BB Theory - Popular Myth Or Scientific Fact

[Learner]

Metaphysical woo woo is not science.

Scince can be woo, we call it pseudo science.

It all depnds on what is being said.

Creationism arguments can be logically valid in that there are no logical fallacies. Creationists and scientists use the same logical forms. That does not invalidate logic, it depends on how you use it.

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.

Cheers Steve for making this clear. I got the gist, and understood you didn't mean the same types of arguments. There are quite a few creationists who accept the BB like W.C. Lane for example.

I agree with the lines taken from your first post I quoted, shown below. which doesn't disagree with anyone in the discussion either.

"It all depnds on what is being said "

"That does not invalidate logic, it depends on how you use it."

 

[steve_bank]

Round ad round we go.

The BB is a good theory, but the premise is not demonstrable. Until then the BB is a theory not a fact. Can't say it anymore simply.

As I siad in pop cture the BB is a myth analogous the the Genesis myth. It serves the same purpose culturally.

If yiu think the BB happened as theorized that is a philosophical view, not scientific in my view.

I view both creationists and those who think science represents some absolute truth as the same.

Be as skeptical of science and conclusions as you do religion. I take that as part of freethought. Don't be limid by sytrutured ideolgy.

When science becomes scientism it becomes a form of a theology.

Scientism

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

 

[Elixir]

The BB is a good theory, but the premise is not demonstrable. Until then the BB is a theory not a fact. Can't say it anymore simply.

The BB is a good hypothesis but is not demonstrable. Until then the BB is a hypothesis not a fact.
In science, a theory is as close to “fact” as one can get.
Can't say it anymore simply.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The BB is a good theory, but the premise is not demonstrable. Until then the BB is a theory not a fact. Can't say it anymore simply.

The premise of the Big Bang theory is that the universe was once hot and dense and has been expanding for billions of years. That premise is demonstrable and is backed up by a multitude of observations.

However when you say “Big Bang” you seem to be referring to something else, which indeed may not be demonstrable given our current understanding of physics.

The problem lies in the conflation of the two and your inability or unwillingness to articulate what exactly you mean.

As I siad in pop cture the BB is a myth analogous the the Genesis myth. It serves the same purpose culturally.

It’s meaningless to the science what “pop culture” believes the Big Bang theory to be. It is unsurprising to me that the average layperson does not have a good conception of what the Big Bang theory is scientifically because the average layperson does not have a good understanding of science in general.

 

[bilby]

The BB is a good theory, but the premise is not demonstrable.

Which premise?

It's a theory, not a logical argument. It's founded on observations, not on premises.

Until then the BB is a theory not a fact.

It's both. That's a characteristic of well tested theories.

 

[Jarhyn]

However when you say “Big Bang” you seem to be referring to something else, which indeed may not be demonstrable given our current understanding of physics.

It is not just simply not demonstrable, it is not even a coherent idea.

I keep pointing this out: such isolated, closed systems do not have discrete, singular causes.

It's like saying "what was in memory before running "program.exe""

The answer requires a question: "on which instance?"

From the perspective of the instance, from the perspective of things within the system, the system will always have a point before which physics seems very necessarily different and even untestable.

 

[Shadowy Man]

However when you say “Big Bang” you seem to be referring to something else, which indeed may not be demonstrable given our current understanding of physics.

It is not just simply not demonstrable, it is not even a coherent idea.

I keep pointing this out: such isolated, closed systems do not have discrete, singular causes.

It's like saying "what was in memory before running "program.exe""

The answer requires a question: "on which instance?"

From the perspective of the instance, from the perspective of things within the system, the system will always have a point before which physics seems very necessarily different and even untestable.

And I think most if not all actual scientists (not pop culture people) will agree that the t=0 instance is currently outside of known physics. I myself have stated that already within this thread.

The problem is that your loose language conflates the t=0 problem with all of the Big Bang theory and then applies the same uncertainty to both. That is not merited. This has been pointed out to you also in this thread.

 

[Jarhyn]

However when you say “Big Bang” you seem to be referring to something else, which indeed may not be demonstrable given our current understanding of physics.

It is not just simply not demonstrable, it is not even a coherent idea.

I keep pointing this out: such isolated, closed systems do not have discrete, singular causes.

It's like saying "what was in memory before running "program.exe""

The answer requires a question: "on which instance?"

From the perspective of the instance, from the perspective of things within the system, the system will always have a point before which physics seems very necessarily different and even untestable.

And I think most if not all actual scientists (not pop culture people) will agree that the t=0 instance is currently outside of known physics. I myself have stated that already within this thread.

The problem is that your loose language conflates the t=0 problem with all of the Big Bang theory and then applies the same uncertainty to both. That is not merited. This has been pointed out to you also in this thread.

That's the thing. I'm trying to address what STEVE is talking about.

There may be some provable system which "our universe" is definitely a member of, but such does not in fact make for a proof that this is the only such system that "our universe" is only a member of that one system.

It's just not something that has a discrete answer. "Energy" comes from infinitely many causes.

There are some epochs that I am aware in the execution of a system with a steady state run function: pre-execution, process definition, init, and run.

Pre-execution from the perspective the process is impenetrable. Period.

Process definition happens to generate the initial state. This is "everything and nothing that establishes that shape on a field which shall undergo process".

T=0->T=1 is init. This MAY be decodable in "our universe": what constructs the basic, seemingly arbitrarily set but absolutely fixed parameters. It may as easily be 1:1 with process definition, all "just-so" which would make it not decodable as to the reason of it, and just as indeterminate.

Then there is everything after that first real frame of sensible activity, whose process is already fairly well figured out except for the driver of the particularization of probabilistic seeming elements.

 

[Tharmas]

This is not entirely off topic I hope. It’s a Simons Foundation lecture by the physicist* Paul Steinhardt called “Time to take the ‘Big Bang’ out of the Big Bang theory.

It’s 54 minutes but well worth the time I believe. He thinks that Expansion is an ad hoc mathematical bit of trickery (my words) that can be done away with if one postulates a cyclical universe, which he lays the mathematical groundwork for. At least that’s my impression (I’m no physicist, much less mathematician). I’d like to hear opinions on this, from those who care to take the time.



*Albert Einstein Professor in Science, Professor of Physics, Princeton University

 

[Shadowy Man]

This is not entirely off topic I hope. It’s a Simons Foundation lecture by the physicist* Paul Steinhardt called “Time to take the ‘Big Bang’ out of the Big Bang theory.

It’s 54 minutes but well worth the time I believe. He thinks that Expansion is an ad hoc mathematical bit of trickery (my words) that can be done away with if one postulates a cyclical universe, which he lays the mathematical groundwork for. At least that’s my impression (I’m no physicist, much less mathematician). I’d like to hear opinions on this, from those who care to take the time.



*Albert Einstein Professor in Science, Professor of Physics, Princeton University

I may not have time to look at this but there is a very well established (for one hundred years) distance-redshift relationship that his theory would have to explain that wasn’t due to expansion.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Observation establishes that the Universe is about 13.75 billion years old. And is expanding at the speed of light. And is about 128 billion light years in diameter. How can that be? Inflation. Inflation explains these findings. Nothing else does.

 

[Elixir]

However when you say “Big Bang” you seem to be referring to something else, which indeed may not be demonstrable given our current understanding of physics.

It is not just simply not demonstrable, it is not even a coherent idea.

I keep pointing this out: such isolated, closed systems do not have discrete, singular causes.

The observable universe may appear closed, but the actual universe must be (undemonstrably) open, to accommodate Steve’s thesis.
Can‘t really rule it out except FAPP.

 

[Jarhyn]

However when you say “Big Bang” you seem to be referring to something else, which indeed may not be demonstrable given our current understanding of physics.

It is not just simply not demonstrable, it is not even a coherent idea.

I keep pointing this out: such isolated, closed systems do not have discrete, singular causes.

The observable universe may appear closed, but the actual universe must be open, to accommodate Steve’s thesis.

If the universe is open, then we are on "wheel of time rules" with no beginning and no ending.

It definitely appears closed, given the fact that quanta cease to have meaningful variances at a certain point.

 

[Elixir]

If the universe is open, then we are on "wheel of time rules" with no beginning and no ending.

Bless you, for you have come to the light!!
Prayza Load!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Google wikipedia, observable Universe for latest information. The Observable Universe is no longer judged to be 128 light years in diamter. But only 98 billion light years in diameter

 

[Jarhyn]

If the universe is open, then we are on "wheel of time rules" with no beginning and no ending.

Bless you, for you have come to the light!!
Prayza Load!

The problem with that is the granular terminus of quantum mechanics. It closes at the Planck level, and at the edge of interaction at C, where it tears.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

 

[Jarhyn]

That is a fantastic article! Thanks for posting it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trouble with the human psyche is that it wants controversy so bad, and clickbait is designed to take advantage of that. Click the bait, view the ads, they make money, you are none the wiser.

 

[atrib]

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.

Yes you did. You said it was a myth, something that was asserted without evidence, and believed because it was stated by reputable scientists - an argument from authority. I can quote your exact statements if you like.

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.

There is an enormous amount of evidence for dark matter, both observational and theoretical. Not only do we know that dark matter exists, we can, with a great deal of precision, map out where it is located, within galaxies, and in intergalactic space. We have thousands of observations quantifying the existence of dark matter through the way it affects light (gravitational lensing). We can also use general relativity to model the behavior of galaxies and galaxy clusters to precisely locate where dark matter is present, and in what density and quantity. You don't know about it because you haven't bothered to keep up with the science, but that is your problem.

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.

Where have you looked? There is a mountain of evidence, observation and theory, from multiple lines that confirm that our understanding of expansion of the universe, as described by the Big Bang Theory, is accurate. We don't fully understand the physics of the Planck epoch, the earliest moment of the universe, or make any confident statements about how that initial moment came to be, and the BBT DOES NOT MAKE ANY OF THESE CLAIMS. Your ignorance of the BBT drives you to make up ridiculous strawman claims, and you refuse to do even the smallest amount of research that would demonstrate that your understanding is flawed.

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

And what people are telling you here is that you are wrong, that you don't understand what the BBT actually states.

So I take it you do not take it as absolute truth? Yes or no. It is a philosophical question.

Nothing is absolute truth. Every theory is provisional, potentially subject to revision as we learn more. That is a strength, not a flaw. I am surprised you don't understand how science works, given how much you like to mouth off about science.

The BB is a good theory, but the premise is not demonstrable. Until then the BB is a theory not a fact. Can't say it anymore simply.

What are you talking about? A premise is a part of a logical argument, a fact that is used to support a logical argument. The BBT is NOT a logical argument, it is a description of the expansion of the universe, supported by an enormous volume of observation and theory. You don't even understand that.

If yiu think the BB happened as theorized that is a philosophical view, not scientific in my view.

The universe is expanding, and has been expanding for over 13 billion years. We know this because we can measure it. Not philosophy, hard science. Observations supporting theoretical models.

The problem is that you don't understand what the BBT states, what data it is based on, and what theoretical models are used to quantify the theory. And you are unwilling to learn. You are both ignorant and stubborn, and you will make no attempt to understand what people have been trying to explain to you for weeks. So you go around spouting nonsense with the certainty of the flat-earth, creationist village idiot. What a fucking waste of time.