The Big Bang? More Like The Big Who Gives A #.

a reply to: akushla99

Are you saying - that there is a 'minute possibility' that something came from nothing? A99

Your entire line of questioning here is attempting to put words into TzarChasm's mouth.

He is saying that all evidence points to a Big Bang. He is not saying anything about what came before.

There is no evidence, one way or another, at any level of probability what-so-ever, about what came before the Big Bang. People can philosophize about it, but it is rather pointless to attach probabilities to it one way or another.

'In Theory', the Big Bang is the beginning of Space-Time (as we know it). If time did not exist before the Big Bang, then it makes absolutely no sense to even ask the question of 'what came before the Big Bang'. If time does not exist, there is no 'before'.

a reply to: deadeyedick

So where is your pic of god? Pics or it didn't happen right?

a reply to: Klassified

Science is a method of gathering facts. The more facts you have about something, the more clear the picture becomes. I'm not saying it is absolute truth, I'm saying that the picture we have is pretty good. But to suggest that science doesn't prove things is silly. Do you think that the earth rotating around the sun is just a likely probability? Of course not, it's stone cold fact set in stone. It could change one day, sure, but that doesn't mean that fact is wrong or "not truth". It sounds more like that website is using semantic arguments. "OMG we don't prove things! We just determine that they are 99.99999% probable." Yeah okay.

a reply to: Barcs

It sounds more like that website is using semantic arguments. "OMG we don't prove things! We just determine that they are 99.99999% probable." Yeah okay.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I had my own questions about it when I first found it, but everyone I've sent it to, who works in a science related occupation or a university, agrees with it, and says it is correct. Not being as smart as you, I took their word for it.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Barcs

It sounds more like that website is using semantic arguments. "OMG we don't prove things! We just determine that they are 99.99999% probable." Yeah okay.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I had my own questions about it when I first found it, but everyone I've sent it to, who works in a science related occupation or a university, agrees with it, and says it is correct. Not being as smart as you, I took their word for it.

You're talking about that website link? Yeah it is semantically true, but there are facts and truths about the universe that we have indeed verified. You're not going to see a study come out tomorrow saying the earth is flat or that the earth actually doesn't revolve around the sun. Certain things like that have indeed been proven by science and held as truth, but there are also tons of hypotheses out there that haven't been confirmed or debunked yet. The scientific method essentially means proposing an idea based on previous data, and rigorously testing it to see if that idea holds weight or it does not. Predictions are made, and if the predictions are confirmed, it becomes more likely to be true. I don't believe in terms like "absolute truth". In all likelihood, that is something that nobody will ever have.

www.sciencemadesimple.com...

Science does indeed prove and disprove things although I see what you're saying about hypotheses. This is why theories need to be falsifiable. Yes, hypotheses are rejected and not rejected, I get this, but once you get to a theory, it is based on hard evidence and confirmed experimental results. Experiments can prove things as well as disprove them. When you do dozens upon dozens of experiments and the predictions are confirmed each time, it moves on from hypothesis to theory or joins the theory in progress.

At its core science is still based on evidence and still does indeed prove things.

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: akushla99
...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99

How does big bang assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is? The size of the universe / cosmos has nothing to do with the big bang. What matters is that all known matter in this universe that has been analyzed originally was bunched together and then expanded. It has nothing to do with the idea of something appearing from nothing. That is a religious viewpoint. The singularity could be eternal, it could have came from somewhere else, it could be related to other dimensions of existence. We don't know, but we do know that it originally expanded. That's what the theory centers around. It doesn't say anything about nothingness existing prior.

Cheers for the heads-up on the theory (my post wasn't a criticism of yours)...

All data then, points to it always existing (eternal)...either way...in reference to size, scope, range...

A99

the point being, of course, that we dont know.

therefore it is irrational to say anything for certain other than something happened. and thats exactly as specific as we can get right now without speculating.

Agreed.

...but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that given what 'we' do know - 'we' can specifically say without speculation that all available data points to it always existing...

A99

there is a difference between minute possibility and overwhelming probability.

Are you saying - that there is a 'minute possibility' that something came from nothing?

A99

i am saying that no one knows what existed before this universe. or if there is an "outside" or what exists there. best to leave it to the experts.

'Experts' aside...nice one

...therefore, since 'no one knows what existed before this universe. or if there is an "outside" or what exists there.'...best leave it to the ones who don't know...what they don't know...to tell us what they don't know...sounds legit...

A99

your word games and attempts to sound clever are tedious and counter productive.

ciao.

a reply to: Klassified

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I had my own questions about it when I first found it, but everyone I've sent it to, who works in a science related occupation or a university, agrees with it, and says it is correct. Not being as smart as you, I took their word for it.

The problem is that you don't understand the scientific principle behind the '99.99999% rule' or what ever the number is in any particular field.

Lets try a simple thought experiment...

Suppose we observe that plants seem to thrive in light and we want to find out if they require the entire spectrum or only part of it. So we do an experiment and try growing plants under different color lights (thousands of school kids do this every year for their science project) and we find that the plants under red do better that plants under blue and plants under green don't grow well at all (green leaves should have given us that clue, but anyway...). We then say, OK, what about different plants. So we try lots of different plants and find out its always the same.

So we've 'proved' that plants like red light better than blue and way better than green... or have we?

It depends on what we mean when we meant when we said 'plants do better under this color than that color'. Do we mean that the seeds struck better? Do we mean the stems and foliage was stronger and fuller?

It also depends on whether we tried the experiment with differing intensities of light each kind of light. Maybe plants don't like a strong blue, but a softer blue would be great; or maybe exposure times might change the results. Lots of different variables we haven't necessarily tested for.

In fact, it turns out that blue light is, in general, better for starting seeds and red light is, in general, better for encouraging foliage and root growth.

Science says that it can never 'prove something 100%' is that it cannot possibly know every condition that might affect the outcome. We can say with utmost certainty that the sun is going to rise in the east in the morning. But do know that there is no phenomenon in the universe that cause the earths rotation to reverse over night (without tossing everyone off the surface when it happens)? No we cannot, for the simple fact that we cannot PROVE a negative. The likelihood is infinitesimal, but it exists. That is where the "proof less than 100%" comes from: the remote possibility that we missed something. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean beyond all doubt, just reasonable doubt - and the threshold is very high in science; your quote of 99.99999% is really quite a high bar to achieve.

Lets suppose that it happens; lets suppose that some being at alpha-Centaurus sends a dark matter asteroid as a friendly communication. How were they to know that it would create a wormhole that would turn the planet upside down with respect to the ecliptic and now we are all freaked out that the sun is rising in the west. So, do we have to throw out Newton? NO. We just have to say that under 'normal' operating conditions the sun always rises in the east (except that from now on it rises in the west, darn those alpha-Centaurians). The rest of the theory of gravity remains exactly the same. We just have to acknowledge that there are things that can change even the result of where the sun rises.

a reply to: Barcs
a reply to: rnaa

Well done gentlemen. Thank you.

I guess there is a nonsensical big bang but one that eludes logic . a reply to: Eunuchorn

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Well we know that the universe is expanding with our observations. Now rewind this expanding mechanic and there you have the theory.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
I guess there is a nonsensical big bang but one that eludes logic .

a reply to: Eunuchorn

yep. that is the conclusion that this entire thread has been leading to. the big bang is a logic-eluding nonsensical theory. everything posted here has done nothing but support that premise. beautiful work keeping up there.

I had watched the vid I posted earlier today and thought I would share . a reply to: TzarChasm

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
I had watched the vid I posted earlier today and thought I would share . a reply to: TzarChasm

as an example of what?

Well the BIG BANG created you as well as everything in this universe and started out the size of a particle, so saying who gives a #### is like saying I dont care where I am from, because I dont want to care.

I assumed that the thread was about the Big Bang .The guy in the vid gave a talk on the subject .anyone interested in listening to it can if they choose . a reply to: TzarChasm

a reply to: the2ofusr1

In his talk, Spike Psarris makes a very common mistake; common and understandable, but fatal to his argument. He assumes/implies/asserts that scientists make predictions and if a prediction fails, they give up and forget about figuring out where they went wrong. Science doesn't stand still - the answer to one question, whether positive or negative, always leads to many more questions.

Specific example: somewhere near the beginning, he explains that scientists once thought that Titan was covered with methane or ethane seas, but when the Cassini space probe took pictures, they discovered that it wasn't. That is not, in fact, correct.

Until 1944, no one had any idea what Titan might be like, then Kuiper found methane using spectroscopy. That was pretty much all that was known about it until Pioneer I and II in the early 80's. Data from Pioneer led scientists to propose two hypotheses: 1) it was covered by a methane sea, or 2) methane 'lakes' existed along with 'dry' land. Huygens showed the 'lakes' hypothesis to be correct.

Contrary to Psarris assertion, the confirmation of the 'lake' hypothesis did not throw up an unsolvable problem for cosmologists model of the formation of the planets, or for the calculation of the age of the solar system or, indeed for the universe, or anything of the kind.

source

The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are thought to have formed through co-accretion, a similar process to that believed to have formed the planets in the Solar System. As the young gas giants formed, they were surrounded by discs of material that gradually coalesced into moons. However, whereas Jupiter possesses four large satellites in highly regular, planet-like orbits, Titan overwhelmingly dominates Saturn's system and possesses a high orbital eccentricity not immediately explained by co-accretion alone. A proposed model for the formation of Titan is that Saturn's system began with a group of moons similar to Jupiter's Galilean satellites, but that they were disrupted by a series of giant impacts, which would go on to form Titan. Saturn's mid-sized moons, such as Iapetus and Rhea, were formed from the debris of these collisions. Such a violent beginning would also explain Titan's orbital eccentricity.[35]

In 2014, analysis of Titan's atmospheric nitrogen suggested that it has possibly been sourced from material similar to that found in the Oort cloud and not from sources present during co-accretion of materials around Saturn.

Yes there are 'wiggle words' there: 'thought to have', 'proposed model', 'suggested'. Clearly we can't know for certain unless we watched it happen. But we can mathematically demonstrate whether the ideas are reasonable, and we can continue to look for evidence that it didn't happen as 'proposed'. We cannot 'prove' this is THE way it happened, we can only prove that one proposal or another proposal could 'NOT' have happened.

Psarris' assertion that science is stumped and that one rejected hypothesis brings down the entire house of cards of the 'standard cosmological model' is pure poppycock and destroys any credibility he may wish to maintain with a critical, thinking viewer. Of course, he is speaking to an audience who wants to believe what he is saying and is unlikely to understand the actual chain of events with regard to Titan or the scientific process in general. Those folks will continue to post his seriously flawed stuff on internet blogsites like ATS in order to troll for like minded, uncritical, unthinking readers.

Yes there are 'wiggle words' there: 'thought to have', 'proposed model', 'suggested'. Clearly we can't know for certain unless we watched it happen. But we can mathematically demonstrate whether the ideas are reasonable, and we can continue to look for evidence that it didn't happen as 'proposed'. We cannot 'prove' this is THE way it happened, we can only prove that one proposal or another proposal could 'NOT' have happened.

a reply to: rnaa I was thinking about this a little earlier before coming online and concluded that the scientific explanation of how and why we came to be is incomplete . The guesses they make about the beginnings are just that and they carry that over into the theory of evolution and make more guesses there . Instead of me believing someone else s guesses I will just believe my own guesses based on what I am confident about ...peace

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Leave science to the scientists.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1 a reply to: rnaa I was thinking about this a little earlier before coming online and concluded that the scientific explanation of how and why we came to be is incomplete .

You should have just stopped talking there. Up until this point you were 100% correct.

The guesses they make about the beginnings are just that and they carry that over into the theory of evolution and make more guesses there . Instead of me believing someone else s guesses I will just believe my own guesses based on what I am confident about ...peace

Nothing from the Big Bang theory carries over into the theory of evolution. They are two separate and distinct theories that stand on their own individual evidences. Yes, there MAY be some overlap at points, but those overlaps aren't necessary to prove the theories themselves.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
I assumed that the thread was about the Big Bang .The guy in the vid gave a talk on the subject .anyone interested in listening to it can if they choose . a reply to: TzarChasm

it is helpful, however, to contribute reliable and intelligent material.

hint hint.