Author Topic: Help to understand the Big Bang  (Read 8736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8197
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #100 on: February 13, 2019, 05:32:46 am »
Can't tell if poe's law is at work here..

"Good" Science makes predictions, and allows them to be tested so hypotheses can be refuted, validated, or modified.  The "bigger" the problems, the harder it becomes to do that.  Many of the big theories in this thread haven't just come out of thin air - they are based on many different observations from many different areas.

Again when people argue about these things it quickly becomes an argument about what constitutes "evidence", since confirmation bias makes us much more likely to consider something as evidence if it confirms our assumptions. We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly, to the other end where people bash religion and claim science is pure and flawless, with the vast majority laying somewhere on that continuum.  There is quite a bit of anti-religion with atheists, who conveniently ignore that many of the major scientific advances were done in the name of (a) God.  To that I have to point out the reason we have the scientific method - and by abiding by it you're accepting this - is to overcome our own limitations in our senses and biases.  If you believe yourself to be a rational creature who is immune to believing things that aren't true - I guarantee you believe something that isn't true.  Time and again those who bash religion ultimately have their own faith, and often that is in scientific theories. Granted science adjusts its views which is something religion struggles with (although it does, and can, change quite radically).

Trying to convince someone an assumption they hold isn't true is remarkably difficult.  Framing it as "educating" someone is only going to make matters worse as it implies they are ignorant, wrong, and are somehow less intelligent.  At the same time, if say a creationist asks a biologist about evolution - what else can they do?  If scientists are brutally honest, and point out all the holes in their theory (which is good practice for formal papers) it leaves more than enough doubt for "alternative" ideas to breed.  This is how science can become contaminated (just look at CAM in medicine), so you can understand why scientists gets frustrated - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

We dont' make our minds up based on accumulation of evidence sadly, and changing ones views isn't something that can happen quickly or easily.

This thread - about the big bang - really goes to the heart of creation, where, instead of it being seen as a pretty solid scientific theory, like much of chemistry for example, it actually does have room for a God/creator/deity, and so it will always be topic that creates a lot of strong opinions.  Evidence relies on a long chain of observations and theories, the further back we go, the longer the chain and the less confident we can be about something.  This literally goes back to the dawn of time (or so I've been told!), and so far all I have seen is people stating their views - something I'm only adding too.
Educating someone or concluding a person is wrong or ignorant does not imply that person is less intelligent. Ignorance generally has to do with external factors or a lack thereof like a lack of knowledge, facts or framework to work with, while intelligence is mostly an internal factor which isn't really possible to change.

Leaving room for a creator does not prove or imply there is one. Russell's teapot shows us why it's not very reasonable to consider it true or possible because it cannot be proven wrong.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #101 on: February 13, 2019, 06:05:46 am »
We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly
You got that backwards. In religion you take the core tenets on faith alone, and believe in things that are impossible to verify objectively (and often things that are directly contradicted by evidence). This is usually encouraged, as long as it is in the interest of the elite of the church. Religions typically also persecute and punish those who do not share the same beliefs.

to the other end where people bash religion and claim science is pure and flawless
There might be someone who thinks so but I have never heard anyone claim that. Dawkings, for example, famously did a lot of bashing of religion, but I don't believe he considered science to be pure and flawless even for a second.

To that I have to point out the reason we have the scientific method - and by abiding by it you're accepting this - is to overcome our own limitations in our senses and biases.  If you believe yourself to be a rational creature who is immune to believing things that aren't true - I guarantee you believe something that isn't true.
Indeed.

Time and again those who bash religion ultimately have their own faith, and often that is in scientific theories.
I disagree. People believe in scientific theories because they agree with experiments, i.e. they are objectively verifiable. You could perhaps say people believe that the scientific method is the best way we know of for finding knowledge about the world. (Although I also doubt that most religious people would deny that the scientific method is very effective, in fact many religious persons embrace science). However, that in itself is not nearly enough to constitute a religion.

Granted science adjusts its views which is something religion struggles with (although it does, and can, change quite radically).
I think that is a bit backwards as well; as you say religions often change quite radically. Religions don't have a problem with change since they don't have to match some objective reality, only whatever is convenient for the religious leaders.

Scientific theories on the other hand are usually only improved by small incremental steps. Even radical new theories like general relativity and quantum mechanics still agree with classical mechanics "in the classical limit". I.e. classical mechanics is still valid but only as an approximation. And it is generally accepted that neither relativity nor quantum mechanics are complete theories either. New scientific theories must still agree with all the previously gathered experimental evidence.

Trying to convince someone an assumption they hold isn't true is remarkably difficult.
Not if the person is scientifically minded. Since in that case experimental evidence is what is important, and the best thing you can do is to continuously adjust your beliefs so that they agree with all the data. Consequently it can't be considered a failure to be wrong, only to not be able to change ones mind in the face of evidence. That isn't easy to do necessarily since we are only human and sometimes our psychology works against us.

Conversely, for a religious person it might be disastrous to admit one was wrong regarding something important to the church. It could lead to excommunication, and even severe punishments like torture and death.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 06:08:56 am by apis »
 
The following users thanked this post: timelessbeing

Online timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #102 on: February 13, 2019, 06:06:59 am »
so far all I have seen is people stating their views
Not just our views, but views presented by people who study the subjects all their lives, and supported by decades of research. Not all views are created equal.

For some reason Mecha (Mecca?) is chastising us for discussing prevailing theories. Theories which, by the way, have FAR more observable data behind them. He ignores the evidence (yes, evidence) in favor of magical beings. You do not throw out an entire body of knowledge because some of it is incomplete. Not knowing is one thing, but ignoring evidence is literally the definition of ignorance, and it deserves ridicule. Inability to learn is the opposite of intelligence, and is unfortunate, but in this case, refusal to learn is absolutely inexcusable.

Just to bring context back to this topic, the OP wanted help understanding specifically scientific theories about the big bang. He wasn't asking for our views.
 

Online timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #103 on: February 13, 2019, 06:22:44 am »
Trying to convince someone an assumption they hold isn't true is remarkably difficult.
Not if the person is scientifically minded.

Well said apis. Thank you for unpacking a lot of the misconceptions about science mentioned there.

If a thesis or paper is proven unequivocally wrong, scientists don't cross their arms, stomp out of the room and go sulk in the corner. That would be embarrassing. Nobody defends something that goes against data. They either fix the theory if it's salvageable, or they throw it out and come up with a new one. Either way, proving something right or wrong is considered a positive thing because everybody learns something.
 

Offline Bicurico

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 946
  • Country: pt
    • VMA's Satellite Blog
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #104 on: February 13, 2019, 09:57:11 am »
I am a simple guy and I seek simple answers.

My conclusion, after reading about big bang theories and thinking about it is this:

1) Consider time as a spatial dimension ("4th dimension"). Add the twist that it is one way only: you cannot move back and forth as you can in X, Y and Z.
2) This is easy to compreehend (at least for me): in order to arrange a meeting with someone, you need to settle X, Y, Z and t. These are 4 dimensions.
3) Now imagine the "big bang" as an explosion at a point (a point does not have any size). Imagine that the whole universe is confined in that point (no size = no dimension).
4) At the big bang, this point (singularity) begins to expand. This creates dimensions (think: volume). And time.
5) BEFORE the big bang, there was not only no space: there was no time either - remember that we are considering time as a dimension like X, Y and Z.

The problem our mind has is that we consider "nothing" as empty black space, like what we mostly find in the universe.

But that SPACE did not exist before the big bang. Nor did time. Without space and time, there truly is nothing. Not even black empty space.

I am at a point, where I consider that the whole universe is like a small imperfection in the nothingness. Imagine I own no money, but suddenly I simultaneously (due to a bank error) have a debth of -1.000.000 and an asset of +1.000.000. In sum I still have nothing. Imagine this is a computer error that lasts 1 cycle at 4Ghz. I never had anything, I still don't have anything, but for a minute duration there was a debth and an asset - the sum still was nothing, but if I lived the dream for that short duration, I could either be a very poor man or a very rich one.

This is how I see the universe. We just happen to live in the rich one and experience time on a different scale. This brief existence of the singularity is NOTHING against INFINITY.

Might be silly, but I am happy with it.

Well, not really happy. I wish I had faith in some religion with a great after-life, which I have not.

Regards,
Vitor

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9324
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #105 on: February 13, 2019, 10:44:26 am »
Once more, your own confusion and lack of understanding is no grounds to dismiss science.
and then, you cant distinguish between what is science talk and what is bollock talk. higg bosson is a fact, universe radiation background is a fact, because they can be sensed, they are the proven hard facts. theory is theory, havent been proved, so not in reality, theory is just a nice simulation applies only when it seems to agree with what already sensed. but sooner or later when better sensors are developed, current theories may be trashed, theory is kind of "soft fact", but we cannot say them as real fact. its just a projection, extrapolation from known hard facts, conclusion by induction or deduction, not what existed, remember? both hard and this soft facts is a known and accepted science methodology, we can distinguish between what is real (sensed/observed) and what is not yet (theory/hypothesis). but then when you concluded to the ultimatum such statement as "universe made astronomers" without giving proper theory or formulation, that is bollock talk, its not science. as i said i have no objection to science but few scientists like to include bollock talk in their science talk, thats what.

please learn how to see a person behind the mask, just because he wear science mask doesnt really necessary means he is a real scientist. remember the quotation.... "why is that so? because they says so! because the book says so" sound familiar? so in science... "why is that so? because the scientists says so! they wrote it so" sounds similar? ;) dont hide behind the "this is complicated yet from nothing" wall. show us, literate us the formulation how you derived to that conclusion, not just empty aka bollock talk. oh cant, why cant? because normal people cant comprehend it, its too complicated, you just have to believe what a scientists said... sounds familiar? ;)

1) Consider time as a spatial dimension ("4th dimension"). Add the twist that it is one way only: you cannot move back and forth as you can in X, Y and Z.
for me, the time scientist have defined is derivation from space axis. its just a concept somehow connected to matter property existed in space, when that property changed due to other forces in space, the time we know is also changed. but i dont says its wrong anyway, its just how we practically live in this space. we move forward just because our brain or molecular structure vibrate accordingly relative to this time definition so we can perceive it through our metacognition ability. just imagine if today all atom stop vibrating, i guess we also stop functioning and our sensation to time effect also no more. but for other matters outside this dimension, in higher dimension not affected by this atomic vibrational effect, they still can perceive something esp on us that we cant on to them. much like when you watch a video you are the operator you see something happened and moving in that video, when you hit stop button, the movie is stopped until you hit the resume button again, but the operator still can move around and perceive his time while the movie is stopped. so the analogy when we apply on us is... we are the movie, something else on higher dimension have much more control on us. yes it sounds highly philosophical but dont be too certain like the other scientists who made bollock statement as if this is the only dimension where we live in that existed. scientists proved there are higher dimension out there isnt it? or do they got it correctly? he's right when he said, we are far from understanding "conciousness" alone, yet he claimed like he knows something far extraordinary. time is just our definition applicable to our frame of observable space, worse is that definition is affected by laws that happened in space, so not much special about it, but its the only thing we know, we understand and can perceive.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 11:05:12 am by Mechatrommer »
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Online timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #106 on: February 13, 2019, 11:13:37 am »
theory is theory, havent been proved, so not in reality, theory is just a nice simulation

Plate tectonics is a theory. Do you think it is "bollock talk"?

please learn how to see a person behind the mask ... you just have to believe what a scientists said... sounds familiar? ;)
Nice try, but the person is totally unimportant. Science deals with what people say, not who said it.
I have never seen a scientific argument saying "X is true/not true because Y said it."
 
The following users thanked this post: Mr. Scram

Online timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #107 on: February 13, 2019, 11:25:29 am »
something else on higher dimension have much more control on us. yes it sounds highly philosophical
it sounds highly theological

scientists who made bollock statement as if this is the only dimension where we live ... scientists proved there are higher dimension out there isnt it?
So which one is it? How many dimensions are there according to scientists? Make up your mind Mecca.

hint: no we didn't prove higher dimensions.
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9324
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #108 on: February 13, 2019, 11:33:01 am »
dont even talk about cosmological selection duh. they all just nice drama and preaches to keep people occupied out of the real thing
and by "real thing" I'm guessing you mean religious dogma?
yes if you want to call it so, and if you got the term right before goggle existed (religion = way of safe life) hence yes religious dogma such as how to improve life? how to solve social problem like... abortion? thief, murder poverty etc. but you wouldnt call such things as religion are you? you will call it as something else, some scientific words right? ;)
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9324
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #109 on: February 13, 2019, 11:40:45 am »
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Online timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #110 on: February 13, 2019, 12:16:17 pm »
yes if you want to call it so, and if you got the term right before goggle existed (religion = way of safe life) hence yes religious dogma such as how to improve life? how to solve social problem like... abortion? thief, murder poverty etc. but you wouldnt call such things as religion are you? you will call it as something else, some scientific words right? ;)
No I don't need to explain religion. I think we all understand what it is, and the obedience and suspension of logic that it asks of people. I just wanted everybody to be clear about your agenda.

By the way one problem it doesn't seem to solve is raping of nuns and children.
 

Online timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #111 on: February 13, 2019, 12:23:58 pm »
hint: no we didn't prove higher dimensions.
funnily, you are the one who should enlighten us...
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0011/0011042.pdf
http://mesosyn.com/mental7.html
;)

So you found a paper talking about some theories, and website with a hodge podge of information.

Yes, higher dimensions are theoretically possible. But nobody has observed one or proven that they actually exist.
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9324
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #112 on: February 13, 2019, 02:33:08 pm »
hint: no we didn't prove higher dimensions.
funnily, you are the one who should enlighten us...
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0011/0011042.pdf
http://mesosyn.com/mental7.html
;)

So you found a paper talking about some theories, and website with a hodge podge of information.
Yes, higher dimensions are theoretically possible. But nobody has observed one or proven that they actually exist.
the fundamental theories to explain everything contemporary, higgs boson, big bang, dark matter etc everything you fascinated about... are basing on just that (string theory)... on something that "nobody has observed one or proven that they actually exist" ;) without dependency to higher dimension, just forget about understanding/modelling gravitation, let alone black hole and big bang.

the irony is when i provide a link complete with math derivation, its a hodge podge of information. but when i asked about how amino acid is sythensized from raw material... "go check the internet you can find that "theory" easily", well those seem to add up very well!? ::) no thanks  i'm sure CCR5-Δ32 provided earlier that probably applies to only a virus positive "adaptation" has some sensical application on more complex intelligent being in skeletal level. wiki wiki ::)

yes if you want to call it so, and if you got the term right before goggle existed (religion = way of safe life) hence yes religious dogma such as how to improve life? how to solve social problem like... abortion? thief, murder poverty etc. but you wouldnt call such things as religion are you? you will call it as something else, some scientific words right? ;)
I think we all understand what it is, and the obedience and suspension of logic that it asks of people. I just wanted everybody to be clear about your agenda.
an example in military you need to obey without question, to ensure your own and team (society) safety ;) you play genius you break everything... ;) another example is a kid should follow his dad without question if he dont want to get hit by a motorcar, dont fool around with bad people, and dont want to be illiterate believing some influental figures blindly, because they says so. the love of a father is not something can be proven mathematically ;)

By the way one problem it doesn't seem to solve is raping of nuns and children.
the bigger problem is not capable of distinguishing between what the religion really asked for and what human desire and tendency to do when religion is taken in the wrong way (a normal and capable man should marry and not being suppressed you know? ;) ) its just a misinterpretation of religion that created problem, to both extremist religious fanatics and illiterate atheists.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 02:40:18 pm by Mechatrommer »
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline sainbablo

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Country: pk
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #113 on: February 13, 2019, 04:03:09 pm »
Quote


btw, to bablo.. you are wasting your time asking such question in applied science forum. better go ask the man or simply just let them do their homework peacefully, and err, influence others by their so called expertise or respectable position. as sagan said, extraordinary statement needs extraordinary proof, but sadly some of them violate that rule.



 
Ok  here is an applied  science question though not in physics but relevant to junctional zones of Biochemistry, Biology and Biophysics
By what  dint of logic  it has   been proved that unicellular organism like an amoeba did emerge  after Big Bang? It  has perplexed  me a lot perhaps some one may help
 

Offline sainbablo

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Country: pk
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #114 on: February 13, 2019, 04:19:01 pm »


dont talk evolution if you cant point out a single example of positive mutation
I'll give you two
1. sickle cells
2. CCR5-Δ32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#CCR5-%CE%9432

[/quote]


By sickle cells you are  referring to morphology of RBCs in sickle cell anaemia?
 

Offline dnwheeler

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Country: us
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #115 on: February 13, 2019, 05:35:47 pm »
FWIW, Lawrence's Krauss has given his presentation "A Universe From Nothing" several times. One of the videos circulating was during his presentation at an atheist convention. That's why this version has more anti-religion statements - to cater to his audience at the event. Having said that, Dr. Krauss is an outspoken atheist and has stated that our current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe is incompatible with theistic religion beliefs.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #116 on: February 13, 2019, 06:39:27 pm »
our current scientific understanding of the origins of the universe is incompatible with theistic religion beliefs.
That will never be the case since religion can always adapt and change to fit with new scientific findings. Some choose to wilfully ignore or deny science and they are obviously never going to be compatible, but not all religions do that.
 

Offline Buriedcode

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1203
  • Country: gb
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #117 on: February 13, 2019, 07:50:57 pm »
We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly
You got that backwards. In religion you take the core tenets on faith alone, and believe in things that are impossible to verify objectively (and often things that are directly contradicted by evidence). This is usually encouraged, as long as it is in the interest of the elite of the church. Religions typically also persecute and punish those who do not share the same beliefs.

My point was, those who follow science aren't particularly different than those who are religious.  We all require some form of "faith" otherwise we would have to work from the most basic principles every time - we have "faith" that those before us were rigorous in their work, we have faith that our instruments don't racially change in accuracy.  Some theories in science are (currently) impossible to verify objectively, and yet are clung to much like a religion.  Inflation, or string theory for example.  I'm trying to hammer the point that science isn't entirely objective (although it should be, and strives to be) and (organised) religion isn't entirely non-empirical.  Again I'm not trying to claim they are one and the same.


to the other end where people bash religion and claim science is pure and flawless
There might be someone who thinks so but I have never heard anyone claim that. Dawkings, for example, famously did a lot of bashing of religion, but I don't believe he considered science to be pure and flawless even for a second.

This is true but it was an example of the "extreme" end of that spectrum.  With the majority "inbetween" the two extremes.  Again perhaps I didn't make my point clear.  You seem to think I was claiming this is common.


Granted science adjusts its views which is something religion struggles with (although it does, and can, change quite radically).
I think that is a bit backwards as well; as you say religions often change quite radically. Religions don't have a problem with change since they don't have to match some objective reality, only whatever is convenient for the religious leaders.

How is that backwards? So you're suggesting religion changes more than science as it has no empirical evidence to anchor it? I can agree with that.

Scientific theories on the other hand are usually only improved by small incremental steps. Even radical new theories like general relativity and quantum mechanics still agree with classical mechanics "in the classical limit". I.e. classical mechanics is still valid but only as an approximation. And it is generally accepted that neither relativity nor quantum mechanics are complete theories either. New scientific theories must still agree with all the previously gathered experimental evidence.

Again this comes down to what people consider to be evidence, and how strong that evidence is - it is never a black and white thing and framing everything as "fact" or "fiction" is naive at best.  New scientific theories must improve in terms of predicting powers, or satisfy more accurate observations, but not necessarily "agree with all previous experimental evidence".  It depends on how that previous evidence is interpreted.


Trying to convince someone an assumption they hold isn't true is remarkably difficult.
Not if the person is scientifically minded. Since in that case experimental evidence is what is important, and the best thing you can do is to continuously adjust your beliefs so that they agree with all the data. Consequently it can't be considered a failure to be wrong, only to not be able to change ones mind in the face of evidence. That isn't easy to do necessarily since we are only human and sometimes our psychology works against us.

You're making out like being "scientifically minded" is somehow separate and distinct from "people who are religious".  So, was Newton "scientifically minded" or religious?  It isn't an all-or-nothing situation.  Plenty of "scientifically minded" people are stubborn, and plenty of non-scientific minded people (how would you even measure that anyway?) can change their minds.  Agreed that our psychology works against us, but that goes for everyone, this idea that just because someone studies science that they can adjust their views more easily is again, naive.  Assumptions and instinct drive our thinking and how we perceive evidence much more than you think, studying science can allow one to attempt to counter that, but not eliminate it.  In fact it is those who seem to be more logical that are drawn towards science, and those who are more.. superstitious to religion rather than science driving how we think.  I suppose thats your definition of "scientifically minded", but again its hardly black and white.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 07:52:42 pm by Buriedcode »
 

Online timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #118 on: February 13, 2019, 08:16:46 pm »
the fundamental theories to explain everything contemporary, higgs boson, big bang, dark matter etc everything you fascinated about... are basing on just that (string theory)... on something that "nobody has observed one or proven that they actually exist" ;) without dependency to higher dimension, just forget about understanding/modelling gravitation, let alone black hole and big bang.

We never claimed any of the origin of the universe stuff was PROVEN.
However, we have observed evidence for black holes, higgs boson, and the big bang. That is why we have theories about them. And do you really need more evidence for gravity? All you have is verbal diarrhea, and it shows that you don't understand anything that you are trying to argue.

i asked about how amino acid is sythensized from raw material... "go check the internet you can find that "theory" easily", well those seem to add up very well!?
NOBODY commented the beginnings of life. Nobody. It's not even the subject of this topic. You are just making shit up now.
You asked for examples of genetic mutations, and I gave you some. And now you're picking fights with microbiologists too! Holy shit you must have a lot of education and degrees under your belt.

an example in military you need to obey without question ... a kid should follow his dad without question...
I'm not a kid anymore. I grew up to think for myself. The soldier has to do his job at work same as everyone else, and then he goes home and does whatever he wants. These are not the same as putting your fingers in your ears to real evidence, and pledging your life to an invisible bearded man in the sky. A practice that was put into place to control some people, and put others into power (which they abused of course).

its just a misinterpretation of religion that created problem
No you are confused. Religion IS the problem. Everybody interprets it their own way and thinks their faith is the truth. In order for Religion to work you have to indoctrinate as many people as possible. Religion is fundamentally corrupt. People to do good because they think they will be rewarded at the end of their life, not because they want to or should. It is for sheep.
 

Online timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #119 on: February 13, 2019, 08:22:31 pm »
By sickle cells you are  referring to morphology of RBCs in sickle cell anaemia?
Yes

Ok  here is an applied  science question though not in physics but relevant to junctional zones of Biochemistry, Biology and Biophysics

First of all, you shouldn't hijack people's topics. That's a no-no. Second, does it make any sense to ask biology questions in an electronics forum?
 

Online timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #120 on: February 13, 2019, 08:48:37 pm »
The misinformation here is just mind boggling.

My point was, those who follow science aren't particularly different than those who are religious.  We all require some form of "faith" otherwise we would have to work from the most basic principles every time - we have "faith" that those before us were rigorous in their work, we have faith that our instruments don't racially change in accuracy.  Some theories in science are (currently) impossible to verify objectively, and yet are clung to much like a religion.  Inflation, or string theory for example.  I'm trying to hammer the point that science isn't entirely objective (although it should be, and strives to be) and (organised) religion isn't entirely non-empirical.  Again I'm not trying to claim they are one and the same.

No you're absolutely dead wrong. There is no faith in Science. Nothing is "clung" to. Science is fundamentally objective. Bad science is discredited all the time.

Again this comes down to what people consider to be evidence
No. Opinion doesn't come into it.

it is never a black and white thing and framing everything as "fact" or "fiction" is naive at best.
It is OFTEN black and white. If my water sample boils at 100deg there is nothing to "interpret".

  New scientific theories must improve ... but not necessarily "agree with all previous experimental evidence".
Yes they do.


You're making out like being "scientifically minded" is somehow separate and distinct from "people who are religious".
It must require some serious internal conflict.

Assumptions and instinct drive our thinking and how we perceive evidence much more than you think, studying science can allow one to attempt to counter that, but not eliminate it.
No. Evidence is the opposite of instinct and perception.
It is exactly for this reason -- eliminating human perception -- that we can build incredible complex and precise instruments like particle accelerators.
 

Offline doobedoobedo

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 206
  • Country: gb
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #121 on: February 13, 2019, 09:26:51 pm »
the fundamental theories to explain everything contemporary, higgs boson, big bang, dark matter etc everything you fascinated about... are basing on just that (string theory)... on something that "nobody has observed one or proven that they actually exist" ;) without dependency to higher dimension, just forget about understanding/modelling gravitation, let alone black hole and big bang.

None of these have anything to do with string theory.

1. Higgs Boson - part of the standard model - observed (to 5 sigma *) in 2012 at the LHC in CERN.
2. Big Bang - currently the best explanation we have based on observations of the redshift of distant galaxies and the CMB.
3. Dark matter - named as 'Dark' because we can't see it. It's existence is inferred by it's gravitational effects. No-one knows what it is yet, but we can see what it does.

No deity required. You don't believe they are correct? Prove them wrong, you don't even need to come up with a better explanation, and then we'll all be wiser.

Quote from: physics.org
* 5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. If experiments show results to a 5 sigma confidence level, that means if the results were due to chance and the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then it would be expected to see the strength of conclusion in the result no more than once.
 

Offline Buriedcode

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1203
  • Country: gb
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #122 on: February 13, 2019, 10:21:06 pm »
timeless, I'm replying not because I'm taking the opposite position, just that either I am not stating my opinion very well, or you're misinterpreting it.

My point was, those who follow science aren't particularly different than those who are religious.  We all require some form of "faith" otherwise we would have to work from the most basic principles every time - we have "faith" that those before us were rigorous in their work, we have faith that our instruments don't racially change in accuracy.  Some theories in science are (currently) impossible to verify objectively, and yet are clung to much like a religion.  Inflation, or string theory for example.  I'm trying to hammer the point that science isn't entirely objective (although it should be, and strives to be) and (organised) religion isn't entirely non-empirical.  Again I'm not trying to claim they are one and the same.

No you're absolutely dead wrong. There is no faith in Science. Nothing is "clung" to. Science is fundamentally objective. Bad science is discredited all the time.

Ok, so, we can agree that those who study science, aren't that different from those who don't. Correct? Now, as to faith, this comes down to your definition of faith.  I am suggesting that one does have "faith" in science, in the theories, the mathematics, the logic, and all the work up until present that has successfully passed many tests.  I am not suggesting this is the same "faith" that religion has.  Yes bad science is discredited all the time, and rightly so.  But this does not mean all current theories are universally considered as fact.  The weight of evidence varies, and different people can interpret "evidence" in different ways and to varying degree's.  Science should be fundamentally objective - but humans are not, and never will be.  This is my point - you are stating the ideal, I am stating the reality.

I get the impression you think I am trying to devalue scientific inquiry in some way. Far from it.  Merely pointing out that reality is a lot messier than "this is evidence, it is all true, where-as this is all wrong".  And ignoring that is ignoring your own biases.


Again this comes down to what people consider to be evidence
No. Opinion doesn't come into it.

Ok, so, people do not have different opinions about say, the microwave background? There is only one universal view that experts in the field share exactly?  And the evidence for the various hominin species, that is all completely agreed upon?  And of course, inflation, no opinions there, just facts.  You see my point? Again, I am not suggesting its all wrong, just that evidence is interpreted differently by different people, and as it progresses becomes more accepted as meaning one thing.  Ignoring that fact does science a disservice.  I'm amazed how offended people get when the F-wrd is used in science, almost like one is attacking their beliefs?

it is never a black and white thing and framing everything as "fact" or "fiction" is naive at best.
It is OFTEN black and white. If my water sample boils at 100deg there is nothing to "interpret".

Yes, many things are pretty unambiguous (although the boiling point depends on the pressure, and the purity of the sample) but just because one area of science is pretty solid, does not mean all areas are.

  New scientific theories must improve ... but not necessarily "agree with all previous experimental evidence".
Yes they do.

Not really.  Plenty of theories have been superseded, and even bolstered by re-interpretation of the evidence.  So one could argue the previous "evidence" was based on one opinion, whilst that same data is now shown to mean something else from another point of view. The experimental results haven't changed, by the evidence has.

You're making out like being "scientifically minded" is somehow separate and distinct from "people who are religious".
It must require some serious internal conflict.

I do wonder how some physicists who believe in God reconcile that, the only one I know puts it as claiming that god created the big bang :)  But again you're assuming people consciously decide to be religious or rational

Assumptions and instinct drive our thinking and how we perceive evidence much more than you think, studying science can allow one to attempt to counter that, but not eliminate it.
No. Evidence is the opposite of instinct and perception.
It is exactly for this reason -- eliminating human perception -- that we can build incredible complex and precise instruments like particle accelerators.

Evidence is a body of facts, but that still requires interpretation.  Interpretation is based on experience and opinion. The scientific method tries to minimize, even eliminate, that bias, but I'm saying it can't be truly eliminated - there will always be bias. 

I was going to reply to mecha too, but.. I'll just type waaay too much.
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8197
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #123 on: February 13, 2019, 10:56:36 pm »
so far all I have seen is people stating their views
Not just our views, but views presented by people who study the subjects all their lives, and supported by decades of research. Not all views are created equal.

For some reason Mecha (Mecca?) is chastising us for discussing prevailing theories. Theories which, by the way, have FAR more observable data behind them. He ignores the evidence (yes, evidence) in favor of magical beings. You do not throw out an entire body of knowledge because some of it is incomplete. Not knowing is one thing, but ignoring evidence is literally the definition of ignorance, and it deserves ridicule. Inability to learn is the opposite of intelligence, and is unfortunate, but in this case, refusal to learn is absolutely inexcusable.

Just to bring context back to this topic, the OP wanted help understanding specifically scientific theories about the big bang. He wasn't asking for our views.
Also, you don't throw out an entire body of knowledge because part of it is wrong or because someone talking about it is wrong. One scientist being overly rosy or making ridiculous claims doesn't indicate a problem with science. Discourse and peer review weeding out the nonsense are actually key to producing sensible results.

It unfortunately does seem the thread is falling prey to people posting posts with endless quotes, which typically indicates the transition from a healthy discussion to an internet trench war uninteresting to anyone else.
 

Online timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #124 on: February 13, 2019, 11:14:00 pm »
Ok, so, we can agree that those who study science, aren't that different from those who don't. Correct?
I don't understand the question.

this comes down to your definition of faith.

No it is not MY definition of faith. It is the THE definition of faith.
Faith is complete unquestioning allegiance/belief/trust/loyalty in something. It is the opposite of the scientific method.

Science doesn't require anybody's personal loyalty. The Earth will still be round whether I trust science or not. Science says QUESTION EVERYTHING, take nothing for granted, don't be loyal to your ideas. Science is external to the person. Faith is all about the person. Science attempts to remove subjectivity. Faith is underpinned by it. Please stop with this utter nonsense. Stop now. You don't even have a basic understanding of science

But this does not mean all current theories are universally considered as fact.  The weight of evidence varies, and different people can interpret "evidence" in different ways and to varying degree's.  Science should be fundamentally objective - but humans are not, and never will be.  This is my point - you are stating the ideal, I am stating the reality.
I am struggling to see what you're actually arguing. Ok I guess a lesson is in order ...
theory: a generalization that is consistent with all available data and theories.
For all our intents and purposes, they are true. It explains things reliably. You can call if fact if you like.
If it doesn't reflect known reality, it is wrong and rewritten or thrown out until it does.

And the evidence for the various hominin species, that is all completely agreed upon?
I feel like a teacher here. Please go do some reading or take a course before you argue with people.
You are confusing evidence and theory/hypothesis.

Hominid fossils are not under dispute. They are definitely real. The hypotheses linking them are not completely agreed upon.

just because one area of science is pretty solid, does not mean all areas are.
What? You mean we don't know everything. That is quite a revelation sir.


  New scientific theories must improve ... but not necessarily "agree with all previous experimental evidence".
Yes they do.

Not really.  Plenty of theories have been superseded, and even bolstered by re-interpretation of the evidence.  So one could argue the previous "evidence" was based on one opinion, whilst that same data is now shown to mean something else from another point of view. The experimental results haven't changed, by the evidence has.

Yes really. It is literally in the definition. Yes theories can be disproved AFTER they have been created, not before. If evidence is re-interpreted, then it's new evidence. You make no sense at all.

you're assuming people consciously decide to be religious or rational
Yes I do make a conscious choice. And you make a good point, you'd have to be sleeping or unthinking to accept religion.  :)

Evidence is a body of facts, but that still requires interpretation.
Again, interpretation is not evidence. The moment you start interpreting, you are making a hypothesis.

Interpretation is based on experience and opinion.
Existing body of knowledge, yes. Opinion no.


The scientific method tries to minimize, even eliminate, that bias, but I'm saying it can't be truly eliminated - there will always be bias. 
Yes we can definitely eliminate existing bias (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.). That doesn't mean that science is a crystal ball. We can't foresee all future evidence that is found. That doesn't mean our understanding can't evolve as new evidence is found.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 11:56:54 pm by timelessbeing »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf