Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Evidence for/against YEC

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 15 of 17
 [ 325 posts ] 
Evidence for/against YEC
Author Message
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

hackenslash wrote:
I should point out here that, contrary to what you might think, the existence of other bubbles is actually more parsimonious than ours being the only one. It's a little counter-intuitive, but positing the existence of other bubbles passes the test of Occam's Razor, while ours being the only one fails it.

Yes, it sounds backwards, until you realise that positing our bubble as the only one is actually to posit a barrier to other bubbles existing, which means that you're positing additional entities. Once the mechanisms for the instantiation of a cosmic bubble are in place, the existence of other bubbles is the more economical solution.

Sometimes, the obvious answer isn't the right one.


Indeed! However, we (the royal we) are still positing more bubbles here, are we not? That is not very conclusive. Of course that may change when more data becomes available.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:46 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:
You are. Just because you avoid the word, god and replace it with something a little more obtuse doesn't make you any more honest. The whole first cause argument is based on a flawed premise that our linear perceptions can be applied in any state the universe is in. My rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics allows me to set aside such preconceived notions, but your own bias clings to them as an excuse to avoid having to change your fixed beliefs.


You need to quit Straw-Manning me! No where in this discussion have I been dishonest, intellectually or otherwise!! I have not erected the first cause argument here, not once! My entire argument has been whether or not the universe/nature is eternal. If you can point out where I have, then I will apologize for my tone here! But as of right now, you have pissed me off!!

JRChadwick wrote:
And that is different than my definition how?


Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain.


This is your definition. Eternal has no time, no beginning or end. There is no axis for time to follow.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:00 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Well, we know *something* caused our "bubble" - that is a given. That *something* is naturalistic - that also is a given, though theists/deists might disagree, they have no evidence for their hypothesis whereas science's claims are a logical inference based on the available evidence.


According to Michio Kaku the Higgs Bosen caused our bubble, which is naturalistic, is it not?

Dragan Glas wrote:
As Sean Carroll has noted, all the particles relevant to phenomena in our everyday world are known - so we know a great deal about our own "bubble".

And recent work on Dark Matter is closing in on what it may comprise:

Déjà-vu: New theory says dark matter acts like well-known particle

If this theory is correct, a interesting corollary is that Dark Energy may be this particle's wave counterpart - if it behaves like that wave, then that would be corroboration for the Dark Matter particle.

Again, just my conjecture.

As already has been noted, the probability that ours is the only "bubble" that exists is highly unlikely in contrast to the probability that there are a multitude of "bubbles" - quite possibly a infinite number of such, which would be consistent with a eternal universe, although that would not be evidence, in itself, of a eternal universe.


How can one come up with probabilities based on one bubble? We have nothing to compare our bubble to. For example, insurance companies use probabilities to come up with their rates based on a multitude of data.

I actually posted that article on my Facebook page. I found it very interesting, but we still have not found any Dark Matter particles. So I don't really understand how they can be sure of anything if they can't detect DM particle as of yet.

Dragan Glas wrote:
Don't get misled by the use of the term "bruise" - it's just a figure-of-speech for the apparent shape/colour of the feature on the CMB map.

Remember too, the CMB map shows microwave background radiation - not matter: so the "bruise" is not necessarily matter-based.

Kindest regards,

James


Understood. :)
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:24 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

SpecialFrog wrote:While it is true that we don't know if time has an upper or lower boundary, our most viable models indicate that it does not. Obviously they could be wrong, but there is certainly no sound reason for concluding that time is definitely bounded in either direction.


I have been accused of being dishonest, so I need to point out that this is a honest question. What model are you referring to?
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Last edited by tuxbox on Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:39 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Inflation, brane-worlds, loop quantum gravity and the no-boundary proposal. All of these have time existing in one form or another prior to the Planck time.
Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:41 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

hackenslash wrote:Inflation, brane-worlds, loop quantum gravity and the no-boundary proposal. All of these have time existing in one form or another prior to the Planck time.


Thank you Hack!
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:45 am
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:
You are. Just because you avoid the word, god and replace it with something a little more obtuse doesn't make you any more honest. The whole first cause argument is based on a flawed premise that our linear perceptions can be applied in any state the universe is in. My rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics allows me to set aside such preconceived notions, but your own bias clings to them as an excuse to avoid having to change your fixed beliefs.


You need to quit Straw-Manning me! No where in this discussion have I been dishonest, intellectually or otherwise!! I have not erected the first cause argument here, not once! My entire argument has been whether or not the universe/nature is eternal. If you can point out where I have, then I will apologize for my tone here! But as of right now, you have pissed me off!!

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:But you seem to be using the "first cause" argument for the existence of a god. You stated that "what ever started the universe must be outside of the universe and eternal." That is a logical fallacy.


Indeed I did say that, however, I am going under the assumption that time began at the moment of the Big Bang. If time began, then whatever caused the Big Bang must be eternal. Logical fallacy, maybe, that said, it is reasonable. For the record, whatever caused the Big Bang does not need to be an intelligent entity.

It is a logical fallacy, and it is not reasonable.

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:
And that is different than my definition how?


Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain.


This is your definition. Eternal has no time, no beginning or end. There is no axis for time to follow.

Then you do not know what an axis is. That is how you mathematically represent something that has no beginning or end.
Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:02 am
WWW
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:
It is a logical fallacy, and it is not reasonable.


First off, which logical fallacy did I commit? Secondly, I do not believe I committed one, which is why I said maybe. That said, if time only exists within this universe, anything outside of time and space would be eternal. That is a reasonable conclusion.

JRChadwick wrote:
Then you do not know what an axis is. That is how you mathematically represent something that has no beginning or end.


Axis: a fixed reference line for the measurement of coordinates.

Image

Good luck measuring something eternal.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:34 am
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:
It is a logical fallacy, and it is not reasonable.


First off, which logical fallacy did I commit? Secondly, I do not believe I committed one, which is why I said maybe. That said, if time only exists within this universe, anything outside of time and space would be eternal. That is a reasonable conclusion.

Like I have repeatedly said; assuming your perceptions of time and space can be applied on any scale and any configuration of the universe is naive. And believing that your armchair speculation trumps the work of every physicist everywhere is beyond arrogant.

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:
Then you do not know what an axis is. That is how you mathematically represent something that has no beginning or end.


Axis: a fixed reference line for the measurement of coordinates.

Image

Good luck measuring something eternal.

Image
Domain: (∞, ∞)
Gee, that wasn't very hard at all.
Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:13 am
WWW
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:
Like I have repeatedly said; assuming your perceptions of time and space can be applied on any scale and any configuration of the universe is naive. And believing that your armchair speculation trumps the work of every physicist everywhere is beyond arrogant.


My assumptions come from reading the available data that I have at my disposal. You are the one injecting my Deistic position into this argument, for whatever reason. I will say it again, this argument is not about my Deistic position. It is about whether or not the universe is eternal. That is the plain and simple truth.

As far as every physicist is concerned, well there is not a 100% consensus among them. There are many competing theories about our universe. Which is why I don’t buy into [b]"scientists are always right"[/b]. Their theories are tentative, like most scientific theories and some of them are conjectures and only based on imagination and mathematical equations that do not always add up with reality. So, excuse me if I don’t put my entire faith into the origins of the universe with scientific postulations, hypotheses, and theories when the scientist do not agree on which theory is correct.

Here are a few examples of the articles that I have read to form my position.

http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-u ... -beginning

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6 ... rticle.htm

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6 ... ternal.htm
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of ... verse.html

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... beginning/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/rip ... -universe/

http://www.nature.com/news/universe-may ... at-1.13776

http://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec15.html

That’s right I can read and understand what I am reading. I’m not some YEC blinded by a religious ideology. I used careful thought when I formed my position and that position is tentative.


JRChadwick wrote:
Image
Domain: (∞, ∞)
Gee, that wasn't very hard at all.


:roll:
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:17 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Greetings,

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Well, we know *something* caused our "bubble" - that is a given. That *something* is naturalistic - that also is a given, though theists/deists might disagree, they have no evidence for their hypothesis whereas science's claims are a logical inference based on the available evidence.

According to Michio Kaku the Higgs Bosen caused our bubble, which is naturalistic, is it not?

Agreed - the Higgs boson is a particle, and, therefore, naturalistic.

Not to disagree with Kaku but I'm not sure that "caused" is the right word - the Higgs boson's properties are fundamental to how/why our space-time "bubble" is the way it is.

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:As Sean Carroll has noted, all the particles relevant to phenomena in our everyday world are known - so we know a great deal about our own "bubble".

And recent work on Dark Matter is closing in on what it may comprise:

Déjà-vu: New theory says dark matter acts like well-known particle

If this theory is correct, a interesting corollary is that Dark Energy may be this particle's wave counterpart - if it behaves like that wave, then that would be corroboration for the Dark Matter particle.

Again, just my conjecture.

As already has been noted, the probability that ours is the only "bubble" that exists is highly unlikely in contrast to the probability that there are a multitude of "bubbles" - quite possibly a infinite number of such, which would be consistent with a eternal universe, although that would not be evidence, in itself, of a eternal universe.

How can one come up with probabilities based on one bubble? We have nothing to compare our bubble to. For example, insurance companies use probabilities to come up with their rates based on a multitude of data.

I actually posted that article on my Facebook page. I found it very interesting, but we still have not found any Dark Matter particles. So I don't really understand how they can be sure of anything if they can't detect DM particle as of yet.

It's inconceivable that a state of Nature that resulted in our space-time "bubble" coming into existence hasn't caused other "bubbles" - if it can happen once, what's to stop it happening multiple times? Similarly to biogenesis - if it can happen on Earth, it can happen anywhere.

If Dark Matter is behaving like a known particle, it's fairly likely that it's made up totally or mostly of that particle.

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Don't get misled by the use of the term "bruise" - it's just a figure-of-speech for the apparent shape/colour of the feature on the CMB map.

Remember too, the CMB map shows microwave background radiation - not matter: so the "bruise" is not necessarily matter-based.

Kindest regards,

James

Understood. :)

Bearing in mind my clarification following hackenslash's comment.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:47 pm
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:
Like I have repeatedly said; assuming your perceptions of time and space can be applied on any scale and any configuration of the universe is naive. And believing that your armchair speculation trumps the work of every physicist everywhere is beyond arrogant.


My assumptions come from reading the available data that I have at my disposal. You are the one injecting my Deistic position into this argument, for whatever reason. I will say it again, this argument is not about my Deistic position. It is about whether or not the universe is eternal. That is the plain and simple truth.

Your assumptions are based on ignorance. You lack even the rudimentary of time and quantum mechanics that I do and you are still holding on to a Euclidean view of time.

tuxbox wrote:As far as every physicist is concerned, well there is not a 100% consensus among them. There are many competing theories about our universe.

No, there is only one theory regarding the development of our universe.

tuxbox wrote:Which is why I don’t buy into [b]"scientists are always right"[/b].

No one believes that! That's why we still have scientists and not just science teachers. There are many things that are incomplete, and although the the theories are well supported by the evidence available, sometimes certain parts are changed to fit new discoveries.

tuxbox wrote:Their theories are tentative,

Your own fucking source that you are not smart enough to understand wrote:The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn’t going away, and this new paper does nothing to question its legitimacy.


tuxbox wrote: like most scientific theories and some of them are conjectures and only based on imagination and mathematical equations that do not always add up with reality. So, excuse me if I don’t put my entire faith into the origins of the universe with scientific postulations, hypotheses, and theories when the scientist do not agree on which theory is correct.

You don't know what a theory is! The big bang theory has been successfully used to create models of predictive utility that accurately represent reality. That is what a theory is. What happened "before" the big bang is still a new field and while several successful predictions have been made, it still does yet not have all the evidence required for it to be granted the high praise of being called a theory.

The problem seems to be that you are only reading the titles of these articles you posted. If you actually read the scientific papers they are quoting, you would find that they don't come close to unseating the big bang theory as the correct history of this phase of our universe. That was not even their intention.

tuxbox wrote:Here are a few examples of the articles that I have read to form my position.

http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-u ... -beginning

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6 ... rticle.htm

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6 ... ternal.htm
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of ... verse.html

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... beginning/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/rip ... -universe/

http://www.nature.com/news/universe-may ... at-1.13776

http://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec15.html

None of these articles support your position of a universe of infinite time. If the universe was of infinite time, we would not be here because the universe would be in a state of perfect entropy.

tuxbox wrote:That’s right I can read and understand what I am reading. I’m not some YEC blinded by a religious ideology.

I have not seen any proof of that. Perhaps I should link you to the actual papers quoted in these articles. Unfortunately, articles like these are designed to be attention grabbing to the laymen. They often portray a discovery as being controversial (especially in the title) even when it is not. That seems to be what has fooled you.

tuxbox wrote:I used careful thought when I formed my position and that position is tentative.

I doubt both of those claims.


tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:
Image
Domain: (∞, ∞)
Gee, that wasn't very hard at all.


:roll:

Thank you for the concession. It's rare I see a creationist admit a mistake.
Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:26 pm
WWW
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:Your assumptions are based on ignorance. You lack even the rudimentary of time and quantum mechanics that I do and you are still holding on to a Euclidean view of time.


All assumptions are based on ignorance! Congrats, you know more than I do when it comes to time and quantum mechanics, but that does not prove anything here. My position of time is still based on the BB and nothing more. If you can’t grasp that with your superior intellect, then I do not know what else to say.

JRChadwick wrote:
No, there is only one theory regarding the development of our universe.


I said nothing of the development of the universe. I said there were many competing theories about our universe. Unless of course you do not think these are competing theories: The Big Crunch, The Big Rip and The Big Freeze!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_ ... e_universe

Yeah, no competing theories here!

JRChadwick wrote:You don't know what a theory is!


Whatever you say oh wise one.

JRChadwick wrote:The big bang theory has been successfully used to create models of predictive utility that accurately represent reality. That is what a theory is. What happened "before" the big bang is still a new field and while several successful predictions have been made, it still does yet not have all the evidence required for it to be granted the high praise of being called a theory.


You’re still stuck on the BB as if I don’t accept that as a valid theory. A Multi-Verse for example does not represent our reality as we know it. Which is really what this argument was about before you stepped in and made it a quasi-flamewar with your passive aggressive insults.

JRChadwick wrote:The problem seems to be that you are only reading the titles of these articles you posted. If you actually read the scientific papers they are quoting, you would find that they don't come close to unseating the big bang theory as the correct history of this phase of our universe. That was not even their intention.


Again, more passive aggressive insults. Show me where I said that these articles unseated the BB?!

JRChadwick wrote:None of these articles support your position of a universe of infinite time. If the universe was of infinite time, we would not be here because the universe would be in a state of perfect entropy.


I’m not arguing for a universe of infinite time!! In fact I’m arguing just the opposite. You clearly have not been paying attention.

JRChadwick wrote:I have not seen any proof of that.


More insults.

JRChadwick wrote:Perhaps I should link you to the actual papers quoted in these articles. Unfortunately, articles like these are designed to be attention grabbing to the laymen. They often portray a discovery as being controversial (especially in the title) even when it is not. That seems to be what has fooled you.


Perhaps you should stop being a fucking douche-bag, but I’m pretty sure you can’t help yourself. The only thing I have been fooled on, is carrying on this conversation with you in the hopes you would stop with the fucking insults. That said, I’m fucking done with you. You bring nothing to the table and you’re fucking boring the living shit out me.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:44 am
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:Your assumptions are based on ignorance. You lack even the rudimentary of time and quantum mechanics that I do and you are still holding on to a Euclidean view of time.


All assumptions are based on ignorance!

No. Good assumptions are based on what information is available and they are then tested to see if they make a valid hypothesis. Religious assumptions are based on bias and ignorance.

tuxbox wrote:Congrats, you know more than I do when it comes to time and quantum mechanics, but that does not prove anything here. My position of time is still based on the BB and nothing more. If you can’t grasp that with your superior intellect, then I do not know what else to say.

Maybe you should try harder to form a coherent argument.

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:
No, there is only one theory regarding the development of our universe.


I said nothing of the development of the universe. I said there were many competing theories about our universe. Unless of course you do not think these are competing theories: The Big Crunch, The Big Rip and The Big Freeze!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_ ... e_universe

Yeah, no competing theories here!

Wrong again! These are no competing theories. They are agreed upon outcomes of a closed, open, and flat universe. The only question is which one of those models describe our universe. That question was answered when it was discovered that the expansion of our universe is accelerating, indicating an open universe.

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:You don't know what a theory is!


Whatever you say oh wise one.

Anyone who claims a theory is just an assumption or conjecture and does not represent reality is displaying their utter ignorance.

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:The big bang theory has been successfully used to create models of predictive utility that accurately represent reality. That is what a theory is. What happened "before" the big bang is still a new field and while several successful predictions have been made, it still does yet not have all the evidence required for it to be granted the high praise of being called a theory.


You’re still stuck on the BB as if I don’t accept that as a valid theory. A Multi-Verse for example does not represent our reality as we know it. Which is really what this argument was about before you stepped in and made it a quasi-flamewar with your passive aggressive insults.

Actually, the multi-verse, or 11-string membrane hypothesis, has successfully made testable predictions that have been proven correct, such as the discovery of the graviton and the gluon particles. Thank you, large Hadron collider! And accepting the big bang theory is only part of the problem. You keep insisting on an external cause that is outside of reality. That is why I first started responding to you.

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:The problem seems to be that you are only reading the titles of these articles you posted. If you actually read the scientific papers they are quoting, you would find that they don't come close to unseating the big bang theory as the correct history of this phase of our universe. That was not even their intention.


Again, more passive aggressive insults. Show me where I said that these articles unseated the BB?!

Your point in linking me to those articles was to support your idea of some sort of "eternal" extra-univesal cause. I understand how such an assumption can be intuitive based on our day to day perceptions, but intuition like that can not be applied to this scale.

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:None of these articles support your position of a universe of infinite time. If the universe was of infinite time, we would not be here because the universe would be in a state of perfect entropy.


I’m not arguing for a universe of infinite time!! In fact I’m arguing just the opposite. You clearly have not been paying attention.

You have been arguing with me over eternal existence this whole time! And I have been trying to tell you that applying Euclidean time to the beginning of the universe is a waist of time!

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:I have not seen any proof of that.


More insults.

Cry me a river.

tuxbox wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:Perhaps I should link you to the actual papers quoted in these articles. Unfortunately, articles like these are designed to be attention grabbing to the laymen. They often portray a discovery as being controversial (especially in the title) even when it is not. That seems to be what has fooled you.


Perhaps you should stop being a fucking douche-bag, but I’m pretty sure you can’t help yourself. The only thing I have been fooled on, is carrying on this conversation with you in the hopes you would stop with the fucking insults. That said, I’m fucking done with you. You bring nothing to the table and you’re fucking boring the living shit out me.

Waaaaaaaahhh. Somebody call a waaaaambulance.
Mon Jul 27, 2015 3:05 am
WWW
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 777Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:Actually, the multi-verse, or 11-string membrane hypothesis, has successfully made testable predictions that have been proven correct, such as the discovery of the graviton and the gluon particles. Thank you, large Hadron collider! And accepting the big bang theory is only part of the problem. You keep insisting on an external cause that is outside of reality. That is why I first started responding to you.

Source please. I thought the graviton still alludes our efforts to detect it. Granted I'm not that active in following the scientific scene but I I've noticed a Nobel worthy discovery.
Mon Jul 27, 2015 6:58 am
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Visaki wrote:
JRChadwick wrote:Actually, the multi-verse, or 11-string membrane hypothesis, has successfully made testable predictions that have been proven correct, such as the discovery of the graviton and the gluon particles. Thank you, large Hadron collider! And accepting the big bang theory is only part of the problem. You keep insisting on an external cause that is outside of reality. That is why I first started responding to you.

Source please. I thought the graviton still alludes our efforts to detect it. Granted I'm not that active in following the scientific scene but I I've noticed a Nobel worthy discovery.

I misspoke. I was right about the gluon, but not the graviton. There have been other experiments testing the existence of hypothetical particles, but I have not read up on it for a while. I'm going on a trip for a week, maybe I will have time to do more research about it when I get back.
Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:15 am
WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

I was right about the gluon, but not the graviton.


Actually, the gluon arises from QCD, not any string framework. To my knowledge, only two unique, testable predictions have arisen from any stringy framework, namely supersymmetry, which is beginning to look on extremely shaky ground, and the prediction regarding the energy spectrum of primordial gravitational waves, and we've yet to detect any gravitational waves, let alone primordial ones. It's worth noting that if the B-mode polarisation is reliably observed in the CMBR, a prediction of inflationary theory, then brane-worlds will be falsified.

The idea that there's only one big bang theory is not correct, and any assertion that one of them shows the 'correct' history of the cosmos overlooks some of the core principles of science. No theory is ever proven correct, they merely withstand potential falsification.
Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:49 am
JRChadwickLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:02 am

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

hackenslash wrote:
I was right about the gluon, but not the graviton.


Actually, the gluon arises from QCD, not any string framework. To my knowledge, only two unique, testable predictions have arisen from any stringy framework, namely supersymmetry, which is beginning to look on extremely shaky ground, and the prediction regarding the energy spectrum of primordial gravitational waves, and we've yet to detect any gravitational waves, let alone primordial ones. It's worth noting that if the B-mode polarisation is reliably observed in the CMBR, a prediction of inflationary theory, then brane-worlds will be falsified.

The idea that there's only one big bang theory is not correct, and any assertion that one of them shows the 'correct' history of the cosmos overlooks some of the core principles of science. No theory is ever proven correct, they merely withstand potential falsification.

I remember reading about a large haldron colider experiment that proved successful in providing evidence of the gluon in the previous decade, but particle physics is not something I've kept up on for a while. I'm not sure what you mean by multiple big bang theories, there is debate as to the beginning of our universe and it's distant future, but the expansion from a singularity is pretty robust and well supported. I have not heard of anyone who has a theory that is better supported. I'm glad you provided a method of falsifying 11-string membrane theory, I had not heard of one before. I vaguely remember reading about supersymmetry, but it was all hypothetical. Another prediction I remember regarding the membrane theory and the graviton is using a particle accelerator to detect minute losses of mater during collisions. The reasoning being that since gravity is so much weaker than the other forces, gravitons might be moving 11th deferentially out of our plain of existence. I mistakenly thought the experiment had already been conducted.
Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:06 am
WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2393Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

JRChadwick wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by multiple big bang theories, there is debate as to the beginning of our universe and it's distant future, but the expansion from a singularity is pretty robust and well supported.


Expansion, yes. Singularity, no. In fact, the authors of the singularity theorem, Hawking and Penrose, both repudiate the conclusion because it doesn't take QM into account, and the singularity is extremely problematic in QM, being an asymptote.

Here's Hawking:

Hawking";p="1895379 wrote:The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem. So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, [b2]I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.[/b2]


I have not heard of anyone who has a theory that is better supported.


Well, the problem is that all models have expansion, which is what the big bang deals with, but it's not just one theory, and indeed, the theory that most people talk about as the big bang is not what it once was, because cosmologists talk about inflationary theory, which is itself an alternative to the classical big bang. The classical big bang has been dead for decades because of unsolvable problems.

There simply isn't any one theory called 'the big bang theory', it's a group of theories that deal with the expansion of the cosmos, and has exactly nothing to say on origin, because we're limited theoretically to the Planck time, and observationally until the surface of last scattering, which is 380,000 years or so after the Planck time.

Edit: It's worth reading the 'before the big bang' thread, in which I deal with all the current thinking in cosmology.
Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:18 am
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Evidence for/against YEC

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Not to disagree with Kaku but I'm not sure that "caused" is the right word - the Higgs boson's properties are fundamental to how/why our space-time "bubble" is the way it is.


Here is Kaku talking about the Higgs Boson starting the BB.

https://youtu.be/XWzPmK8KdL0?t=12m25s

Granted this is just his opinion on what occurred and I have also heard him talk a about a Multi-Verse as well. Which is the point I was trying to with JRChadwick, that there are competing theories out there, not just one.

Dragan Glas wrote:
It's inconceivable that a state of Nature that resulted in our space-time "bubble" coming into existence hasn't caused other "bubbles" - if it can happen once, what's to stop it happening multiple times? Similarly to biogenesis - if it can happen on Earth, it can happen anywhere.

If Dark Matter is behaving like a known particle, it's fairly likely that it's made up totally or mostly of that particle.


Kindest regards,

James


How is it inconceivable? This is the only bubble that we know of, but I do believe it is a possibility. However, I have not seen conclusive evidence that is case.

As far as the DM particle is concerned, what particle does it behave like? How can we know this if DM is not detectable yet?
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Mon Jul 27, 2015 3:23 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 15 of 17
 [ 325 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests