do.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Myth o absolute truth.




I never said there was something fundamentally wrong with the theory. The theory is crafted to predict reality today from an event, so the theory works because it is designed to work. Part of it is trial and error.

A latter day astronomer finds observation does not meet theory. There apears to be anseen function.

The unseen element is appropriately termed dark matter, and is given proper
ties that bring theory in line with observation. That s how models evolve. No different than engineering, at least in the work I did. The scientific method.

To me objective science is limited to that which can be ex[erinetally deomstred. The BB can not be deonstrted. It is an extreme extrapolation back in time. It isbased on the liits of our ability to detect EM radiation across the spectrum. It is based on around 100 years of modern astronomy out of the time of the universe.

I started the threads to see where the discussion went, curiosity.


It appears I am in the single minority here as to the initial conditions and the event being theoretical and unprofitable. It appears everybody else here takes the BB and all it entails as the 'gospel truth' so to speak. Which is what I was wondering about.

It’s like he didn’t even read any of the responses on this thread. Maybe he has me (and others) blocked.

 

[steve_bank]

I have stated my view on the BB event and initial conditions being theoretical and not experimentally demonstrable.

Until it was demonstrated time dilation was theoretical.

Until technology caight up to Maxwell's theories EM as a propagating interactive orthoganal electric and magnetic field was theory. I read his books. The only difficulty fot m e was he used quaternions.

A simple question Wiploc. Is the BB event and initial conditions as theorized without any question a fact? Yes ot no.

Ancient Zog based on limnied onsevation looke up at the sky and condluded the Erath stoof=d still and the unverse revolved around the Erath.

Is that experimental demonstration of a cosmology based on limied observation? What would the unverse look like if you were at the emit of our observations>? Do you know with certainty without actually being there?

If I wanted debate on the details of the BB theory I woud have put the thread on science.

The question is does theoretical extrapolations back billions of years serve as proof the theory is valid.

Some seem to treat science as theists do scripture. In pop culture many see the BB theory as the beginning of all things that exist, not realizng the BB does not start at t0. Where the initial conditions came from is not part of the thepry.

On science shows I have heard it says the IC was a small dense hot soup. Another says it was not localized, it was everywhere. That in part is why I cosider the BB more speculation. There is no single definition.

 

[bigfield]

I have stated my view on the BB event and initial conditions being theoretical and not experimentally demonstrable.

Until it was demonstrated time dilation was theoretical.

Until technology caight up to Maxwell's theories EM as a propagating interactive orthoganal electric and magnetic field was theory. I read his books. The only difficulty fot m e was he used quaternions.

A simple question Wiploc. Is the BB event and initial conditions as theorized without any question a fact? Yes ot no.

Ancient Zog based on limnied onsevation looke up at the sky and condluded the Erath stoof=d still and the unverse revolved around the Erath.

Is that experimental demonstration of a cosmology based on limied observation? What would the unverse look like if you were at the emit of our observations>? Do you know with certainty without actually being there?

If I wanted debate on the details of the BB theory I woud have put the thread on science.

The question is does theoretical extrapolations back billions of years serve as proof the theory is valid.

Some seem to treat science as theists do scripture. In pop culture many see the BB theory as the beginning of all things that exist, not realizng the BB does not start at t0. Where the initial conditions came from is not part of the thepry.

This reads exactly like the confident ignorance of any number of creationists and climate change deniers who don't even understand how to apply the notions of "fact" and "theory" to science.

On science shows I have heard it says the IC was a small dense hot soup. Another says it was not localized, it was everywhere. That in part is why I cosider the BB more speculation. There is no single definition.

Come on, Steve, this just shows you don't even understand the basics.

Space itself used to be far smaller than it is now, and is still getting bigger to this day. So everywhere used to be extremely small compared to what it is now. That "soup" was both small and everywhere. If it wasn't then we would not have the CMB.

 

[Jarhyn]

I have stated my view on the BB event and initial conditions being theoretical and not experimentally demonstrable.

Until it was demonstrated time dilation was theoretical.

Until technology caight up to Maxwell's theories EM as a propagating interactive orthoganal electric and magnetic field was theory. I read his books. The only difficulty fot m e was he used quaternions.

A simple question Wiploc. Is the BB event and initial conditions as theorized without any question a fact? Yes ot no.

Ancient Zog based on limnied onsevation looke up at the sky and condluded the Erath stoof=d still and the unverse revolved around the Erath.

Is that experimental demonstration of a cosmology based on limied observation? What would the unverse look like if you were at the emit of our observations>? Do you know with certainty without actually being there?

If I wanted debate on the details of the BB theory I woud have put the thread on science.

The question is does theoretical extrapolations back billions of years serve as proof the theory is valid.

Some seem to treat science as theists do scripture. In pop culture many see the BB theory as the beginning of all things that exist, not realizng the BB does not start at t0. Where the initial conditions came from is not part of the thepry.

This reads exactly like the confident ignorance of any number of creationists and climate change deniers who don't even understand how to apply the notions of "fact" and "theory" to science.

On science shows I have heard it says the IC was a small dense hot soup. Another says it was not localized, it was everywhere. That in part is why I cosider the BB more speculation. There is no single definition.

Come on, Steve, this just shows you don't even understand the basics.

Space itself used to be far smaller than it is now, and is still getting bigger to this day. So everywhere used to be extremely small compared to what it is now. That "soup" was both small and everywhere. If it wasn't then we would not have the CMB.

IOW, the universe was small because propagation of information from and to all points at C had only "connected" a very small region to any given point near to the matter that became earth, and that region and all the stuff "beyond" was very densely packed.

 

[steve_bank]

This reads exactly like the confident ignorance of any number of creationists and climate change deniers who don't even understand how to apply the notions of "fact" and "theory" to science.

I have come to believe if you take away religion people will find something to believe in. Nothing wrong with it, it fills a human need. Community and identity. Popular science has a following. Books with interpretations of science and scientific speculation. Time travel and FTL.


A good speculation IMO. If causality holds during all phases of the model along with a finite propagation of a curability then you may be right.

Everybody who thinks the BB and the initial conditions are irrefutable truth please raise your hands and go on record.

I doubt many working theoretical physicists would say any theory is abslute not subject topotential revision or refutation.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Yes, there was a "Big Bang". You do not understand cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics or how science works.

Start with Alan Guth's book, "The Inflationary Universe".

 

[atrib]

Everybody who thinks the BB and the initial conditions are irrefutable truth please raise your hands and go on record

Has anyone here claimed that to be the case? Who are you talking to? Sancho panza?

Why do you continue to ignore and often misrepresent what people have been telling you?

I doubt many working theoretical physicists would say any theory is abslute not subject topotential revision or refutation

Duh! Did you just figure that out? There have been significant revisions to our models of the universe since the 19th century. Apparently, those were not covered in the introductory physics class you took in college, and you clearly can't be bothered to learn on your own. Stuff like general relativity, the expansion of the universe, the discovery of dark matter and dark energy, just to name a few.

You have to stop pumping all that helium into your ego, man. For one, it makes your voice all squeaky, which is fine if you're a mouse in a cartoon on tv, but not so much if you're a human trying to have a real conversation. Conversations only work when it's two-way, otherwise you're just talking to yourself.