Big Bang

[The Nehor]

This has long been the favored end of the Big Bang scenario and now you tell me those guys who peddled the theory as somehow connected to the Big bang are either ignorant or dishonest. Well, I can't say it more clearly than that you are preaching to the choir here as I agree one hundred percent and that is the point of my post to which you responded.

 

Yes we have a big crunch (no longer considered a possibility by most sentient beings) and a even a big rip and of course the classic big freeze, however, my point is simply that none of these theories of men take into consideration the things of God and a creators hand. None of them consider that while we may not know much, there is a world of difference between a loss of all energy, or a collapse of all matter into one big chunk only to rebirth again, or the big rip where chaos reigns and a state of being that portends to an eternal source of light and power to perpetuate life forces for an eternity of time. 

 

Still when it comes to theories all of these are on their last legs as far as a growing number of scientists and lay people such as myself are concerned. Plasma theory addresses so much more readily what we are now observing with the analysis of the data being sent back from recent satellite efforts and other research.  Nor do I find it near so contrary to gospel expectations. So if we are voting for a theory today, that the one I would like to put my hand up for.    

 

I  agree somewhat that it may not be an easy thing to extrapolate from theology a reasonable common ground with scientific expectations. However, I consider it a much more reasonable effort to at least consider the possibilities than to discount any hope of reconciliation. Besides clearly we can do no worse than those who have chosen to ignore the potentials of a creators hand in these things.

 

The "Big Freeze" is the favored theory but most of those who believe it is correct are not convinced it is correct. There is too much data missing. I do think tying a weak theory about the end of the Universe to a more solid theory of what happened immediately after it began is dishonest as if they stand and fall together.

 

The "Big Crunch" is still possible. We just do not know enough to discount it yet. And no, scientific theories do not factor in the actions of God. Until God consents to reveal his whole will to us we have no choice. Science is a game to figure out how things work. God can change the rules. Unless God declares to us in advance how and when He will change the rules we can only study the rules and not the exceptions. God could redefine gravity tomorrow if He chose but we would be foolish to count on it and insane to consider it a scientific theory.

 

I consider plasma theory to be so full of holes you could drive a galaxy through them. It has no explanation for many phenomena. Experience with electromagnetism so far do not show that it can do what plasma theory suggests it can do.

 

I do not discount any hope of reconciliation. I expect everything to eventually be reconciled completely. False conclusions from our science due to ignorance of data or misinterpretation of data will fall away along with doctrinal accretions we have added to our faith with no revelatory basis. Then our thirst for knowledge will be quenched. It will be a good day.

[thesometimesaint]

We really don't know anything about Dark Matter and even less about Dark Energy. That is why they are called Dark. Do they account for the acceleration we see in the universe. Who knows. It should be interesting to find out.

 

I think that we have pretty well established that there won't be a Big Crunch. Not total confirmation but good evidence.

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-fate_of_the_universe.php

[SamIam]

The "Big Freeze" is the favored theory but most of those who believe it is correct are not convinced it is correct. There is too much data missing. I do think tying a weak theory about the end of the Universe to a more solid theory of what happened immediately after it began is dishonest as if they stand and fall together.

 

The "Big Crunch" is still possible. We just do not know enough to discount it yet. And no, scientific theories do not factor in the actions of God. Until God consents to reveal his whole will to us we have no choice. Science is a game to figure out how things work. God can change the rules. Unless God declares to us in advance how and when He will change the rules we can only study the rules and not the exceptions. God could redefine gravity tomorrow if He chose but we would be foolish to count on it and insane to consider it a scientific theory.

 

I consider plasma theory to be so full of holes you could drive a galaxy through them. It has no explanation for many phenomena. Experience with electromagnetism so far do not show that it can do what plasma theory suggests it can do.

 

I do not discount any hope of reconciliation. I expect everything to eventually be reconciled completely. False conclusions from our science due to ignorance of data or misinterpretation of data will fall away along with doctrinal accretions we have added to our faith with no revelatory basis. Then our thirst for knowledge will be quenched. It will be a good day.

 

I would be genuinely interested in the holes that you see in plasma theory.  If you have a moment perhaps you might PM them to me for further research.

[The Nehor]

I would be genuinely interested in the holes that you see in plasma theory. If you have a moment perhaps you might PM them to me for further research.

I am an amateur. You can start here:

http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/15/how-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong/

The fundamental problem is that plasma theory attempts to explain a few missing pieces we cannot explain but it does not explain even more things we can explain. Add in that the math is misapplied. Then add the ridiculous conspiracy asserting that the "mainstream" is trying to hide that electromagnetism influences the Universe to make those involved feel like persecuted crusaders for truth. They throw around words without math to back them up.

Then of course they point out that they are published in a peer-reviewed journal and neglect to mention it is in their own journal or that they are old ideas since discredited.

Edited August 25, 2013 by The Nehor

[TAO]

It is currently the only one accepted by sane people who understand it.

 

Nehor... you and I are gonna have some disagreements.  I am philosophically a postmodernist (not politically or morally), which means we are gonna be at heads quite a bit here.  In any case, here's a few things I think I'd say in response:

 

1)  Define sane in a way that nobody disagrees with your definition.  You will not be able to do it because the people you consider 'insane' most likely think of themselves as sane.  Dismissing another person's argument by calling them insane is, in my opinion, an ad hominem argument.  It's like saying, 'their argument is invalid because anything they say is invalid'.  Not exactly the best way to go, imho.  That' why sanity claims, at least in my opinion, are a bit sketchy.

 

2)  If you think there's only one way to understand something, you have quite a ways to go.  For example, if I remember right (but don't ask me to pull a source), a physicist who contributed to large parts of string theory is considering the idea that the way we think of 'time' is wrong.  Now, he may be right, or he may be wrong, but the moral of the story is that our understanding is imperfect, and it's a bit hypocritical to call people who don't agree with our understanding 'insane', when we cannot show that our understanding is perfect.

 

 

 

There are all kinds of oddball explanations for what it shows but I have never seen one that did not fall apart on inspection.

 

Mmmm... there is no theory that fully explains all scientific phenomena yet.  That's why people are still debating on what the Grand Unified Theory is.  On a more basic level though, science is based off of several assumptions, and any of those assumptions provide areas for other forms of understanding.  And one of those assumptions, curiously, is no divine intervention.  Science does not allow for 'miracles' to happen; they have to be explained by mathematical phenomena.  So in actuality, any competing theory that includes 'God made it that way' is, in a sense, just as consistent as the scientific theory of understanding.  Of course, it might not be preferable, but preference isn't something we all agree on.

Edited August 25, 2013 by TAO

[The Nehor]

1)  Define sane

2)  If you think there's only one way to understand something, you have quite a ways to go.  For example, if I remember right (but don't ask me to pull a source), a physicist who contributed to large parts of string theory is considering the idea that the way we think of 'time' is wrong.  Now, he may be right, or he may be wrong, but the moral of the story is that our understanding is imperfect, and it's a bit hypocritical to call people who don't agree with our understanding 'insane', when we cannot show that our understanding is perfect.

There is no theory that fully explains all scientific phenomena.  That's why people are still debating on what the Grand Unified Theory is.  On a more basic level though, science is based off of several assumptions, and any of those assumptions provide areas for other forms of understanding.  And one of those assumptions, curiously, is no divine intervention.  Science does not allow for 'miracles' to happen; they have to be explained by mathematical phenomena.  So in actuality, any competing theory that includes 'God made it that way' is, in a sense, just as consistent as the scientific theory of understanding.  Of course, it might not be preferable, but preference isn't something we all agree on.

 

1. Rational and able to reason effectively and reason only on the evidence available. No one is always sane.

2. Of course you can disagree with a theoretical paradigm but you then need to show that yours is superior in explaining things or at least that you are searching for a new one. That is how science works. That guy may revolutionize everything but if he is going to do it the right way he needs to get his ducks in a row and show how it explains more questions then the current consensus. 

 

Of course there is currently no theory that explains everything. String theory was supposed to but it has a very long way to go first. Yes, "God did it" explanations are consistent but that does not make them useful or scientific. Scientology is self-consistent.

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

 

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Other than that a good place to start is your DSM 5.

 

There will always be debates about scientific theories, but we need to be very carefull in claiming what any given theory actually says.

[TAO]

1. Rational and able to reason effectively and reason only on the evidence available. No one is always sane.

 

Well if nobody is always sane, isn't it slightly hypocritical to criticize the insane?

 

Of course you can disagree with a theoretical paradigm but you then need to show that yours is superior in explaining things or at least that you are searching for a new one. That is how science works. That guy may revolutionize everything but if he is going to do it the right way he needs to get his ducks in a row and show how it explains more questions then the current consensus. 

 

Why do you need to show yours is superior at explaining things, if you are just deciding for yourself?  If you are convincing others, sure, but for yourself, you can take any paradigm you would like, right?

 

Of course there is currently no theory that explains everything. String theory was supposed to but it has a very long way to go first. Yes, "God did it" explanations are consistent but that does not make them useful or scientific.

 

 

But it doesn't make them non-useful either.  People want different things, thus they will find different things 'useful', nah?

 

Scientology is self-consistent.

 

 

Probably so.

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

 

Because in deciding for yourself you are likely to make a wrong decision. You can decide for yourself if the theory of gravity is correct. What you can't do is prevent that hard landing from jumping off of a high cliff, without a parachute.

[TAO]

TAO:

 

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Other than that a good place to start is your DSM 5.

 

 

I don't think that's a good definition of insane.  Ever heard the quote, "Ever tried.  Ever failed.  No matter.  Try again.  Fail again."  It is often voiced in inspirational speeches, that if you failed once, to try again.  Even if there is sometimes no changes, you can try again.  Trying the same thing over and over is not a good definition for insanity, I think.

 

 

 

There will always be debates about scientific theories, but we need to be very carefull in claiming what any given theory actually says.

 

Naturally.  But I don't think I did this.

Edited August 25, 2013 by TAO

[TAO]

TAO:

 

Because in deciding for yourself you are likely to make a wrong decision.

 

CFR.

 

 

 

 You can decide for yourself if the theory of gravity is correct. What you can't do is prevent that hard landing from jumping off of a high cliff, without a parachute.

 

That isn't convincing to a person of another paradigm.  If a person doesn't believe in gravity, they wouldn't come to that conclusion.  You need to think of things from their point of view if you wish to convince them.

[SamIam]

I am an amateur. You can start here:

http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/15/how-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong/

The fundamental problem is that plasma theory attempts to explain a few missing pieces we cannot explain but it does not explain even more things we can explain. Add in that the math is misapplied. Then add the ridiculous conspiracy asserting that the "mainstream" is trying to hide that electromagnetism influences the Universe to make those involved feel like persecuted crusaders for truth. They throw around words without math to back them up.

Then of course they point out that they are published in a peer-reviewed journal and neglect to mention it is in their own journal or that they are old ideas since discredited.

 

I'll be weeks going through the links provided...  Thanks for the info...the main article has not been very compelling as of yet but I will continue the research.

[Questing Beast]

... Then our thirst for knowledge will be quenched. It will be a good day.

Never going to happen. What would we do with ourselves after we obtained "all knowledge"? Establish bragging rights with lower orders of life?

 

What happens, forever, is that we continually discover more about "God", and since "God" continually, infinitely, adds to the world of humans, we will never learn all that there is to know about "God". And that's just THIS world (universe), forget about the infinity of other worlds we have nothing to do with except imagine them....

[mfbukowski]

Dwannism posted a comment on youtube:

 

The same evidence can lead to very different conclusions, if you didnt know. It is the bias of the researchers that makes it lead in a certain direction. They started on the big bang path because they observed the universe expanding. The hidden assumption immediately became that the universe has always been expanding, and thus needs to have a starting point where the universe began. They never for instance recognized the possibility that the universe also contracts and did not always expand.

+++++++++++++++

 

Is the Big Bang established as scientific fact, or is the universe eternal, with no beginning.

There are no facts, just interpretations. - Nietzsche.

 

And that's about all I have to say about that - Forrest Gump

[mfbukowski]

 

Shrink it.

Crush it.

Until it’s just a tittle.

Pack it.

Stack it.

Until it cannot wiggle.

 

Until . . . ?

 

Until Bang!

 

- SteveP

 

 

 

Sounds suspiciously like my suitcase on a recent trip.

[mfbukowski]

The math is the closest we can approach the reality.

Gosh, I wonder why that is.

 

Mathematical inventions "discoveries" define the boundaries of the way Humans interpret things, and that's why they work for us. The mirror of math really just shows us ourselves looking back at us.  And of course God is a Human but infinitely above us.  So all of us- even God- are limited in some sense to what humans can "know"- and those are the laws he has chosen for himself.

 

Of course we could think that math "exists" on its own and mirrors reality, but then we are back to Platonic Forms and then all reality is illusion and only math is real.

 

I suppose we could all become Pythagoreans and Platonists and forget about God being a Man and all that stuff. 

 

My aim is just to show how all these interpretations are linked.

[mfbukowski]

That's a bit of a misnomer. Science is based on what is observered. If and when we observe something new the theory must be changed or rejected based on that observation.

But we only "observe" what our little brains let us observe and make up stories to make it all fit together.

 

But it works, and that is all that matters.

[strappinglad]

TAO:

 

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

 

Edison and his 600 attempts at building a light bulb comes to mind. This confirms his insanity.   I'm also unclear as to Dark Matter/Dark Energy. Were those concepts not postulated because there was insufficient matter calculated in the observable universe to explain the forces required to reconcile the theories with the observations?

[cdowis]

 

 

I don't think that's a good definition of insane.  Ever heard the quote, "Ever tried.  Ever failed.  No matter.  Try again.  Fail again."  It is often voiced in inspirational speeches, that if you failed once, to try again.  Even if there is sometimes no changes, you can try again.  Trying the same thing over and over is not a good definition for insanity, I think.

 

 

 

You try *something different*.   Edison continued trying to perfect the electric light, but used different materials each time.  Trying something repeatedly does not mean to do the same thing.

[TAO]

You try *something different*.   Edison continued trying to perfect the electric light, but used different materials each time.  Trying something repeatedly does not mean to do the same thing.

 

Well then nobody can really be considered insane, since something is 'different' with every attempt, even if it's something as simple as time.  There is always something different about each test.

 

What I think you both are trying to say is that 'people who don't learn from their mistakes are insane'.  I still disagree with that.  It's just a weakness that they have, which eventually they will have to overcome.  It's not a qualification for insanity.

Edited August 26, 2013 by TAO

[SamIam]

Gosh, I wonder why that is.

 

Mathematical inventions "discoveries" define the boundaries of the way Humans interpret things, and that's why they work for us. The mirror of math really just shows us ourselves looking back at us.  And of course God is a Human but infinitely above us.  So all of us- even God- are limited in some sense to what humans can "know"- and those are the laws he has chosen for himself.

 

Of course we could think that math "exists" on its own and mirrors reality, but then we are back to Platonic Forms and then all reality is illusion and only math is real.

 

I suppose we could all become Pythagoreans and Platonists and forget about God being a Man and all that stuff. 

 

My aim is just to show how all these interpretations are linked.

 

Wow bu...this is actually reasonably profound.

[mfbukowski]

Edison and his 600 attempts at building a light bulb comes to mind. This confirms his insanity.   I'm also unclear as to Dark Matter/Dark Energy. Were those concepts not postulated because there was insufficient matter calculated in the observable universe to explain the forces required to reconcile the theories with the observations?

This reminds me of "the placebo effect".

 

If it doesn't fit into the pre-conceived physicalist way of understanding healing, it is automatically swept under the rug and defined as the "placebo effect".  Everyone knows that the placebo effect is "all in one's mind."

 

That of course simply confirms that healing can and does happen "in the mind" or through mental effects.

[mfbukowski]

Wow bu...this is actually reasonably profound.

I agree. 

 

Unfortunately I stole it all from Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" except the God part. 

Edited August 26, 2013 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

Never going to happen. What would we do with ourselves after we obtained "all knowledge"? Establish bragging rights with lower orders of life?

 

What happens, forever, is that we continually discover more about "God", and since "God" continually, infinitely, adds to the world of humans, we will never learn all that there is to know about "God". And that's just THIS world (universe), forget about the infinity of other worlds we have nothing to do with except imagine them....

 

This assumes that the search for knowledge is somehow superior to the use of all knowledge with the implied idea that knowing everything would be dull. I worry about anyone whose primary reason for obtaining knowledge is to lord it over others.

 

Gosh, I wonder why that is.

 

Mathematical inventions "discoveries" define the boundaries of the way Humans interpret things, and that's why they work for us. The mirror of math really just shows us ourselves looking back at us.  And of course God is a Human but infinitely above us.  So all of us- even God- are limited in some sense to what humans can "know"- and those are the laws he has chosen for himself.

 

Of course we could think that math "exists" on its own and mirrors reality, but then we are back to Platonic Forms and then all reality is illusion and only math is real.

 

I suppose we could all become Pythagoreans and Platonists and forget about God being a Man and all that stuff. 

 

My aim is just to show how all these interpretations are linked.

 

No, it just shows that the Universe is fundamentally rational and comprehensible via reason. You can argue that the interpretation is us looking in the mirror but the truth is the image in the mirror not only accurately represents us but it accurately predicts events in the Universe when we have the necessary data.

 

Reality is not an illusion. It is just the only way we have of perceiving the data.

 

I admit I hate this kind of thinking. It seems designed to demean the knowledge of God and man and replace it with a sense of oblivious unawareness as if that is some profound discovery.

[The Nehor]

 

Well if nobody is always sane, isn't it slightly hypocritical to criticize the insane?

 

 

Why do you need to show yours is superior at explaining things, if you are just deciding for yourself?  If you are convincing others, sure, but for yourself, you can take any paradigm you would like, right?

 

 

But it doesn't make them non-useful either.  People want different things, thus they will find different things 'useful', nah?

 

 

Probably so.

 

 

I don't think so since most insanity is chosen as the lazy way out.

 

You can choose any paradigm you like to believe just as you can choose to worship a yellow dog. I do not believe it is an innocent error to choose a paradigm that defies reality. Laman could have argued that the angel was a group hallucination but I doubt God excused his sins simply because he chose to believe that.

 

Things are ultimately useful only when they are true. Believing a lie because it is "useful" will eventually burn you.