Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Myth of the Big Bang


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
291 replies to this topic

#166    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,342 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:19 AM

View PostHuttonEtAl, on 14 April 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

I think the problem with this is that it would require us to create new words. There are only so many words...I think the Rap community is really the only area where new words are being created for the English language. Either way, it is not hard to understand the modern terms in science. I mean this is the age of the internet right?
So you accept the right of science, not just to create new meanings for words, but to "impose" those meanings on all others, with the hegemonic  assistance of  the internet? :devil:
And  even given "the right", the consequences are negative and serious in terms of preventing communication and separating/estranging those within a discipline from those outside it.

I have lived long enough to actually observe this evolution of word usage, not just in  the sciences but  in many academic disciplines. I was well educated, including 4 years of university study, and I  found when i came on the internet, that many people today had completely different, even "alien" definitions and understandings of words, from those I was educated in.  Heaven help someone who is not aware of those changes, and thinks it  just, "is so" and always was so.

And no, while one can use the internet to look up modern jargon or terminologies that does not, in itself, make them correct or acceptable. It is like american spelling. The internet imposes that on all english speakers, by default, yet if  I, or one of my students, uses it in academic work, we are quite rightly corrected.
That is a classic, and well documented, example of the hegemonic effect of the internet.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#167    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,238 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:28 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 14 April 2012 - 01:52 AM, said:

A comment on the debate about the use of "scientific" words. First, science cant just usurp a commonly held definition of a word like theory, and expect everyone to understand  their specific usage of it, and or agree with that specific usage.

  Second,  word usage changes, even in science. In general terms and how theory was used when i learned science; physics and chemistry (along with mathematics and statistics to help in understanding the basis of science) many moons ago; was an idea or concept which was based upon established knowledge but extended to that which was yet unknown. The theory was then explored and discussed, debated, tested, etc., but it already had a strong scientific credibility and common acceptance. It was generally applied to something very strongly suspected, but not totally proven (as yet)  
On the other hand a hypothesis is/was a proposition, usually starting with that; which puts forward a concept or idea for testing. There does not need to be any 'common knolwedge" basis for a hypothesis. It might be proven true or false, and its main purpose is to refine knowledge through selective and specific testing of the hypothesis; and allow further hypotheses to be developed for futher testing and refining, based on the results discovered.

It is fair  (although a bit dumb) :devil: for sciences to use discipline- specific language within its disciplines. But if science expects lay people to understand it, then it needs to make very clear how it has adopted /adapted common language .Otherwise, as is the case today, science creates an unneccesary and dangerous gulf between itself and the lay person and also makes clear and effective commuication more difficult than it needs to be.

There is no need for this, and i suspect it is in part an esoteric form of language actually designed to give science a cachet and to deliberately increase the prestige of science, just as religious languages were used to create an exclusive, esoteric, cadre of insiders.
It may also reflect the natural evolution and specialisation of language which occurs within specialst and isolated groups of people.

The modern usage of theory in science stems from Popper in 1934.....Are you telling us you went to school and learned about science in pre-1934 MW? I knew you were old and all....

View PostMr Walker, on 14 April 2012 - 01:52 AM, said:

Given the modern definions of theory, it seems logical that "the theory of evolution" should be "moved forward" to something more solid. It is not really capapable of being disproved, and if there is not enough yet known to call it a law, then it is more than a theory. Calling it a theory, in lay understandings (and in all the scientific definitions I have so far googled) means that it is not proven, and is thus capable of being disproven.

That  leaves creationists an honest opportunity to challenge it. Yet atheists and some scientists (and myself) say it cannot be challenged. It really is established fact. If so, it should not be called a theory because that just confuses people :devil: .   If not, then others are entitled to challenge it as a disprovable theory.


Theories in science do not get proven, nor do they get promoted to laws. They remain, always, a theory.


#168    CommunitarianKevin

CommunitarianKevin

    Fact Corrector

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,279 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Apple Valley, MN. Wrestling Capital of the U.S.

  • Now we know that heedless self-interests is bad economics.-FDR

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:29 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 14 April 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

So you accept the right of science, not just to create new meanings for words, but to "impose" those meanings on all others, with the hegemonic  assistance of  the internet? :devil:
And  even given "the right", the consequences are negative and serious in terms of preventing communication and separating/estranging those within a discipline from those outside it.

I have lived long enough to actually observe this evolution of word usage, not just in  the sciences but  in many academic disciplines. I was well educated, including 4 years of university study, and I  found when i came on the internet, that many people today had completely different, even "alien" definitions and understandings of words, from those I was educated in.  Heaven help someone who is not aware of those changes, and thinks it  just, "is so" and always was so.

And no, while one can use the internet to look up modern jargon or terminologies that does not, in itself, make them correct or acceptable. It is like american spelling. The internet imposes that on all english speakers, by default, yet if  I, or one of my students, uses it in academic work, we are quite rightly corrected.
That is a classic, and well documented, example of the hegemonic effect of the internet.

Listen, I am not supporting the internet as a prime source of information but it is all a lot of people have. The internet can accurately find the definition of "fitness" in biology or "theory" in science. To not understand these terms is a total lack of effort.

Quote

So you accept the right of science, not just to create new meanings for words, but to "impose" those meanings on all others, with the hegemonic assistance of the internet?

Let me answer you question with one of your points...

Quote

I have lived long enough to actually observe this evolution of word usage, not just in the sciences but in many academic disciplines.


My screen names may change. My real name is Kevin. You can call me that in the threads...
My "about me" page...
http://www.unexplain...showentry=24860
http://athans-athansblog.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/KevinAthans

#169    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,999 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:35 AM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 13 April 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

We've been through this before.

The retreat to the "materialists vs us" argument is one taken by those who are annoyed that the findings of empirical science don't agree with the way they want to world to be.

I am not a "materialist" - and there was no such thing as "materialist science" until it was invented by those I just described - people who can't process the fact that there is simply no evidence for the sort of spiritualist reality they were hoping for.
I see.. No way around the goggles then. Materialism is reality not philosophyt, everything is the way a narrow few say it is despite evidence to the contrary, and the fact that experimentation prooves our universe is based on information processes instead of stuff dimply means the information intirpreatatiin is wrong because narrow minds must see stuff. Alright you win. I'll join your faith.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#170    Mr Walker

Mr Walker

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,342 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Australia

  • Sometimes the Phantom leaves the jungle, and walks the streets of the city like an ordinary man.

Posted 14 April 2012 - 03:03 AM

View PostCopasetic, on 14 April 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:

The modern usage of theory in science stems from Popper in 1934.....Are you telling us you went to school and learned about science in pre-1934 MW? I knew you were old and all....




Theories in science do not get proven, nor do they get promoted to laws. They remain, always, a theory.
You see that is not  what apparently  actually happens,  ANd the definition of theory varies even in scientific definitions.
In common english once something is proven it is no longer a theory. The two terms are mutually exclusive. It is also disengenous to assert that nothing can be proven to the point where it no longer is theoretical.

Is  the shape of the earth only viewed by science as theoretical? And if the answer is yes, that only proves my point. LOL Many things which were once theories, are now established facts. Many things currently theoretical will be proven to be true and no longer theoretical.

For example I can appreciate that certian elements of evolution remain theoretical. But evolution itself, as a process, is no longer a theory but an established fact. Calling it a theory is both disengenous and misleading.  I appreciate scientists might do this. That is my point It leads to a failure to be able to communivcate.
Take the following for example

Quote

Law

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm
Given what is known about evolution, why are, at least, elements of it not  considered laws.


I went to high school in the mid 60s, and to university in the early 70s. At that time "modern" usage of those terms did not exist  in my education system. Either in pre university sciences and mathematics, or in the disciplines I studied at university including;  english language, speech development, politics, geography, history, psychology, childrens literature,  a variety of education specialities, or statistics.

But by then it is possible that in  Australian universities those usages were beginning to develop within the sciences. They had not yet produced a generation of teachers who employed them in high schools.

Quote

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Are you saying that,in general terms, the theory of evolution can be disproven?(or is capable of being disproven)
Other scientific definitions indicate that a theory remains a theory even when it is absolutely proven true.
  Well it once was a theory, historically, but it cannot be once proven true. Not without completely redefining human understanding of theory and theoretical knowledge.

Edited by Mr Walker, 14 April 2012 - 03:24 AM.

You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world..

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

#171    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:36 AM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 13 April 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

You actually both want me to do your research for you?

No, its called communication. And you are in forum. People ask questions here and people answered them.Speculating ,debating. Personally I dont like "here is a link " answer. But you didnt tried to do that either. Thing is you cant tell me anything I dont know already, obviously.
Save me from your and Beckys mom laziness story.
Ofcourse you dont need to answer my previous question.

Evidence of big bang. :tu:

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#172    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:38 AM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 14 April 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

The laws of physics are the way they are because if they weren't we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

That makes no tangible sense, it's tantamount to saying "it just is"! It's not a tangible response us humans take well to.

Quote

If water when frozen sank rather than floated, the earth would be a icy wasteland. Do we then come to the conclusion that ice floats in order to allow humans to one day populate the earth?

No and that's irrelevant! My question was where did the laws of physics ie the laws the govern our universe existence come from? It's similar to asking why the universe exists at all? To say it just is, is not a tangible answer!

Quote

These laws don't have to "come from" anywhere. They are ingrained in the way the universe is, and if they weren't, we wouldn't exist to talk about. There may have been an infinite amount of universes before ours where the laws were slightly different - and they may have ended up empty of life, stars, everything.

If the laws don't have to come from somewhere and are ingrained in the universe, then how so? When the universe began, did it decide it's parameters and boundaries? Did you know there is no evolutionary equivalent in physics. Laws of physics are labels we have given to naturally observed phenomena ie gravity etc. The universe could have easily not existed the fact it is, is against all odds.

Quote

The universe isn't fine tuned for us. We're fine tuned for the universe.

What does that even mean? If we dint exist the universe would, but if the universe in it's initial beginnings was fractionally and I mean minute fractions it would have collapsed etc and not existed never mind being conjusive for life. The universe whether you like it or not, the math the empirical data etc show it could have very easily not existed, and to do so in its current state is tantamount to being miraculous and at optimal tuning for life to exist and everything else.


#173    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:44 AM

View PostHuttonEtAl, on 14 April 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

Actually I would argue that the contemporary philosophical arguments for god are the same arguments they have been using for hundreds of years. The best example is is the intelligent design argument.

Example please! The god of the gaps argument is dead and so are the counter arguments. There are much stronger arguments in philosophy combined with science. There are many facets to intelligent design, I don't even go there I always start with a cause you cant define it as god or anything else until you apply a strong form of conceptual analysis, the same process we use to create numbers!

Edited by Lion6969, 14 April 2012 - 04:46 AM.


#174    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,238 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2012 - 05:10 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 14 April 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

For example I can appreciate that certian elements of evolution remain theoretical. But evolution itself, as a process, is no longer a theory but an established fact. Calling it a theory is both disengenous and misleading.  I appreciate scientists might do this. That is my point It leads to a failure to be able to communivcate.
Take the following for example

No, no, no, MW. You are confusing colloquial usage again. When we say evolution the theory, we don't mean its 'theoretical' (well mostly, though you could build phylogenetic trees which are theoretical--which normally here 'theoretical' refers to a model), what we mean is that it is an explanation for a "fact" or phenomena.

View PostMr Walker, on 14 April 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm
Given what is known about evolution, why are, at least, elements of it not  considered laws.

Laws in science are different than theories. They serve different purposes. A law in science, like your link says, is a generalized statement about the behavior of a phenomena or system--It simply iterates how that system behaves under certain circumstances. It does not explain the how and why of a system or phenomena.

Like your link points out, theories do explain the how and why. That is why a theory in science, is much, much more powerful than a law.

To continue your link's example. Newton's laws explain how say, a ball behaves when you drop it from a building--But why does the ball fall? To explain that you need theory in science which is done through relativity.

Let's do another example to make sure were on the same page--One with biology. Are you familiar with Mendel and his laws? His second law for instance says that separate genes for distinct traits assort independently of one another during replication. It worked well in predicting behavior of a system (Mendel's pea plants) and determining the probabilities of offspring generations--But what did it actually explain? Nothing. It is a robust and statistically true observation, it doesn't actually let you understand the biology you intend to understand (after all that is why we do science--To understand). So how do you understand independent assortment? Through theory: specifically in this case through cell theory, which explains how and why the mitotic gets aligned the way it does and why distinct genes separate independently form one another.

Follow now?

View PostMr Walker, on 14 April 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

I went to high school in the mid 60s, and to university in the early 70s. At that time "modern" usage of those terms did not exist  in my education system. Either in pre university sciences and mathematics, or in the disciplines I studied at university including;  english language, speech development, politics, geography, history, psychology, childrens literature,  a variety of education specialities, or statistics.

But by then it is possible that in  Australian universities those usages were beginning to develop within the sciences. They had not yet produced a generation of teachers who employed them in high schools.

Possibly, I don't know your specific circumstance nor the the prestige or standards of learning your institutions operated at. I can tell you though, these ideas we are discussion--For namesake, let us say Popperian science, was well established in the scientific world.


View PostMr Walker, on 14 April 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

Are you saying that,in general terms, the theory of evolution can be disproven?(or is capable of being disproven)

First we need to separate something. There is the biological fact or phenomena of evolution, if you will. This is a fact of life on earth--It can't be disproven, its the way our world works.

The modern synthesis is the combined theories of how and why that fact of evolution happens. Yes, the theories which explain biological evolution (the fact) are falsifiable. They could be disproven. All scientific theories must be falsifiable.

View PostMr Walker, on 14 April 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

Other scientific definitions indicate that a theory remains a theory even when it is absolutely proven true.
  Well it once was a theory, historically, but it cannot be once proven true. Not without completely redefining human understanding of theory and theoretical knowledge.

Theories in science aren't proven true, ever. They can only be proven false (again must be falsifiable). Why do we accept them then? Because while you cannot prove a theory true, you can support it with evidence--Either indirect evidence or direct evidence. Further, a scientific theory like a law, makes generalized statements about the behavior of a system or phenomena--What you would call a prediction, these predictions mean a theory is powerful in its explanatory ability.


#175    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,238 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2012 - 05:13 AM

View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 04:38 AM, said:

That makes no tangible sense, it's tantamount to saying "it just is"! It's not a tangible response us humans take well to.



No and that's irrelevant! My question was where did the laws of physics ie the laws the govern our universe existence come from? It's similar to asking why the universe exists at all? To say it just is, is not a tangible answer!



If the laws don't have to come from somewhere and are ingrained in the universe, then how so? When the universe began, did it decide it's parameters and boundaries? Did you know there is no evolutionary equivalent in physics. Laws of physics are labels we have given to naturally observed phenomena ie gravity etc. The universe could have easily not existed the fact it is, is against all odds.



What does that even mean? If we dint exist the universe would, but if the universe in it's initial beginnings was fractionally and I mean minute fractions it would have collapsed etc and not existed never mind being conjusive for life. The universe whether you like it or not, the math the empirical data etc show it could have very easily not existed, and to do so in its current state is tantamount to being miraculous and at optimal tuning for life to exist and everything else.


Why is the sky blue, where do babies come from, where did the moon come from, why does light striking a plate emit a current, how was the sun formed, how was the grand canyon made, what are comets made of, etc etc etc


See what I did there? If not here is a hint in spoilers for you;

Spoiler



#176    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 14 April 2012 - 06:00 AM

View PostCopasetic, on 14 April 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

Why is the sky blue, where do babies come from, where did the moon come from, why does light striking a plate emit a current, how was the sun formed, how was the grand canyon made, what are comets made of, etc etc etc


See what I did there? If not here is a hint in spoilers for you;

Spoiler

That's another intangible response. All the things you mentioned are answerable so I ask you why does the universe exist all? According to physics it did not have to exist and it surely could have very easily not existed.

So your line answering was very immature and unrelated, I on one hand asked why there existence at all, you replied with where do babies, blue skies, comets, etc etc come from? See how ridiculous your line of thinking is, I did not ask where did the universe come from? I asked why does it exist all? Now apply that to the many things you mentioned then apply to the whole existence. At least it will be a start for you ;)

It much more profound a question for a limited materialistic empiricist! As shown by your reply!

A famous eastern philosopher once said, in the east and west they ask does god exist? I ask them, does man exist?

Yeah I know a little beyond your limited scope of thinking.....ie devoid of critical thinking!

;)

Edited by Lion6969, 14 April 2012 - 06:04 AM.


#177    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,238 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2012 - 06:20 AM

View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

That's another intangible response. All the things you mentioned are answerable so I ask you why does the universe exist all? According to physics it did not have to exist and it surely could have very easily not existed.

So your line answering was very immature and unrelated, I on one hand asked why there existence at all, you replied with where do babies, blue skies, comets, etc etc come from? See how ridiculous your line of thinking is, I did not ask where did the universe come from? I asked why does it exist all? Now apply that to the many things you mentioned then apply to the whole existence. At least it will be a start for you ;)

It much more profound a question for a limited materialistic empiricist! As shown by your reply!

A famous eastern philosopher once said, in the east and west they ask does god exist? I ask them, does man exist?

Yeah I know a little beyond your limited scope of thinking.....ie devoid of critical thinking!

;)


Clearly, you didn't get it.....


#178    Lion6969

Lion6969

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,229 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2010

Posted 14 April 2012 - 06:25 AM

View PostCopasetic, on 14 April 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

Clearly, you didn't get it.....

Clearly I did, I just did not entertain your shallow response as you would have wished or thought I would, psychic abilities failing you ;)


#179    CommunitarianKevin

CommunitarianKevin

    Fact Corrector

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,279 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Apple Valley, MN. Wrestling Capital of the U.S.

  • Now we know that heedless self-interests is bad economics.-FDR

Posted 14 April 2012 - 06:43 AM

View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

Example please! The god of the gaps argument is dead and so are the counter arguments. There are much stronger arguments in philosophy combined with science. There are many facets to intelligent design, I don't even go there I always start with a cause you cant define it as god or anything else until you apply a strong form of conceptual analysis, the same process we use to create numbers!

Here is the Intelligent Design argument...

The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as:

1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.

2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, everything) necessitates a designer.

This is an argument by William Paley that dates to the 1700s. Intelligent Design is not new. This is what every argument in ID is based on.

My screen names may change. My real name is Kevin. You can call me that in the threads...
My "about me" page...
http://www.unexplain...showentry=24860
http://athans-athansblog.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/KevinAthans

#180    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,840 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 14 April 2012 - 09:31 AM

View PostLion6969, on 14 April 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

Clearly I did, I just did not entertain your shallow response as you would have wished or thought I would, psychic abilities failing you ;)
Please keep your comments civil and constructive, responding like this isn't going to achieve anything.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users