Why are we here?

@Thomas,

Quote:

this energy should be E = M.c^2 ...
Quote:
Says who?

The theory of the big bang and its validation in terms of the energy conservation law and the mass energy equivalence law of physics. If the big bang stays above the laws of physics and math ... this is another issue.

Quote:

The speed of light has nothing to do with it.

Here you are right. The theory claims that the universe is expanding ... with acceleration (to infinity ?!) ... whatever it may mean.

Quote:

... and what evidence or theory (blue shift in the mass of particles)...

Particle size analysis as a function of time done by means of laser difraction analyser and nanoparticle analyser.

Quote:

There is a continuous energy source supplying the big bang
Quote:
Says who, based on what evidence

The big bang theory. It launches its activities from 0-D space (gravitational singularity) with fuzzy energy value and with every day and in any way the universe is increased (in size ... and mass) and somehow accelerated as it expands. To accelerate s.th. with continuously increasing mass you will need continuous energy supply ... at least.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Whether we will succeed to survive or not - this is still to be seen.

It's not just about us. Many other species are pretty smart too.

Quote:

If our planet is organised and arranged by some intelignece (no matter whether God or another ILF), everything on the Earth is part of a message

If you want to see the information that's around us as a message from some intelligence, that's fine, but it's a leap of faith.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

that's fine, but it's a leap of faith.

Not less than the blind faith in the big bang. Notwithstanding that all the laws of physics and math collapse at the time of launching the big bang a lot of physicists and mathematicians still beleive in it.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

The theory of the big bang and its validation in terms of the energy conservation law and the mass energy equivalence law of physics

No it doesn't. Please cite a reputable astrophysical publication that makes such a ridiculous claim.

Herald wrote:

Thomas wrote:
... and what evidence or theory (blue shift in the mass of particles)...

Particle size analysis as a function of time done by means of laser difraction analyser and nanoparticle analyser.

First of all, if you have to quote me as saying something I haven't said, please make me say something intelligent. I most certainly said nothing to the effect that the mass of particles exhibits a blue shift, since the mass of particles doesn't have a color in the first place. I would never make such a preposterous claim, and resent being quoted as having made it. You owe me an apology for putting words into my mouth.

Second, and perhaps inevitably, your answer to your nonsense question, which you falsely attribute to me, is nonsense too. It's random flim-flam with words from experimental physics in it. If you think you are paraphrasing a reputable astrophysical publication, cite it. If you don't, at least don't waste my time with your dishonest pretensions to scientific expertise.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Not less than the blind faith in the big bang.

They don't have blind faith in it, it's just a theory.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Please cite a reputable astrophysical publication that makes such a ridiculous claim.

Why do you think that the astrophysics holds all the copyrights reserved on creation, and intelligence, and life, and evolution ... and even on the CO2 problem?
RE: the blue shift
If you have any problems with the blue shift and the particles you may address your colleagues in physics.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

They don't have blind faith in it, it's just a theory.

And how is called a theory with failed verification and validation tests?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Please cite a reputable astrophysical publication that makes such a ridiculous claim.

Why do you think that the astrophysics holds all the copyrights reserved on creation, and intelligence, and life, and evolution

They don't, but astrophysicists are the people who came up with the Big-Bang theory. Before you criticize this theory for what it says, you need to verify that it actually says the things you criticize it for. The sources to verify it in are astrophysical publications.

As an aside to readers of this thread who haven't made up their minds yet: One excellent introduction to the Big-Bang theory, and to the evidence that has lead us to it, is Simon Singh: Big Bang: The Origin of our Universe. Written in layman-friendly English, it leads you through all the twists and turns of the scientific process from the ancient Greeks to late-20th-century cosmology. It will give you a clear understanding of how thoroughly researched our cosmological theories are, and how high a standard of evidence people face if they want to refute it. Could the Big-Bang theory be refuted if better evidence contradicted it? Certainly, and cosmologists throughout history have revised their theories many times. But it will take really good evidence. Making stuff up, the way Herald does, just won't cut it.

Herald wrote:

... and even on the CO2 problem?

You're making stuff up again. I never said that astrophysicists hold a copyright on the CO2 problem.

Herald wrote:

RE: the blue shift
If you have any problems with the blue shift and the particles you may address your colleagues in physics.

I'd love to! Please cite me your source so I will know whom to address and what to criticize.

1 Reply

@Herald,

It's called a theory. Sorry if it bugs you...

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Before you criticize this theory for what it says.

You dispute the applicability of verification and validation tests to this theory. Obviously no mortal can critisize the big-bang theory. It is the ultimmate truth and the last word on the things (not too much different from the position of the church).
BTW this thread is NOT about the big-bang. The theme is: 'on what ground?' 'for what reason?' or 'with what purpose?' we exist as ILF in the universe?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

It's called a theory.

It's called 'inconsistent theory' (containing contradictions).

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

You dispute the applicability of verification and validation tests to this theory. Obviously no mortal can critisize the big-bang theory.

Nonsense. Everybody can criticize the Big-Bang theory. But what you don't get to do is make stuff up, call it the Big-Bang theory, criticize the stuff you made up, and then conclude that the Big-Bang theory is inconsistent. And that's what you've been trying to get away with throughout this thread.

Herald wrote:

BTW this thread is NOT about the big-bang. The theme is: 'on what ground?' 'for what reason?' or 'with what purpose?' we exist as ILF in the universe?

My answer to these questions is as follows: I see no evidence that there ever has been any reason, ground, or purpose to our existence in this universe --- let alone a supernatural consciousness that could have any reasons, grounds, or purposes.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

It's called 'inconsistent theory' (containing contradictions).

What contradictions?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Didn't I ask you that Ollie and you only responded with a mis-reading of my posts?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Everybody can criticize the Big-Bang theory. But what you don't get to do is make stuff up, call it the Big-Bang theory, criticize the stuff you made up, and then conclude that the Big-Bang theory is inconsistent. And that's what you've been trying to get away with throughout this thread.

You may write in Google: big bang theory debunked
... and read the references there.
And also read this: http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Quote:

I see no evidence that there ever has been any reason, ground, or purpose to our existence in this universe

1. Does 'this universe' mean that there is another or other universes?
2. What evidences are you looking for? If you are watching through the telescope ('I see no ...') or tapping the universe with the radio telescope you will hardly find any reason, ground or purpose.
3. What is this 'ever' supposed to mean? If information in the universe is continuously lost (in the black holes for example), you cannot claim 'ever' for you are not sure what you are observing.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Why are we here?
To find out why we are here.

1 Reply

And now for a musical interlude (every thread needs a soundtrack) . . .

0 Replies

@spendius,

I answered the best I could, and expect the same from others.

1 Reply

@wopthedo,

Quote:

To find out why we are here.

No, no. To find out whether we can find out or not why are we in 'this universe'.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I answered the best I could, and expect the same from others.

And what is that 'best answer'. Is it the 'leap of faith' explanation or something else?
IMV we are here to see whether we can jump over the energy barrier ... and the CO2 trap, or we will fall right into the 'abyss of Venus'.

0 Replies

Why are we here?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know