Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- »

I agree, Ranvier. BB is more of a fact now, with all the measurable and inferenced observations we are seeing in the universe. You are right, BB is not a mere "theory" but as close to a "proven" theory as it is possible.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier »

Proven...smile. They can't even agree on the definition of "nothing" in Universe of zero net energy from "nothing". I might as well question if I'm really here LOL! No wait, I'll rather go with Descartes.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- »

Well, Ranvier, BB is not a philosophical concept, but a near-fact theory... you are mixing apples with oranges.

You can use philosophy in science, and science in philosophy. But you can't use one to deny the facts of the other. You can use facts to prove something wrong in the other such as a theory. But theory in one can't be used to deny the facts in the other.

So your going with Descartes and your incredulous skepticism is not something that people need to take into consideration, because your siding with D and more importantly, your skepticism, are part of your highly subjective world view, independent of findings by others.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier »

Ask them what gravity is and enjoy the mumble show. Or better yet let them talk about dark energy and dark matter, which given Einstein's E=mc^2 would mildly imply the same thing...more nothing.

Fact is a funny thing, prove to me that mass of Earth is 5.7322 x 10^24 Kg, or better yet, ask these giants of wisdom what's mass?
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- »

Ranvier, are you claiming that the unknown is only possible to exist because it is supernatural, or are you claiming that the unknown is possibly supernatural?

If you are claiming that, what is your reason for your claim?

Because if you are NOT claiming any of the two, then you are not making any point. Scientists are completely aware of scientifically unanswered questions and problems. You seem to be smug about stumping scientists, but you are not. They are just as much aware that the ones you brought up are unanswered questions as you are; and unless you bring in the supernatural as an influence, then you are not being any further than being in complete harmony of understanding with scientists, who, like you, will say, "we don't know how the nature of mass or gravity developed, and we don't know how it works."

Do YOU know how gravity works, and why, and do YOU know what mass is? If not, then there you are, QED, exactly at the same spot as the scientists.

Unless, of course, you involve the supernatural element, which you have alluded to, but I'm waiting for you to properly spell out that you are doing.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier »

No, I'm claiming that they might be scientifically wrong in their interpretations based on mathematical equations without experimental data. There is no prof for BB and hence it's not a theory in the traditional scientific sense. Similarly to String "theory". The word theory had been improperly abused for some time. We use abstract concepts to describe other abstract concepts in abstract subjective conclusions. Just because I respect any great mind or many minds that find a common consensus on something doesn't prove anything. There was a time when other great minds believed that Earth was flat or more recently I was thought that protons and neutrons were fundamental particles in conviction that there can't be anything smaller. Now we have "complete" chart of fundamental particles...when will they learn some humility!

-- Updated July 27th, 2017, 4:06 am to add the following --

You are eager to accept any scientific drivel on faith? Skepticism is a scientific method with very long traditions. I will not abandon my logic to blindly take on faith what eager for funding and other agenda driven scientists are making unfunded claims using incomplete data. There are more pressing questions before we start making magical claims about the Universe, such as what is energy or how come there is no correlation between mass and gravity. Look up Mars, our Moon, or Uranus and you'll find that it doesn't make sense for such respective masses to produce relative planetary gravitational fields.

-- Updated July 27th, 2017, 4:23 am to add the following --

For science sake I wish they would put their minds together to at least come up with a better term than "nothing". They even talk about levels of nothing, I'm not sure if I should lough or cry.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 »

Ranvier:
No, I'm claiming that they might be scientifically wrong in their interpretations based on mathematical equations without experimental data. There is no prof[sic] for BB and hence it's not a theory in the traditional scientific sense.
I assume you meant "proof" above. In which case, how precisely are you using that word here?

Leaving aside proof, let's talk instead about evidence. I agree with you that scientific theories must ultimately be tied to empirical evidence - observations. The original primary evidence for the Big Bang Theory was the observed red shift of objects outside our local group of galaxies. This is what is directly observed - the red shift. There are then various theories as to why this red shift is observed, one of which is that these objects are moving away from us. There are various theories as to why these objects seem to be moving away from us, one of which is that the universe on this large scale is expanding. And so on.

You can disagree with these interpretations of the observations at any step of the way and come up with a different theory, so long as it is not inconsistent with the observations. Many people do. But I don't see how you can state the The Big Bang is not a theory whose basis is observation. It clearly is. That is not the same as saying it is "proved". It doesn't work like that. It is model, among other models, whose usefulness to us is judged by its success, or otherwise, in describing and predicting observations. Some models are very abstract and the route from the theory to the observations is long. But if the route exists then those models can still be regarded as scientific theories.

If you think that the Big Bang Theory is not a convincing description of the observed evidence, at what point in this chain from observation to theory do you differ? For example, do you disagree that observed red shift implies movement away? Some others do. You wouldn't be on your own.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier »

My apologies -1-
I was typing too fast without reading your entire post. I as well must learn more humility, work in progress...
I did have a moment of epiphany today, that combines all natural forces into one. But even if I could come up with equations to "prove" it, I wouldn't call it a theory but a model for the Universe until it was confirmed by repeatable experimental data. Needless to say, General Relativity appears to impede us from unified theory and I can't rely on the current concept of mass which is nothing but an illusion as is space-time. The only true theory to draw upon is Quantum Mechanics and not multiple universes but quanta of dimensions with different probabilities of energy expression within this Universe.

The red shift is evidence of expending accelerating universe, which you can figure out on your own through entropy... things tend to accelerate as in wood wants to become flame as kinetic energy of heat and light. BB must provide plausible explanation, not even observation, of how matter can be created from nothing. Matter and antimatter can annihilate into "energy", whatever that means, reverse is not as simple because energy is not "nothing" and had to come from some source.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- »

Ranvier wrote:No, I'm claiming that they might be scientifically wrong in their interpretations based on mathematical equations without experimental data.
Oh, thank Dawkins for that. You are just simply wrong then. That's a relief.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier »

I could be wrong... I'm not God, just godlike :)
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- »

You deserve more than just "you're wrong".

Your mistake is lies in the insistence to secure experimental data.

Experimental data is drawn form experiments.

But not all theories are built on repeatable results of repeated experiments. Some are built on observation alone. Observation is secured through experiments or examination.

So your insistence is the one where you erred. Experiments are nice, but not essential in building theory.

It would be difficult to replicate the BB in an experimental setting. if that's your criteria, then it's too stringent, because some of the information we could garner from such an experiment is already extant to scientists.

-- Updated 2017 July 27th, 6:02 am to add the following --
Ranvier wrote:I could be wrong... I'm not God, just godlike :)
Pleased to meet you... I'm just humanlike. :D
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier »

Pleased to meet you as well and I applaud you for your modesty.

I beg to differ, if they wish to claim singularity of BB. We can design a miniature scale experiment to replicate BB, but we don't even have a clue of how "let there be light" of singularity could create the entire Universe. Well, I know because I'm godlike :)
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by -1- »

I'm Prometheus, not a god...
Gimme seeds, I'll plough a plot,
a shield to hold, a sword to hud,
Thus I'll go from mud to mud...

Gods are mighty, they toy with us,
We humans, we unite from dawn to dusk,
They live forever, those pesky gods,
And we all go from dust to dust,

And still, the battle rages on,
Whether in Hell or on the Pantheon,
In heaven Hera Sits on Zeus' face
In Hellas, poems are Sappho's ace,

We trump finally the gods? With what?
Without faith they shall wilt and clot
With renewed faith in humankind
My name remains Prometheus
A man, a thief, a user, a mind.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Ranvier »

Beautiful...
The mind creates and destroys, godlike I am in humble thought of supreme.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?

Post by Steve3007 »

Ranvier:
I can't rely on the current concept of mass which is nothing but an illusion as is space-time.
What is your definition of an "illusion"? Do you use it as the opposite of "real"? How does one concept qualify as being real and another as an illusion? To me, the main reason for not taking the solipsistic view that almost everything is an illusion is that it's not a useful thing to do. It doesn't get me through the day. It's far more useful to hold in my head the working hypothesis - the theory - that there's a real world out there. The concepts of mass and space-time are clearly very useful for lots of purposes. Not for everything. But for lots of things. So why not regard them as real unless/until they stop being useful?

How do you live your life if you regard the concept of mass as an illusion?
The red shift is evidence of expending accelerating universe...
It's best to be clear and stick to precisely what the observation appears to be evidence of. Red shift is not evidence of acceleration. It is evidence of motion. It is evidence that the object being observed is receding from us. But we must also remember that there could be other reasons why an object's EM emissions appear to be red shifted.
...which you can figure out on your own through entropy... things tend to accelerate as in wood wants to become flame as kinetic energy of heat and light.
I don't recognise that as a description of the second law of thermodynamics.
BB must provide plausible explanation, not even observation, of how matter can be created from nothing.
What do you mean by the word "explanation"? Why do you think that a theory which describes the expansion of the universe must also describe the creation of the universe?
Matter and antimatter can annihilate into "energy", whatever that means, ...
It means that among the laws of quantum mechanics and particle physics (which have been very successful in describing and predicting observations) is the idea that every particle has an anti-particle with opposite electric charge. For example, the anti-particle of an electron is called a positron. Positrons are created in many different particle and nuclear reactions. These nuclear reactions routinely involve the conversion of matter into energy. For example, electron positron annihilation results in the mass of those two particles being converted into two gamma photons. This has been observed experimentally.

If you think that these kinds of theories don't do their job of describing and predicting experimental observations - if you think the concepts of particles, anti-particles and gamma photons are not useful - and you have a theory that does a better job, propose it, along with the experiments that you propose to test your theory.
...reverse is not as simple because energy is not "nothing" and had to come from some source.
Just as mass is routinely converted to energy (we're both doing it right now) energy is also routines converted to mass. e.g. when an atom absorbs a photon it gets more massive.

Again, if you think these statements are not useful as descriptions and predictors of observations, propose others.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021