Regarding continental drift...
It's really not that odd when you think about it. Ever eat chocolate pudding? You know the skin that forms on top? Think of that as one big continent floating on top of the warmer liquid underneath, just as Pangea used to float (and the continents still float) atop the liquid mantle underneath. The difference is that while the bottom of your dessert dish has no active, heat-generating core, the Earth does. The heat causes plumes of mantle to rise to the surface, pushing things apart, or forcing them together, wherein cooled rock then decends back down toward the Earth's core. A lava lamp would be another nice example of this action.
Everything moves, everything changes, but it's virtually impossible to see what planets and stars are doing on a human timescale.
To respect to what is being discussed about before the Big Bang. In string theory we can give a structure to the universe before Big Bang even if just a mathematical structure, that is done by Hawking too when he introduces the concept of imaginary time. But imaginary time is interpreted as a mathematical tool not as if there was really a "imaginary time". To give meaning to those structures we will have to say that these structures are more than just mathematical tools. WHat I think it makes sense since they are needed to describe reality, so they must be real in someway. Anyway what I am trying to say is that this is a philosophical question.
Originally posted by Mindship
Everything moves, everything changes, but it's virtually impossible to see what planets and stars are doing on a human timescale.
I agree but at least that is still "knowable".
Things get better when you are thinking in something before the Big Bang. I mean, before the Big Bang is not something measurable. It is like the strings in the string theory that some scientists believe to be more metaphysics than physics since those strings occur in a scale that is beyond the measurable scale, it is, the Planck´s lenght. So should we discard every thing that is not measurable even if its necessary for science to make sense, or are they can be real in some way ? I say that eventually science will have to deal directly with that question, they already have to.
Originally posted by Atlantis001I vote for real in some way, as "immeasurable" does not necessarily mean "unreal." But when speculation outpaces experimentation, then we need to proceed carefully, mindful of our untested ideas, however "beautiful" they may appear.
So should we discard every thing that is not measurable even if its necessary for science to make sense, or are they can be real in some way ?
Originally posted by Mindship
I vote for real in some way, as "immeasurable" does not necessarily mean "unreal." But when speculation outpaces experimentation, then we need to proceed carefully, mindful of our untested ideas, however "beautiful" they may appear.
I agree, immeasurable does not necessarily mean unreal, so I vote for real in some way too. A bit off-topic but that is what I think Bohm was thinking when he defined his 'implicate order' in his interpretation of quantum mechanics. He used that to say that there were hidden variables but that they were implicate instead of inexistent.
Re: Re: Big Bang Theory Question.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I always maintained the idea that space was infinite, because time is.If the universe began at a definitive point in time, there was obviously something before.
-AC
I disagree with the notion of time being Infinite ! Time doesn't exist when there is no matter. Time is a consequence of entropy effects on light. These effects no longer occur inside a Black hole where Time is predicted to be frozen.
Re: Re: Re: Big Bang Theory Question.
Originally posted by Donkey Punch
I disagree with the notion of time being Infinite ! Time doesn't exist when there is no matter. Time is a consequence of entropy effects on light. These effects no longer occur inside a Black hole where Time is predicted to be frozen.
Predicted to be frozen from an outside observer. The actual person experiencing it moves as if time was flowing naturally. If you mean the center of it, well, then it's only a prediction. 😄
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They can't prove nothing existed, and as a result, I don't believe it's true.
That sentence at a stroke totally destoryed your credibility. One of the most basic principles of science is that it is not its job to prove people's random beliefs wrong.
Not that it was necessary to destroy your credibility, though, with a clueless amateur like you dismissing the views of people eminently more qualified and competent to speak on the matter.
Frankly, your opinion there doesn't mean shit.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That sentence at a stroke totally destoryed your credibility.
To whom? You? Woe betide, mine life hath screeched to a halt, or in simple terms:
"Frankly, your opinion there doesn't mean shit.".
Originally posted by Ushgarak
One of the most basic principles of science is that it is not its job to prove people's random beliefs wrong.
The fact that it hasn't proven my random belief wrong is the point, though. It has proven, quite clearly; possibilities. Many things are possible, doesn't necessarily mean we have to believe them does it?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not that it was necessary to destroy your credibility, though, with a clueless amateur like you dismissing the views of people eminently more qualified and competent to speak on the matter.Frankly, your opinion there doesn't mean shit.
Hold on there, R-ush (Cos you rushed into it, sounds similar and that).
I didn't dismiss anyone's views. I said I disagree. I have no problem with anybody holding an opposing view to me here, nothing DarkC has said about proven suggestions is incorrect, I said that we both hold beliefs that cannot be proven. His has suggestions, so what? As I said before, we both take leaps of faith. He has been given a few breadcrumbs and is making the leap, I'm making the leap anyway.
The fact of the matter is that I have openly admitted there are people better qualified to speak on it than I am, so you coming in here with that pretentious, old and bitter school principal attitude, trying to spank me on the wrist with a ruler for saying things in a manner you dislike, is for nothing. You wanted to come in here and blast me for not having any proof didn't you? Then you realised I never claimed to, and that it was, indeed, just a personal belief. Thus unintentionally stealing any thunder you had.
Calm down next time.
-AC
To who? To ANY reasonable scientist, who knows this basic rule- you do not prove negatives. You prove things positive. If you don't know that, you shouldn't even be taking part in any thread remotely connected with science.
Hence it not having proved you wrong is not the point. What very much IS the point that your statement that it is somehow impossible for there to be a beginning to time is utter nonsense. It is in fact entirely possible (or at least feasible), so your broad declaration of such an idea being definitely wrong is utter hogwash backed by no evidence at all. If you want to knock down the idea of time hving a beginning- and the Big ban being it- put forward some evidence to support your view, or falsify a working theory already advanced in that area. Your argument boils down to "I don't understand how it would work so it must be wrong." The kind of wisdom from the dark ages, not a scientific world.
If my attitude is bitter, it is because your approach is the same as religious fantatics who deny established scientific areas. That always makes me bitter because it is so very very stupid. And your attacks on scientists in your posts rather put the lie to your attempts to sound innocent.
Your belief is worth nothing against the work of proper science.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
To who? To ANY reasonable scientist, who knows this basic rule- you do not prove negatives. You prove things positive. If you don't know that, you shouldn't even be taking part in any thread remotely connected with science.
A) You're not any reasonable scientist, you're a literacy teacher from Chelmsford. There are people far more qualified to tell me I've lost credibility than you, so in that event; Let a scientist come and tell me I'm wrong, and I will say "Fine, I accept you believe that.". There are people massively qualified in science who probably agree with me.
B) Now what's been proven positive? That there was nothing before the big bang?
Go on. Try and finish the question and see what you find.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hence it not having proved you wrong is not the point. What very much IS the point that your statement that it is somehow impossible for there to be a beginning to time is utter nonsense. It is in fact entirely possible, so your broad declaration of such an idea being deinitely wrong is utter hogwash backed by no evidence at all.
Hmm? It's possible for there to be a beginning to time if there was nothing before, but that's only if you believe there was nothing before, which I don't. Bitten as you are about this, my entirely "random belief" can't be proven wrong.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
If my attitude is bitter, it is because your approach is the same as religious fantastics who deny established scientific areas. That always makes me bitter because it is so very very stupid.
I'm not denying the possibility, I'm saying that in coinciding with my belief, it's not possible for there to be a beginning to time, if what I believe is true.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you want to knock down the idea of time hving a beginning- and the Big ban being it- put forward some evidence to support your view, or falsify a working theory already advanced in that area. Your argument boils down to "I don't understand how it would work so it must be wrong." The kind of wisdom from the dark ages, not a scientific world.
Go find the page, post and quote where I said I wanted to knock down the idea of a beginning to time.
Because I swear I just said I didn't believe there was one, not that anything else was wrong.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your belief is worth nothing against the work of proper science.
Who's saying it is? Stop rushing into things, you're being silly.
-AC
AC, a ten year old can understand that very basic principle of science, that you do not prove negatives. All you show by not knowing that is extreme ignorance of basic scientific principle. I don't need to be a phD to know that; I certainly have the training required to understand the principle. As does any rational or reasonable person.
Your question about 'what has been proven positive' is exceptionally misleading and irrelevant, because the point is that there are alternatives to your narrow minded view. However, there is CONSIDERABLE evidence that supports the position that there having to be a beginning to time is inevitable, and so whether you think it is possible or not, we're stuck with it being so. That's not airy fairy commentary; that's an established scientific area. That you have no grounds- or for that matter, ability- to attack.
"But that's only if you believe there was nothing before, which I don't."
But you cannot prove it right, and until you do, it is completely irrelevant. any idea must be backed by evidence before it can be considered. Else it is just bilge.
It so happens that your classifying of whether something happened 'before' it goes to show how lost you are in this area. it is a statement that involves massive assumptipn, particularly about how time works, and the meaning of 'before' in such areas. That's a very narrow and inaccuirate view of how the subject is approached. Very much the kind of statement of a clueless, loudmouthed amateur. I may be no high class scientist myself, but I can read what such people say, and know how much this view of yours is pretty shabby.
"I'm not denying the possibility, I'm saying that in coinciding with my belief, it's not possible for there to be a beginning to time, if what I believe is true."
Which is exactly the view religious fanatics hold, trying to hold that their unsupported beliefs can in any way compete with solid scientific work. it cannot. There IS such work in this area. So you having a belief means nothing- nothing at ALL. Engage with the science, or your belief has no strength, backing, point or value. And other advanced ideas do. Hence, you are nowhere.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
AC, a ten year old can understand that very basic principle of science, that you do not prove negatives. All you show by not kmowing that is extreme ignorance of basic scientific principle. I don't need to be a phD to know that; I certainly have the training required to understand the principle. As does any rational or reasonable person.
But are you a reasonable scientist? No, so stop acting like one. Knowing a bit of science doesn't make you a scientist. There are people with more knowledge than you that, as I've said, probably agree with me. What would you say to them?
Let's look at what can be proven; It's possible that the big bang was the beginning of it all, why? Because we just have reasons to believe that might be the case. Where in that do you see anything that I have to adhere to? Honestly. I accept fully that there are concrete reasons to believe it, but they are not enough to prove the positive that there was a beginning to everything with nothing before.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your question about 'what has been proven positive' is exceptionally misleading and irrelevant, because the point is that there are alternatives to your narrow minded view. However, there is CONSIDERABLE evidence that supports the position that there having to be a beginning to time is inevitable, and so whether you think it is possible or not, we're stuck with it being so. That's not airy fairy commentary; that's an established scientific area. That you have no grounds- or for that matter, ability- to attack.
I know there are alternatives. There are alternatives to everything, what's your point? The fact that they are called "alternatives", as in, other options, proves that this is all they are. I'm not going to follow something I don't agree with.
So what? You keep saying there is considerable evidence, there is considerable evidence that supports the idea, not proves it. If that support is enough for you, then go for it. It's not for me. I won't believe there is a beginning to time unless it's proven. You are just cranky because you cannot do a damn thing about it. Well, nothing except trying to appeal to my "desire" to be correct that you feel I have, by trying to convince me I am wrong.
I didn't ever say it wasn't possible definitely, so stop suggesting I did. I said it's not in accordance with my belief, because it isn't. I'm not attacking the possibility, I'm not attacking anything, really. I'm saying that all that has been proven is that it's possible this might have happened. I know it is.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
But you cannot prove it right, and until you do, it is completely irrelevant. any idea must be backed by evidence before it can be considered. Else it is just bilge.
My idea is backed by my considering the options and grabbing the one I find most agreeable or appealing to me. Hard evidence is only needed if you wish to debunk or counter theories, which I am not attempting to do, and never have been. So no, you're quite wrong.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It so happens that your classifying of whteher something happened 'before' it goes to show how lost you are in this area. That's a very narrow and inaccuirate view of how the subject is approached. Very much the kind of statement of a clueless, loudmouthed amateur. I may be no high class scientist myself, but I can read what such people say, and know how mucb this view of yours is pretty shabby.
So you think my view is shabby based on the fact that you like other views more than mine. Would you like your Blue Peter badge mailed or will you pick it up yourself?
I'm not lost in this area at all, and the only clueless one here is you for continually calling me an amateur. I'm no amateur, but what I am not is a qualified scientist, so I am not going around acting like my beliefs are anything they are not. You continually calling me an amateur achieves nothing.
As for loud-mouthed. Pardon me for not following your footsteps and having the charisma of dry wallpaper.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Which is exactly the view religious fanatics hold, trying to hold that their unsupported beliefs can in any way compete with solid scientific work. it cannot. There IS such work in this area. So you having a belief means nothing- nothing at ALL. Engage with the science, or your belief has no strength, backing, point or value. And other advanced ideas do. Hence, you are nowhere.
Who said they compete? I never said they compete. I can't compete with what scientists have proven. I'm not here trying to disprove the possibility of a beginning to time, I'm just saying I don't believe there was one.
So you can sit there and repeat "There's such work." and other sleep inducing rhetoric, telling me how my belief means nothing, or you can realise that I haven't put my belief across in nearly the way you would have people believe I have, and swallow your pride.
I'm not nowhere, I'm perfectly fine in this discussion where I am.
-AC
AC, if you remember; you did initially state that "there had to be something before the big bang" and that the "concept of time not having a beginning is flawed".
You also told DarKC that believing in "nothing before the big bang" is stupid.
Point is as previously stated, we lack the ability to comprehend true absolute nothingness, so therefore it makes sense to assume there HAD to be something. But on the flip-side, we also lack the ability to comprehend something not having a definite beginning, so as Ushgarack pointed out, boil it down and time HAD a beginning.
Originally posted by Robtard
AC, if you remember; you did initially state that "there had to be something before the big bang" and that the "concept of time not having a beginning is flawed".You also told DarKC that believing in "nothing before the big bang" is stupid.
Point is as previously stated, we lack the ability to comprehend true absolute nothingness, so therefore it makes sense to assume there HAD to be something. But on the flip-side, we also lack the ability to comprehend something not having a definite beginning, so as Ushgarack pointed out, boil it down and time HAD a beginning.
Yeah, and those claims are all merely in relation to my own belief. It's obviously not flawed if you believe it is it? This is all subjective in the grand scheme.
I'm not sitting here saying the suggestions that LEAD to his belief are incorrect, as Ushgarak is accusing me of.
Boil it down how? How exactly are we boiling it down in a way no scientist ever has? The fact is, I have no reason to believe that time began, and I'm not alone in that believe. Am I trying to counter anybody? No. Am I denying the existence of possibilities that, if proven correct, would negate my belief? No. That's all they are, though.
To me, it doesn't make sense to assume there was nothing. We cannot comprehend either, so I won't be so presumptuous as to say I'm right and someone is wrong, or vice versa. I don't know for sure, neither does anybody. My beliefs are very loose on this subject, something Ushgarak is accusing me of, not realising I'm not saying any different.
-AC