Yesterday you though that it was contradictory to say that the "dense hot soup" of the early universe was both small and everywhere.
It is, perversely enough, metaphysics to discuss that which happens about, around, and "above" physics. It's discussing the systems which give rise to physics as we observe it.
Th't's philosophy and metaphysics for you
I'm not going back through the posts and who said what. Arguments the BB is true and validated. The analogy to geophysics and concluding ice ages. The argument from authoruty, scientists say it is true.
To me science is metaphysical abstractions reverenced to physical reference points. Meters, kissograms, seconds.
Metaphysics CAN be math, however then it is not "woo woo", it's just "math" and "Systems Theory"
Yes, it can. And it has been, in several ways. We observe that the universe is expanding. That is the Big Bang. Not the consequences, or results, or aftermath of; That expansion IS the Big Bang.
Scince can be woo, we call it pseudo science.
It appears that when he says “Big Bang” and “Big Bang event” he is referring to something specific happening at the t=0 singularity and not to what scientists refer to, which is the evolution of the universe from a hot dense state through an expansion and cooling that has led to large scale structure formation and other predictions that are verifiable and falsifiable through observation.
Indeed; I can't help drawing the analogy with creationists who declare the ToE to be nonsensical, on the basis that they disagree with what it says about abiogenesis - apparently completely unaware that ToE says nothing at all about abiogenesis.
Disclaimer: Learner I am in no way saying creationist arguments have the same validity as agruments based in physical science, the thred is not a disproof of the BB or an equating of the BB and creationism.
pistemology (/ɪˌpɪstəˈmɒlədʒi/ (listen); from Ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistḗmē) 'knowledge', and -logy), or the theory of knowledge, is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemology is considered a major subfield of philosophy, along with other major subfields such as ethics, logic, and metaphysics.[1]
Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Debates in epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas:[2][3][4]
- The philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge, such as truth and justification
- Potential sources of knowledge and justified belief, such as perception, reason, memory, and testimony
- The structure of a body of knowledge or justified belief, including whether all justified beliefs must be derived from justified foundational beliefs or whether justification requires only a coherent set of beliefs
- Philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge, and related problems, such as whether skepticism poses a threat to our ordinary knowledge claims and whether it is possible to refute skeptical arguments
In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do we know?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?", "What makes justified beliefs justified?", and "How do we know that we know?".[1][2][5][6][7]
I think several people have made it very clear that they think the Big Bang theory is true.
Your arguments against the Big Bang theory are very similar to some creationist arguments against Evolution,
If one person says that universe was "small" and the other says it was "not localised" - they are both describing different properties of the same thing.
