Thanks Red Badger.
· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 03/30/2023 7:24:41 AM PDT by Red Badger
“Just ask the nearest cosmologist what happened 1 minute or 1 second BEFORE the so called ‘Big Bang’. They have no answer.”
Well some might hypothesize that time came into creation after the “Big Bang”. But that is also absurd, since without time, there can be no change, and without change, everything must still be in that singularity.
But the real problem with this scenario is that in order to explain how the matter could be compressed to such a small space and still escape, they have to dispense with gravity and other physical laws. “The laws of physics were different in the first tiny interval of time after the Big Bag”, they will say. However, this violates the assumption of uniformitarianism that underlies all speculative, historical science. Once you dispense with that, you cannot even hypothesize as to how the Earth came into existence, much less how the universe did. And you can’t simply dispense with it when it’s not convenient for your theory. Once the laws of physics can vary with time, then you must prove that they did not change at any point in history that you want to speculate about, which is impossible.
“Have they discovered where the big bang happened?... “
One source says everything happened everywhere, all at once.......... would make a good movie..............
Good post.
Most “science” crashes and burns when you start to question the underlying assumptions.
They are just that—assumptions.
The “laws” of physics are human laws.
The universe is an outlaw.
Terence McKenna made the claim that once the first time machine was invented everything must happen all at once.
Red Badger’s 4th Law of Thermodynamics:
You cannot change the other 3 Laws.............
Well, that sure explains a lot.
Assumptions are fine as long as they are convenient and work. But science has a tendency to treat them as sacred cows, forgetting that they are unproven assumptions, and then to suddenly forget they exist when they become inconvenient.
And modern science seems to have a serious problem admitting that there are any limits to what might be knowable through science. Their method, logically, cannot determine the truth of everything, but it’s rare to find a scientist who will admit that boundary exists. So they keep trying to bend science towards questions to which is it unsuited to answer, with predictably ridiculous results.
“The idea of all the matter in the universe being compressed to a singularity that somehow did not collapse into a black hole from which no matter could escape was always completely unscientific. It’s merely a religious creation myth dressed up in scientific language.”
Luckily, that is not what is proposed by the Big Bang theory, so you can stop worrying about it.
Cosmic Ping.
There was a universe before the Big Hot Bang...( Sounds like a night out on the Gold Coast.)
“As you can clearly see, there can be no doubt that there truly are super-horizon fluctuations within the Universe, as the significance of this signal is overwhelming. The fact that we see super-horizon fluctuations, and that we see them not merely from reionization but as they are predicted to exist from inflation, is a slam dunk: the non-inflationary, singular Big Bang model does not match up with the Universe we observe. Instead, we learn that we can only extrapolate the Universe back to a certain cutoff point in the context of the hot Big Bang, and that prior to that, an inflationary state must have preceded the hot Big Bang.
We’d love to say more about the Universe than that, but unfortunately, those are the observable limits: fluctuations and imprints on larger scales leave no effect on the Universe that we can see. There are other tests of inflation that we can look for as well: a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of purely adiabatic fluctuations, a cutoff in the maximum temperature of the hot Big Bang, a slight departure from perfect flatness to the cosmological curvature and a primordial gravitational wave spectrum among them. However, the super-horizon fluctuation test is an easy one to perform and one that’s completely robust.
All on its own, it’s enough to tell us that the Universe didn’t start with the hot Big Bang, but rather that an inflationary state preceded it and set it up. Although it’s generally not talked about in such terms, this discovery, all by itself, is easily a Nobel-worthy achievement. “
Singularities are not allowed in quantum physics because of the Uncertainty Principal, so the universe could not have started that way. What’s amazing to me is that the largest structures we can see in the universe, i.e. cosmic filaments made of supergalactic clusters, are also the smallest things that occur in quantum physics, i.e. tiny vaccuum fluctuations. These are stretched to huge proportions by inflation and frozen in time instead of constantly appearing and disappearing.
The very last li e reads “This excerpt was reprinted with permission of Big Think, where it was originally published.”
Be thankful we got the excerpt, not the full article.
Question: why no discussion of socks?
What hogwash.
It turns out that the notion of a big bang being a true beginning to the universe, with nothing prior to it, sounds too much like a scenario in which an all-powerful God created the universe.
So, to solve that problem, they come up with a theory that includes a “soft open” prior to the Big Bang.
“Luckily, that is not what is proposed by the Big Bang theory...”
No? So you are saying that Big Bang theory does not propose that all the matter in the universe could be contained within a space smaller than the Schwartzchild radius of all the matter in the universe, and then later escape that radius?
The movie sucked, I bailed after about a half an hour.
One area where science is particularly bad is studying stuff that is smart enough and sneaky enough not to want to be studied.
That is a comment that may not make sense to most folks around here—and I am not going to try to explain it further—bumps up against too many modern prejudices.
However—in my opinion that is a fatal flaw of science that eventually will have been shown to be its undoing.
Man says to God, “We don’t need you, we can make Man from dirt, just like you!”
God says, “Ok, show me.”
The Man picks up some dirt, when God interrupts him, “No, go make your own dirt, first.”
The Creation and the Creator are not the same. Worshipping the Creation is what the Greenie Left does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.