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

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I reckon it's back to teaching you English again ...

If you believe 0% in the Big Bang 'theory' (which is not critically fatal by itself), what are you doing on this blog?

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I presented your exact words, without any embellishment or alteration.

     ... from another thread, on another theme, and said in a very different context (as most of your other references, BTW). The only idea of posting that here being to poison this thread as well, exactly the way in which you have poisoned the other one ... only that, and nothing else.
     The people come here to discuss issues. You are not discussing any issues, you are not even interested in the issues being discussed ... and I doubt that you are at a level to discuss seriously anything here. You are not even reading the titles of the themes, but only make copy-pasting at random some broken record, taken out of somewhere else - actually why are you here? To explain me that you belief 0% in everything - O.K., who cares.
     Besides that it is not true - if you don't believe in anything outside, you believe 100% in your ego and in yourself, but that is not my problem.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I reckon it's back to teaching you English again ...
If you believe 0% in the Big Bang 'theory' (which is not critically fatal by itself), what are you doing on this blog?

Pissing you off, apparently. If you believe 0% in the Big Bang theory, what are you doing in this thread? Every time you use single quotes to write 'theory,' you only demonstrate that you don't know the meaning of the word. Laughing

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I presented your exact words, without any embellishment or alteration.
     ... from another thread, on another theme, and said in a very different context (as most of your other references, BTW). The only idea of posting that here being to poison this thread as well, exactly the way in which you have poisoned the other one ... only that, and nothing else.
     The people come here to discuss issues. You are not discussing any issues, you are not even interested in the issues being discussed ... and I doubt that you are at a level to discuss seriously anything here. You are not even reading the titles of the themes, but only make copy-pasting at random some broken record, taken out of somewhere else - actually why are you here? To explain me that you belief 0% in everything - O.K., who cares.
     Besides that it is not true - if you don't believe in anything outside, you believe 100% in your ego and in yourself, but that is not my problem.

Your exact words, without embellishment, in the very same context of cosmogony. As long as you keep posting ridiculous, irrational bullshit, I will keep responding.

Quote:

you believe 100% in your ego and in yourself

You've obviously never heard of anatta. Laughing

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

in the very same context of cosmogony.

     1. The question here is from astrophysics.
     2. Nobody here is interested in your personal problems with the aliens.
     3. anatta is you
     Would you make your own post, without poisonous references, from ground zero, name it as you wish and discuss whatever you like there.

1 Reply

@Herald,

1. Big Bang theory is cosmogony, knobjockey.
2. You keep saying "the" aliens as if they were known to exist. Which aliens?
3. Read a book.

As long as I'm not breaking any rulse, I'll post where I please, thank you, just like everybody else. If you don't want to be ridiculed, stop making ridiculous posts. Learn and apply some basic logic and intellectual integrity for a change. If you want respect, be respectable.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Do we have someone here who understands the math well enough to say why the big bang has to be a single point just because black holes are ? Why couldnt the universe have formed everywhere and lumped together . I know this would solve some problems, but create others .

A "poinr" is a mathematical construct. It is an idea, an abstraction useful in geometric depictions of physical reality but not a real part of physical reality. "Black Hole" is a name scientists have given to objects they have observed in th heavens that appear, based on our current understanding of the lws if physics, to be surrounded by matter swirling into it as towards a vortex. Those obseervations plus certain unique radiation patterns have led to certain theories about their nature to which we have also have given the name "black hole". As with a swirling tornado, one could imagine a line (having no width) that at a given moment is the axis of rotation about which the vortex of air is swirling. However, if one were to take detailed measurements of the velocities of the real molecules of air swirling around it, the picture would reveal a good deal more ccomplexity than , is suggested by that somewhat absatract model.

No one that I know of has actually visited a black hole and come back with the measurements needed to answer your question.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Chaos is randomness ... and a lot of the processes in the physical world are considered genuinely random - like for example the thermal noise, the photoelectric effect, the quantum state of the electron, etc. If there is so much randomness in the physical world, and after the Big Bang 'theory' denies any participation of any Intelligence in the Creation (if has been created), and in the structuring of the Universe, how exactly the Big Bang 'theory' has succeeded to arrange (without any probability distribution functions) the brilliant structures and set them in brilliant operation ... at any size and dimensions (like for example the chemical elements, the Solar System, etc.)?

Chaos is a word that does indeed imply randomness as you say. But even random variables exhibit some order. Not every random occurrence is chaotic, particularly as the term is used in science and mathematics, I believe I explained the distinction fairly clearly in an earlier post,

The "Big Bang Theory" describes a model for the very early stages of the evolution of our universe that fits in very well with (1) the laws of physics as we know them now; and (2) observations made by astronomers about the movements of stars and galaxies. Moreover predictions of associated phemomena based on this model and the laws of physics as we understand them have indeed been subsequently verified by observation. The model is not fully complete and there are indeed elements in our understanding of it and the laws governing physical reality about which most scientists regard as not yet fully understood - opinions vary and competing models and concepts are discussed. Evidently Serven Hawking had a dispute (if that is the word ) about the possibility of photon escape form one. There are many such issues out there, but in broad terms this model is currently our best understanding of the early phases of the evolution of our universe, and strikingly there are observable objects in the heavens that appear to behave in a similar way.

Nothing in this theory explains where the energy released in the black hole from which our universe appears to have evolved came from. The black holes we observe in the heavens do appear to have followed the collapse of huge neutron stars, but that is not itself an explanation of how the universe began -- if indeed there was a beginning at all. You can take your pick; an infinite regression of cause and effect in which universes dissappear into black holes and reemerge in big bangs; a spontaneous, but unexplained beginning; or possibly an infinite nmanifold of coexisting quantum multiverses. None of these constitutes an"explanation" in the usual sense of the word, and together they strongly suggest the limits of our scientific understanding of the world. Scientific advances do indeed continue, but there are likely limits on what can ultimately be known in this area through science based on observations, theories that explaing them and verification of these throries through confirming observation.

Human nature is such that we are often inclined to claim that our, perhaps hard won, knowledge of something, constitutes understanding of everything. The examples of such hubris are legion in the annals of both science and literature. That doesn't diminish the value of either science or literature, but it should remind us of our fallability and our limits. One should remain skeptical.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Human nature is such that we are often inclined to claim that our, perhaps hard won, knowledge of something, constitutes understanding of everything. The examples of such hubris are legion in the annals of both science and literature. That doesn't diminish the value of either science or literature, but it should remind us of our fallability and our limits. One should remain skeptical.

That bore repeating. I might also add in the annals of religion, which is what motivates Herald. However, Herald is consistently dishonest about that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Well most religions (or at least serious, thinking religious people) describe their beliefs as acts of Faith, emphasizing the conscious choice of belief in something meaningful but not provable in the ordinary sense of the word.

The annals of science involve numerous cases of hubris not involving such qualifications.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

As long as I'm not breaking any rulse,

What is "rulse" in your understanding (if any) of the world: misrepresentation & misinterpretation to infinity of the genuine rules, or what?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Chaos is a word that does indeed imply randomness as you say.

     Really, think again. In science and mathematics chaos means 1. Randomness, a lack of intelligible pattern or combination (for further details search in Wiki: Chaos); 2. Chaos theory - a branch of mathematics and physics that deals with the behaviour of certain non-linear dynamic systems; 3. Polynomial chaos - an expansion in probability theory, invented by Norbert Wiener.
     As it is obviously not the case of expanded probability, it is either the lack of intelligible patterns or non-linearity of dynamic systems.
     O.K. suppose it is the case of non-linearity. What is the physical interpretation of increasing non-linearity of the Universe with the time to infinity ... and how much linear has been the Universe onto the time of the Big Bang ... and does Infinite Gravity, Infinite Temperature, and out of Nowhere sound to you like 'linear model'?

georgeob1 wrote:

But even random variables exhibit some order.

... like for example the function of probability distribution - what is the function of probability distribution of the Singularity, for example, in the present day Universe?

georgeob1 wrote:

Not every random occurrence is chaotic

Before talking about random and non-random occurrence, a not entirely bad idea is to prove that the Big Bang can occur at all.

georgeob1 wrote:

The "Big Bang Theory" describes a model for the very early stages of the evolution of our universe

     What Evolution of Universe - you have less than one Plank time (5.39106 x10exp-44 sec) to create and to assemble everything - launching of the Time, the 'occurrence' of the Singularity, supply of the Energy, and the appearance of the Infinite Temperature (without a heat carrier ... that is no comment).
     That 10exp-44 sec seems much more like total collapse (of all sciences at the Big Bang) than Evolution ... of whatever.
     Where and when have you proved in a lab that a 0D space can evolve into 3D space ... within one Plank time?

georgeob1 wrote:

... that fits in very well with (1) the laws of physics as we know them now;

What about the law of conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics, and the law of Boyle-Mariotte at time zero, for example?

georgeob1 wrote:

... and (2) observations made by astronomers about the movements of stars and galaxies.

1. You don't know what you are observing - your observations are quadruple integral in 3D space & Time; 2. The red shift in the light spectrum is not an evidence of expanding Universe ... with acceleration ... only, for there are other possible interpretations of that observation as well; 3. The CMB is not 'another evidence' for it is absolutely correlated to the EM spectrum and to the light respectively. Where have you proved that the CBM is not reflected and diffused light from the edges (if any) of the Universe.

georgeob1 wrote:

Moreover predictions of associated phemomena based on this model and the laws of physics as we understand them have indeed been subsequently verified by observation.

All the predictions (so far there are any of the kind) are within the Quantum Mechanics ... and the Quantum Mechanics and the Big Bang 'theory' are parallel universes.

georgeob1 wrote:

The model is not fully complete

Or sooner it cannot be launched at all, for it is missing the plausible explanations at time zero.

georgeob1 wrote:

... and there are indeed elements in our understanding of it and the laws governing physical reality about which most scientists regard as not yet fully understood

... and that will hardly be ever understood in the way the evidences are viewed and misinterpreted - we have a 'theory' of reinforced concrete, and "if the data do not match the theory - so much worse to the data" (G.W.F.Hegel)

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

You need to accept Herald's fundamental dishonesty. Since he has been at this site (years now), he has never admitted to a faith-based set of beliefs. But, as his focus has almost always been evolution, and he routinely dismisses a theory of evolutionary development, and relies rather on vague appeals to an ILF (intelligent life form), it can hardly be anything else. Which is why i consider him fundamentally dishonest. My little dog is an intelligent life form, but, to my knowledge, she has never claimed to be the creator of space and time. I don't know how familiar you are with the anti-evolution crowd, but attacking "the big bang" (the coinage of a Belgian priest) is very popular with them. Pointing out that evolutionary theory doesn't specify cosmic origins is usually just ignored by that crowd. I think there must be an ID playbook somewhere which suggests that as a diversionary tactic. The same can be said of their hysterical insistence on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Herald absolutely refuses to answer questions about his actual beliefs, whether or not he believes in a special creation--instead he relies of vocabulary far beyond his limited command of English, and mathematical claims far beyond his even more limited command of that subject. Most people don't waste their time in his silly threads any longer, so he has come out from under his rock.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Since he has been at this site (years now), he has never admitted to a faith-based set of beliefs

... which are what?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Your ILF bullshit, your goofy cosmogony (or rather, a lack of any coherent cosmogony), your objections to abiogenesis. Basically, you ID concepts, put some make-up on the old whores, and then trot them out as though they were original to you, and have no religious provenance. You're dishonest.

1 Reply

@Herald,

The rules of the forum, douchenozzle.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your ILF bullshit

I knew that it was the aliens ... that you also have personal problems with. What about them? They are valid risk analysis scenario of the military, hence their existence is not to be excluded. Besides that in the scenario of the military the aliens are planning to steal the tree in front of your house. In your place I would have kept an eye on the tree ... instead of questioning the scenario. You should read the classicists - nothing could be further than the classics.

1 Reply

@Herald,

But do you have genuine evidence that
a) they exist
b) that they teleport instructions for the earth
c) that the give a rat's ass about us in the first place...

You know...evidence...that "the" aliens are actually anything like what you claim them to be...anything... Laughing

0 Replies

Upon seeing how this erudite thread can be found alive after presumed dead for several years, I am forced to examine that dark spot in the back of my refrigerator.

Should I not return, please dial 911.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Thanks. You're probably right. He appears to know some of the vocabulary, but also to be rearkably ignorant of the science behind the words.

I think that the confusion you cited over the limits of evoutionary theory occurs about equally among adherants of literal biblical interpretations as it does among self-professed "educated" science types. What I see is merely different variants of intolerance, each based on imagined orthodoxies, by people who don't know their (often obvious) limits. Intolerance is a very human trait and, in my experience it occurs often among the fearful and insecure. Disagreement is not really a threat, but many people see it that way.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know