real life wrote:Before you join the Ad Hom Chorale, provide a quote where I said this. I asked for this previously (not of you) and was given a quote that did not say 'anything unknown to science is supernatural', nor did it imply such.
It implied such. We corrected the statement that a singularity does not obey the known laws of physics, and you continued to insist that it is supernatural.
Quote:There is nothing wrong with a scientist saying , 'this is unknown'. There IS something wrong with a 'scientist' saying 'we have no evidence that an entity ever existed, nor what it was composed of , so therefore this is how it would behave'.
General Relativity provides an indication of the existence of such an entity.
Quote:That is not simply an 'unknown'. That is DRAWING CONCLUSIONS based on NO EVIDENCE.
Wrong. It is based on what we know.
The singularity is based on the GR. The fact that it doesn't seem to obey the known laws of physics is evident if you try to plug in the conditions of the singularity (a mass with infinite small size and infinite density) into any equation you like.
All we know about the singularity is that it should have infinite density and be infinitely small. This is based on the GR equations.
Quote:If something is of 'unknown' compositions and properties, you cannot draw conclusions about how it would behave.
It has known properties, RL, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to say it has infinite density and be able to tell you what volume it should have.
Quote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:You then turn around and pretend that science doesn't study the "supernatural".
Does it? Show me a reputable scientific authority who states such.
I never said that. Your dishonesty shows by attributing someone else's words to me.
When I first talked about the singularity, way back on the 168th page, I forgot to put in the word "known" before the word laws. I even mentioned this on 169, and continued to state that the singularity only disobeys the known laws of physics. You keep insisting that the singularity is supernatural, which, I stated in Post 3213841, by my corrected definition of the singularity, would mean that anything that seems to break the known natural laws would be supernatural.
It was very essential that I use the word, known, and you of all people should realise that the word known was heavily implied within what I said. After all, we don't know everything about the Universe, so it would be nonsensical to state that a singularity disobeys all the laws of phsyics especially when there is, as you so put it, no evidence to suggest this.
The only thing we can say about the singularity from its prediction by the Theory of General Relativity is that it is infinitely small and that it is infinitely dense. Those are its two known properties that are predicted for by the theories. Therefore, it only affects theories or laws that rely on an object's density or volume.
Go try and calulate any equation using infinity. Go on. Can you do it? No. What does that mean? It means those theories, those laws cannot apply to the singularity.
What are these? I don't know! I'm not a physicist!
Quote:Wolf_ODonnell wrote:I even stated before I made that assertion that I am no major in physics and that I could be potentially wrong. Not only have I repeated that I meant to say "known laws of physics" but everyone else has been saying "known laws" too.
GR is fairly well known.
Yes, yes it is. Your point being?
Quote:I do not denigrate science. I ask questions of it, and expect it to be applied consistently.
No you don't.
You ask questions only of things that appear to violate your beliefs. You aren't critical of anything that supports your belief.
Quote:My position is and has been that the 'singularity' ( I have not said 'all of science' ) rests on the same type of supernatural foundation that creation does.
No, it doesn't, because the singularity is predicted for by the Theory of General Relativity. In fact, remember the two research papers I quoted earlier? Well, they provide a model as of to how a singularity from which the Big Bang came from, could have been created. Not only that, they provide a way to test whether their predictions are true, by stating that if their predictions are true then the spectrum of gravitational waves passing through the universe should be shorter than the natural range for inflationary models.
Or to use the words of the researchers themselves...
[quote="quote"Neil Turok, Jean-Luc Lehners, Paul J. Steinhardt]
We have also seen that the entropic mechanism has an interesting signature. Because of the gravitational contribution to the spectral tilt of the entropically-induced perturbations,
the spectrum is typically a few per cent bluer than the time-delay (Newtonian potential) perturbations or the density perturbation in inflation. To push the inflationary perturbations into this bluer range requires adding extra degrees of otherwise unnecessary fine-tuning, as delineated in Ref. [21]. In particular, Ref. [21] shows that the natural range for inflationary models is 0.93 < ns < 0.97, whereas entropically-induced spectra tend to lie in a range that is a few per cent bluer, roughly 0.97 < ns < 1.02 by our estimates.
Hence, a highly precise measure of the spectral tilt at the one per cent level or better could serve as an indicator of which mechanism is responsible. For example, a value of ns = 0.99 is awkward to obtain with inflation but right in the middle of the predicted range for pre-big bang entropically-induced perturbations.
Source: Generating Ekpyrotic Curvature Perturbations Before the Big Bang by Jean-Luc Lehners, Paul McFadden, Neil Turok and Paul J. Steinhardt, arXiv.org, 19 February 2007[/quote]
You are the one left lacking evidence, RL. These guys clearly explain where the singularity comes from in their research paper and tell us just how to prove them right or wrong, whichever the case may be.
Try as you might, you can't do the same for God.
The singularity only appears to violate the known laws of physics, because it is both on the quantum scale and predicted for by general relativity. These two do not mix, hence the elusive search for the Theory of Everything.
String theory is a good candidate for the Theory of Everything (although there are others) and if it turns out to be true, can elegantly explain exactly what laws a singularity is subject to.
Quote:The 'singularity' of BB lore is defined as not being subject to the physical laws of our universe.
No. It's defined as a mass of infinitely small size and infinite density, as I've repeatedly stated before. You insist on leaving out the word, "known", because you wish to apply your definition of supernatural to the entity known as a singularity. The word, known, however is applicable because there is no known theory to unify quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics. That is not to say that there won't be, just like you argue that there is nothing to say that we won't find functions for the massive amounts of junk DNA in our genomes.
Quote:No one can explain where God came from. No one can explain when, where or how the 'singularity' originated or what was before it.
Wrong again. See above.
Quote:God is spirit, what's a spirit made of, who knows? The singularity is of unknown composition and unknown properties
Wrong again. We know at least two of its properties. Density and size.
Quote:Sorry you object to my doubts. I am a doubter, no doubt about it. If you think it's inappropriate for someone to ask questions of science, then I won't be of much help to you.
Thing is, you don't ask questions for the sake of knowing. You ask questions in the hope that nobody can answer you, thus providing you emotional gratification that there's a hole in a theory you don't like, and therefore that your belief might be justified by that hole.
It is quite evident from the fact that you dismiss later corrections and insist on debating the old terms that we acknowledged were wrong. Don't ask for evidence, because there's no need.
Just go back to all your posts where you define the singularity. You never state that it violates the known laws of physics, only that it states the laws of physics. This is different. I told you I was wrong in stating that a singularity doesn't obey the laws of physics, only the known laws, and even then I'm not entirely sure if it disobeys all the known laws. But you ignored my admission of error, all so you could continue harping on about the singularity being supernatural.
Well, I'm sorry, but it's not. I clearly stated that I defined it wrongly.
You are willfully attacking a strawman. That you haven't changed the focus of your attack shows this to be true.
. If you had the good faith to honestly wish someone a good day, you'd have no problem with staying on-topic and not distorting the words of others.
