And a note to others: the singularity of the Big Bang is implied from the observations but does not by itself (obviously) have direct evidence for its existence. The true strength of the BB comes from its ability to explain origin of our known universe up to extremely small parts of a second after the modeled singularity, but as with all topics dealing with ultimate ideas, origins, etc, those little itty bitty bits count. It is not unreasonable that the model of the Big Bang is incomplete and that the universe is cyclical or more likely simply far stranger than the model predicts - however, that is
not a sign of weakness in the theory, despite how much people who like to poke holes would like to believe. It is and always has been the explicit point of the theory.
Now don't take me wrong, I don't have any prior biases against singularities. It just isn't productive to attempt an explanation of them or speak of implications to someone who so clearly only wants to play the incredulous critic, especially when the entire issue has no bearing on the argument from which the original contentions arose.
real life wrote:That CMBR is the result of a BB is an inference.
You have something against inferences? You know that it's not synonymous with speculation, right? The background radiation was a prediction from the Big Bang model and as such was an inference both from the evidence and the parsimonious model used for said prediction. While these terms tend to be unfamiliar to most in day-to-day goings-on, it's about the best confirmation you could hope to get for any idea, let alone one concerning cosmology.
real life wrote:The claim that empirical evidence refutes creation is pure fiction.
I would surmise that your idea of 'creation' is nonspecific enough that this might be true. However, most are talking about creation as in the literal Biblical sense, usually the one you tend to get from reading the KJV and acting as if that's sufficient, although there's other similarly ludicrous ideas from Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.
In that case, the empirical evidence does refute 'creation' in various ways - for example a global flood, one of the tenants of some forms of creationism, would likely leave various bits of evidence of its existence, and following the rest of the story, would be incredibly unlikely leave the distribution of the fossil record we see. So far, it seems there is evidence for local floods and little else. This doesn't stop people from rationalizing it all away, of course, but it doesn't mean we get to act like the evidence doesn't contradict the various claims presented.
real life wrote:Where did CMBR come from ? We don't know. It is inferred to be the remains of a singularity.
No, the radiation is a result of the massive expansion immediately
after the implied singularity.
real life wrote: Interestingly, depending on who you talk to, the singularity either was or wasn't composed of the kind of energy which would be subject our universe's physical laws , but CMBR definitely IS energy which IS subject to our physical laws.
But since BB wasn't observed, CMBR cannot be said to be empirical evidence of that unseen event.
Of course it can, although one must take it with a grain of salt as it's an indirect observation. Indirect observations are still valuable and can teach us a lot. As for physical laws operating in a singularity, there are many different ways singularities are dealt with in theoretical physics, models in cosmology, etc - people have come up with many different ways to describe them. As such, for some general models the singularity just makes things explode and incomprehensible, in others there's a bit of rhyme
and reason involved. That's the nice thing about science - rather than merely incredulously attacking uncomfortable concepts, people get to work on testing them, finding newer ones that better explain the data, etc.
Oh, and Setanta: you have waaaaaaaaay too many posts. 44000? Insanity!
.
