Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
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.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
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?
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
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.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
-- 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.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
I assume you meant "proof" above. In which case, how precisely are you using that word here?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.
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.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
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.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
Oh, thank Dawkins for that. You are just simply wrong then. That's a relief.Ranvier wrote:No, I'm claiming that they might be scientifically wrong in their interpretations based on mathematical equations without experimental data.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
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 --
Pleased to meet you... I'm just humanlike.Ranvier wrote:I could be wrong... I'm not God, just godlike
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
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
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
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.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
The mind creates and destroys, godlike I am in humble thought of supreme.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Does Science Contradict Itself With the Big Bang?
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?I can't rely on the current concept of mass which is nothing but an illusion as is space-time.
How do you live your life if you regard the concept of mass as an illusion?
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.The red shift is evidence of expending accelerating universe...
I don't recognise that as a description of the second law of thermodynamics....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.
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?BB must provide plausible explanation, not even observation, of how matter can be created from nothing.
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.Matter and antimatter can annihilate into "energy", whatever that means, ...
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.
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....reverse is not as simple because energy is not "nothing" and had to come from some source.
Again, if you think these statements are not useful as descriptions and predictors of observations, propose others.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023