7
   

Wondering if my "Matthew Slepitza's" theory of the big bang could be correct?

 
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 07:57 pm
@georgeob1,
Not completely serious, no. But are you capable of evaluating the arguments of the person who is serious about that hypothesis? Finding contradictions, logical fallacies, errors of fact, etc, I mean.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 08:20 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

How do you feel about the idea that there is or was an ancient race of god-like alien intelligent life forms that teleport the earth's design from billions of years ago?


Define "god like alien intelligent life forms". Define "teleport"

We already have a fairly good understanding of how the stars and earth and other planets evolved from heavier elements created in supernova explosions. As a result there is no need for a poorly defined and unlikely hypotheses such as yours.

What we don't know is what is the source of the energy in the Big Bang, or if there was a regression of black holes and subsequent big bangs resulting from them, just what started it all.

There are many possibilities for star systems and planetary formations around stars, and many conceivable planetary forms that could not exist in most of them, Despite this, the numbers of possible star and planetary systems are very large and the earth and other life supporting systems are possible, Interestingly though it increasingly appears that they are highly unlikely or at least rare. Our understanding of cosmology continues to expand rapidly, however increasing knowledge and measurements tends to create more questions than answers. For example it now appears that the expansion of the universe is increasing at a fairly rapid rate. There is no available explanation for this in the known laws of physics, so physicists and cosmologists have postulated the existence of something called "dark energy" ( = undetectable energy) that causes it. No one has seen or observed dark energy directly but, there is indeed observable evidence of effects that might arise from it, if it indeed exists. That is how science advances, often in small steps.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 09:30 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Define "god like alien intelligent life forms". Define "teleport"
     I prefer to define the facts.
     1. In the ancient caves there are a lot of drawings on the walls (some of which outstanding, BTW). A comprehensive research of BBC has found that this is not ancient art, and the drawings were not made for aesthetic purposes and art auctions. The drawings have been made after special rituals for 'contacting with the Gods', viewed as something serious and interpreted as predictions by the board of the elders. How has that appeared?
     2. We have ancient Egypt, with people that have just come out of the caves ... and all of a sudden and out of nowhere they start aquiring some mind-blowing knowledge in math (a lot of which even lost today), and start building some huge & meaningless pyramids, mapped precisely at the Constellation of Orion & Zeta Orion. How does that happen?
     3. Some meek landowners, drinking beer at the edge of poverty and having no money to smile, all of a sudden and out of nowhere start building meaningless pyramids most of their free time, and start raving for some immortality, start worshipping the Sun (without even knowing what it actually is) 6000 years before it has been recognised as key source of energy to the Earth. Who let the fly with that immortality to people that even 6000 years after that cannot still understand what that immortality actually is? How does that happen?
     4. We have a shrine, full of money-changers devoted entirely to their infinite greed and selfish egoism, and misusing to infinity with the status quo (that requires changing of 'pagan' Roman coins into 'sacred' shekels). All of a sudden and out of nowhere comes some guy, born in a sheep manger, and starts explaining to the population that they have to change their way of reasoning and attitude to the world if they want to become immortal (whatever that might mean). How does that happen?
     5. How can somebody at the level of reasoning of his contemporaries - 'money-changers of the shrine' - can possibly invent or re-invent the formal model of the religion and the brand new level of reasoning about some immorality (that we don't understand completely even nowadays), and start making requests for complying with the constraint resources of the planet... which is incomprehensible & inconvenient to so many people even nowadays. How has that happened ... 2000 years ago?
     6. After that comes KGB in the 1970s with the movie of the Tomb of the Visitor, who has ended his trans-cosmic career as a Pharaoh of Egypt. Who has brainwashed whom and for what purpose & reason ... perhaps we will never come to know?
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 May, 2015 10:28 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Define "teleport"
     Write in Google: [psychotronic communication] and you will read what you will read.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2015 02:47 am
@georgeob1,
So what the hell was your problem with the statement of mine which you questioned? This is not the "Ask O'George to explain contemporary cosmology" thread, because if it had been, i would not have participated.

There are four perceivable dimensions (you left out time), and the additional six only exist in the string hypothesis--with no testable predictions, for only one example, it does not deserve to be called a theory. As spacetime does not exist in the current standard model until the expansion from the singularity (i.e., "the big bang), talking about dimensional aspects of the string hypothesis and dark matter is bullshit. You're babbling, O'George.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2015 03:44 am
@georgeob1,
As you've no doubt figured out by now, that POS idea is Herald's baby, not mine. You and I seem to hold it in similar regards. Laughing
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2015 05:55 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Define "god like alien intelligent life forms". Define "teleport"
     I prefer to define the facts.
     1. In the ancient caves there are a lot of drawings on the walls (some of which outstanding, BTW). A comprehensive research of BBC has found that this is not ancient art, and the drawings were not made for aesthetic purposes and art auctions. The drawings have been made after special rituals for 'contacting with the Gods', viewed as something serious and interpreted as predictions by the board of the elders. How has that appeared?
     2. We have ancient Egypt, with people that have just come out of the caves ... and all of a sudden and out of nowhere they start aquiring some mind-blowing knowledge in math (a lot of which even lost today), and start building some huge & meaningless pyramids, mapped precisely at the Constellation of Orion & Zeta Orion. How does that happen?
     3. Some meek landowners, drinking beer at the edge of poverty and having no money to smile, all of a sudden and out of nowhere start building meaningless pyramids most of their free time, and start raving for some immortality, start worshipping the Sun (without even knowing what it actually is) 6000 years before it has been recognised as key source of energy to the Earth. Who let the fly with that immortality to people that even 6000 years after that cannot still understand what that immortality actually is? How does that happen?
     4. We have a shrine, full of money-changers devoted entirely to their infinite greed and selfish egoism, and misusing to infinity with the status quo (that requires changing of 'pagan' Roman coins into 'sacred' shekels). All of a sudden and out of nowhere comes some guy, born in a sheep manger, and starts explaining to the population that they have to change their way of reasoning and attitude to the world if they want to become immortal (whatever that might mean). How does that happen?
     5. How can somebody at the level of reasoning of his contemporaries - 'money-changers of the shrine' - can possibly invent or re-invent the formal model of the religion and the brand new level of reasoning about some immorality (that we don't understand completely even nowadays), and start making requests for complying with the constraint resources of the planet... which is incomprehensible & inconvenient to so many people even nowadays. How has that happened ... 2000 years ago?
     6. After that comes KGB in the 1970s with the movie of the Tomb of the Visitor, who has ended his trans-cosmic career as a Pharaoh of Egypt. Who has brainwashed whom and for what purpose & reason ... perhaps we will never come to know?


I see a lot of guess work and hedging, but no evidence that points towards a teleporting, alien/ILF/god-thingy. Funny how only a select few are privvy to this "truth." You'll have to do a lot better than that, old man. I notice that you end each of those entries with a question mark. How about answering them yourself instead of implying yet another crop of ad ignorantiam fallacies?
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2015 09:43 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

One can dismiss Herald's babble about the so-called big bang immediately because that hypothesis does not assume any creation. As Hawking and others pointed out in about 1970, time and space have the same finite origin as matter and energy, i.e., the singularity, also known as "the big bang." Herald uses the term "creation," because he is hung-up in his theistic model.


I have a hard time following Herald's remarks and what I see doesn't inspire the needed additional effort.

You are different in this respect. As I attempted to illustrate in another post, Hawking's speculations do not constitute a scientific proof of the origin of the universe in that his essential conjecture cannot be verified by observsation. I find cosmology fascinating and fully agree that the evolution of the universe we can observe appears to have proceeded from something like the Big Bang. There is ample information that confirms this hypothesis notably including the still detectable microwave radiation that resulted from it.

There are still newly discovered unfolding effects, such as the apparently accelerating expansion of the universe that drive physcicsts to new, as yet unproven hypotheses to explain them. Dark energy in this case.

There are also other considerations. The continuing (and accelerating) expansion of the universe will ultimately render the distant galaxies invisible to view or detection by future humans or other life forms that may survive. Will some future cosmologists view a universe composed only of our own galaxy? What conjectures will they make about its origins?

The bottom line though is that the well-developed describtion of the evolution of our observavble universe from a cataclysmic event like the big bang does not in any way constitute a scientific explanation of its existence or origin. Where did the energy released in the big bang come from? Was it a spontaneous, inexplicable event, or was it the result of a long (infinite?) succession of collapses in black holes and subsequent eruptions? Science based on theory and observsation has so far not answered that question and there is reason to believe it may never do so.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2015 03:10 pm
@georgeob1,
You're now essentially speculating on what came before the singularity. I don't believe that any reputable physicist claims to have even a plausible hypothesis for that. I did not claim that Hawking had proven anything, nor did he. He was one of three physicists who offered their speculation in the late 1960s, and publishing no later than 1970. No, i don't have all their names at my finger tips, nor the exact dates of the publications, but that does not alter that the expansion of a singularity remains the standard model in physics. The extrapolation of the known laws of physics beyond the limits of their validity results in the singularity. That is the point of departure for all speculation of what came before the expansion of the singularity.

Once again, i know of no reputable physicist who claims to have proof for "the big bang," nor for what preceded it. Certainly neither Hawking nor the other physicists publishing on the matter in the 1960s claimed to have proven anything.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 May, 2015 04:04 pm
@Setanta,
I try to avoid the sometimes overused term, singularity, in this context - it is a mathematical concept that sometimes appears to lend magical overtones to cosmology. I haven't speculated at all about what either came before or caused the big bang. Instead I have asserted that it (the big bang) isn't - and, as you noted, shouldn't be taken to be, an explanation for the existence of the universe.

I believe contemporary physiscists and cosmologists are nearly unanimous in the belief that the the history of the observable universe can be traced back to a big bang that occurred over 14 billion years ago. This is, as you noted, consistent with the so called standard model; with the still evolving views of cosmologists; and with a growing body of physical evidence, all consistent with the laws of physics as we know them. As I have noted there still remain some not-fully-understood (by me at least) 'wrinkles' in these theories. I have noted the accelerating expansion of the universe - an observable fact - and the lack of a ready explanation for it. The existence of undetected ("dark" ) energy and matter have been postulated to account for this and the theories so developed have withstood much critical review and testing - but questions remain. Similar gaps and associated postulates exist in particle physics, but that's about where my own ready understanding ends.

There are indeed a number of avowedly athiest scientists who infer that science alone can answer these questions and some (Richard Dawkins, prominently) assert that science has indeed already done so. I have read affirmations that Hawking made similar assertions, but, like you, I don't know for sure about that either.

Though we say it differently I think we may have agreement here;
Setanta wrote:
The extrapolation of the known laws of physics beyond the limits of their validity results in the singularity. That is the point of departure for all speculation of what came before the expansion of the singularity.

I would say that while physics can trace the evolution of the universe back to the big bang, it cannot scientifically tell us what caused it.


Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2015 08:40 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
I see a lot of guess work and hedging, but no evidence that points towards a teleporting, alien/ILF/god-thingy.
     So what. Who cares what you can or can't see.
FBM wrote:
Funny how only a select few are privvy to this "truth."
     You were said that this is not going to be discussed with you because of the way you behave - without specifying the Gaps of your top design strawman, and unless you specify your own belief system.
FBM wrote:
You'll have to do a lot better than that, old man.
     Really, and why should I do that?
FBM wrote:
How about answering them yourself instead of implying yet another crop of ad ignorantiam fallacies?
     ... and how about you providing a definition of the Gaps the way you are using them for over 250 pages on relevant and irrelevant blogs, how about enumerating them and specifying your own beliefs ... if you want to discuss the belief system of the others.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 May, 2015 08:42 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
do not constitute a scientific proof of the origin of the universe in that his essential conjecture cannot be verified by observation.
     It is much worse than that - it cannot be verified by anything.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 12:40 am
@Herald,
No taste for red herring, thanks. Just keep repeating the fallacies, and we'll keep pointing them out. You have a hypothesis that invisible alien/ILF/god-thingies are teleporting the design of the earth from billions of years ago. Show us why a rational person should take you seriously.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 03:37 am
@georgeob1,
Whether or not science alone can answer such questions, i can't for a moment accept a suggestion that superstitious mumbo-jumbo can provide any answers. In its worst manifestation, you get babble such as Herold routine inflicts on threads such as this.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2015 07:05 am
@Setanta,
There's lots of babble out there. Some of it is produced by professed scirntists.
0 Replies
 
Steelpulse41
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jan, 2018 07:07 pm
@matthewslepitza,
Ya,the expanding universe thing,and the fact everything is kinda spreading out,yet some Galaxy's are also closing in on each other in head on merging situations ,and some are already ,or already have merged into each other.just to bring up just one thing that makes me think the bang just doesn't sit right with me.even with all it's stuff that makes great sense and fits in the math or whatever.gosh,I would beat this subject will turn out to be something that no one has ever thought off yet.least of all me. But what's super cool to me is the fact ,last I heard,the space time is expanding not nessaraly the stuff in it,although it might be to.blows me away.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 04:59:44