• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Big Bang - Still Speculation

R

rhutchin

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
335
Location
DC Area
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist, YEC
This article from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com/46478-universe-should-have-collapsed.html

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

"So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said."

So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.
 
Oh my god! You mean that we had not yet scientifically determined everything there is to know!? I thought we had it all wrapped up. Quick - reintroduce hard science courses to the universities, offer incentives to do pure science research again, emphasise science at the primary and second...........wait, hang on. I've just checked and all that is still happening (though there could always be more) - whew I thought it was going to take us years to get back up to steam with a critical mass of research happening all over the world to expand the boundaries of what we know about the universe. Re-reading your post I see where the problem lies - you seem to think that science deals in absolutes. You don't seem to realise that there is a constant unending process of testing and exploration driven by our bottomless curiosity and the desire of some people to know how the universe actually works, best as we can tell.

So our current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. Why is that a problem? All it shows us is that there is new knowledge to be discovered, that is exciting.
 
Last edited:
When I read that article I knew someone was going to use it to attempt to demonstrate the existence of their favorite cosmic magician.

I'm just happy that stellar fusion produces oxygen. If it didn't we'd all be suffocating.
 
It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all. :rolleyesa:
 
bilby said:
It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all. :rolleyesa:
Click to expand...

You forgot talking snakes. That's the most important part.
 
Even the article says that this is according to one model where they plugged in the Higgs-Boson. One thing we do know, nature has a much better imagination than humankind. Besides, when was the last time you heard about a denomination closing up shop because their particular model didn't work out? Oh yeah. NEVER.
 
braces_for_impact said:
Even the article says that this is according to one model where they plugged in the Higgs-Boson. One thing we do know, nature has a much better imagination than humankind. Besides, when was the last time you heard about a denomination closing up shop because their particular model didn't work out? Oh yeah. NEVER.
Click to expand...
No, they usually, when forced, evolve adapt and label parts of the model 'metaphor' as necessary.
And tell anyone who'll listen that this change is not central to the dogma.
 
bilby said:
It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all. :rolleyesa:
Click to expand...

Scientists still don't fully understand what occurs in the human brain when a person falls in love . . .

Therefore Cupid exists.
 
bilby said:
It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all. :rolleyesa:
Click to expand...
What exactly is it with religionists using science to disprove science? It's like picking up a prescription for antibiotics and then telling your doctor they can't possibly work.
 
joedad said:
What exactly is it with religionists using science to disprove science? It's like picking up a prescription for antibiotics and then telling your doctor they can't possibly work.
Click to expand...
No, it's using science that doesn't quite say what they think it does, in order to disprove science that supports conclusions they don't like.

It's more like arguing with the professor during a college course in history because of something you kinda remember seeing in a movie, this one time.
 
Argh! We don't have a TABLE tag implemented yet on this forum? Gah!

Big Bang Theory - Produces predictions about the movement of galaxies
Creation Theory - Produces no predictions about the movement of galaxies

Big Bang Theory - Produces predictions about the strength and frequency of the cosmic background microwave radiation
Creation Theory - Produces no predictions about cosmic background microwave radiation

Big Bang Theory - Produces predictions about the hydrogen-helium ratios in all those gas clouds that float around in our universe
Creation Theory - Produces no predictions about the hydrogen-helium ratios

Big Bang Theory - Produces predictions about the large scale structure of the universe (where galaxies are and where galaxies aren't)
Creation Theory - Produces no predictions about the large scale structure of the universe

This is how one theory supplants another theory in science. This is how Einstein's General Relativity superseded Newtonian mechanics. One by one the lines of evidence were examined, and in each case Einstein's equations produced more accurate predictions than Newton's equations.

There are more lines of evidence than what's listed above, but they are less important and are just more of the same. Creation theory completely fails to explain any of the available evidence, much less explain the evidence with greater accuracy than the Big Bang Theory can, thus it completely fails as a competing theory. The Big Bang theory is the best current explanation for the early and current state of the universe, whereas the Talking Snake Theory of Creation isn't any kind of explanation at all. At best the Talking Snake Theory of Creation is a  just-so story (ad hoc fallacy).
 
Underseer said:
Argh! We don't have a TABLE tag implemented yet on this forum? Gah!
Click to expand...

Big Bang Theory Creation Theory
Produces predictions about the movement of galaxies, predictions that rely on  fine tuning of
existing theories with additional entities		 Predicts the movement of galaxies is meaningful, beautiful, powerful, ordered, and graceful
Produces predictions about the strength and frequency of the cosmic background microwave radiation, some of
which do not match what is observed 		Predicts that there should be some indication of intent in the CMB, and there should be some indication of some violation of the Copernican principle, and
coincidentally there is, although it may be due to foreground contamination
Produces predictions about the large scale structure
of the universe (where galaxies are and where galaxies aren't)		 Predicts that the universe evolves according to rules,
and conscious choice about when and where to follow the
rules
Has to be fine tuned, theories it depends upon have
numerous problems including the  vacuum catastrophe		 Only postulates a creator, constantly has to accommodate
knew knowledge acquired, just like the BB theory
Hadron asymmetry problem (perhaps due to antimatter having
gravitational repulsion rather than attraction)		 Decision to select one form of charge distribution over
another, manifested as a natural law


Talking snake... :D
 
Unfortunately, all of that is trumped in the creationist's mind by the idea that they can put in their column "Explains why the universe was created, and your place in it"

That does seem to be a fundamental difference. Having an answer for the why, and the rest is unimportant details, even if that answer can not be checked in any way, versus the scientific approach of making predictions and checking one's work.
 
dockeen said:
Unfortunately, all of that is trumped in the creationist's mind by the idea that they can put in their column "Explains why the universe was created, and your place in it"
Click to expand...
I don't see how "God created the universe" leads someone away from curiosity about the universe and the way it works?
 
Kharakov said:
dockeen said:
Unfortunately, all of that is trumped in the creationist's mind by the idea that they can put in their column "Explains why the universe was created, and your place in it"
Click to expand...
I don't see how "God created the universe" leads someone away from curiosity about the universe and the way it works?
Click to expand...

Such an answer likely does not lead someone away from a curiosity driven examination of the universe. But such curiosity is most often not a feature of the
creationist mindset. The simple answer of the form "God did it, and here's why" will always have the ability to fill in the blank for many folks.
 
bilby said:
It is not yet completely understood exactly what happened in the first few microseconds after the Big Bang; therefore the universe was created by the speech of an all powerful but non material entity in seven days about six thousand years ago.

Nope, no flaws or gaps in that logic at all. :rolleyesa:
Click to expand...
Actually, Asherah said that Yahweh really farted on a cosmic scale, but was too embarrassed to admit it...so he obfuscated and called it speech :D
 
rhutchin said:
So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.
Click to expand...
Shocking isn't it that we humans still have things to figure out...:rolleyes: How often has Christian thought been right with now known scientific realities? Or do you think the earth is the center of the universe? Yeah, why listen to those foolish scientists...

Over 2000 years ago, the flat earth notion was crumbling.
Almost a 1000 years ago, an Islamic scholar rejected the idea of a earth centric universe.
A little over 300 years ago we got Newtons law.
250ish years ago preachers were angry at Ben Franklin for taking away their lightening daemons.
A hundred years ago, scientists were just beginning to unravel bits and pieces that would later break down the belief in a steady state universe.
The BB theory is just over 60 years old, and the first useful computers were just emerging.
53 years ago the first man went into space.
45 years ago the first man landed on the moon


What might we know in 2114? Hard to say...
 
rhutchin said:
This article from Live Science: http://www.livescience.com/46478-universe-should-have-collapsed.html

Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics

"So if the universe shouldn't exist, why is it here?

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," Hogan said."

So, current knowledge of physics is not up to explaining how the universe began. That doesn't keep scientists from guessing. But we always knew that.
Click to expand...

It all depends on what you mean by universe.


The BB starts with observed galactic motions and extrapolates back to a theoretical event. The model serves to explain the genesis of the modern particle theory of today.


The BB does not explain what led up tothe pre conditions of the event. It does not explain any ultimateorigins of the observable and measurable universe.


'…."So if the universe shouldn'texist, why is it here?...' is not a question science addresses, subjective questions of why and meaning are for philosophy and religion. Philosophical speculations by those with scientificcredentials gets conflated with the actual science.


Science proper deals solely with predictive mathematical models..


My view is there is no ultimate meaning or why to the universe, the question itself is useless. The universe just is.

From Newtonian physics we have Force = Mass x Acceleration. It is a useful predictive scientific model. 'Why' the relationship exist to begin with has no meaning in science, we make use of the fact that it does.

Likewise the BB is a useful predictive model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom