No such thing as Nothing says Gabriele Veneziano

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by ImaFungi

semantics,,.,.,.and word games

that is saying,,, the universe did not expand outwardly,,,,,,
but that the parts of the universe that are now furthest away from each other in distance,, were once closer.,.,.,.
so it grew,,,,, but was always the same size,,,, because if it changed total size from smaller to larger,,,,, it would have had to have expanded into an existing area..... because if it changed total size from smaller to larger,,,, it would have had to have changed total size from smaller to larger,,

these physicists are idiots ,,,, instead of saying,,, we dont know completely what were talking about,,,,, they say,,,,, this is what we can think happened,,, accoding to our model of what we think happened, , your wrong,,, no no no that cant be possibly right because dont you know the universe didnt expand into existing space,, it says so write in our model,,,,,, dont you know that the universe is everything that has ever existed,,, it says so right in the deffiniton we made up.

Yay, Imafungi! Don't you sometimes feel like we shouldn't even have to explain this stuff? Why can't EVERYONE see the blatant wrongness of this expansion-slash-nonexpansion?

because they went to the schools,, read the books,, and have jobs,,,,

their still alive,,,, their theories must be correct,,,,, their minds must contain actual representations of reality,,,
if they didnt know all about reality,,, that would mean they are ignorant,,, and we know thats not true,,,, because they are smart.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Scientists form conclusions from the measured data. The data does not care for opinions, belief systems, wishes or expectations, the data is what it is. You are free to disagree with the data, but to disregard it is to disregard reality. Reality is quite indifferent to our opinions and beliefs, however.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Scientists form conclusions from the measured data. The data does not care for opinions, belief systems, wishes or expectations, the data is what it is. You are free to disagree with the data, but to disregard it is to disregard reality. Reality is quite indifferent to our opinions and beliefs, however.

that is why i am skeptical of a lot of sciences preachings on reality,,, especially when it goes against common sense,,, and especially when they are describing aspects of reality as if it were known true ( complete implications of data comprehended) when there is nothing to compare the data too,, there is never known the amount of data they are not aware of ( they never know the extent of their true ignorance,,, geocentrism,,,flat earthers, etc.) reality is always true,, and is composed an exact way,, the history of all reality is exactly as it is,,science is the attempt to objectively know every aspect of reality,,, what it is,, what it does,,, but science does not even comprehend the most fundamental aspects of what reality is,,, they are still completely blind to these truths and context.. it is like an atom in a human body gaining consciousness,, and then trying to figure out where it is,, what it is,,, how it is,, when it is,, why it is,,, what it is composed of,, what it is a part of,, then it figures out it makes up a cell,,, then it describes physics for how the cell travels,, then it discovers there are more cells,,, then it discovers the cells make up something larger,,,, now we know the true reality of what this cell is apart of,,, a human body,,, think of all the ignorance of this atom,,, not knowing about humans,, and all their complex interactions from make up, to social functions,, behaviors,, technology,, emotions,,,,,.

we do not exactly know all of it,, or understand all of it,,,, but scientists pretend they do,, I cant say a big general scientists do this or that,, because there are infinitely complex levels of what scientists do, discover, think, say, imagine,and view,,,, can a scientist tell me what energy is? or space? or why they think NOTHING existed,, and then the entire universe appeared,, expanding to take up exactly no space,, yet it is all encompassing,, massive,, complex,,,... im sorry but i cannot trust the fools who will try to explain to me how the entire universe came from nothing,,, and expanded into no space,,, yet takes up increasing amounts of space,, creating space ( what is space again?),,, however brilliant their minds are for intelligent monkeys,, i commend their engineering and math,, but i do not trust their capacity to know the truth about nature... there is no way yet for a man to do the amount of necessary mental work to understand it all,, to know it all,,, to make sense of it all,,, just as there is no way for that atom to,,,,

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Scientists form conclusions from the measured data. The data does not care for opinions, belief systems, wishes or expectations, the data is what it is. You are free to disagree with the data, but to disregard it is to disregard reality. Reality is quite indifferent to our opinions and beliefs, however.

also please dont pick apart the less valueble parts of my response to reply to,,, the side you are defending is the easy one... " your wrong,,, read the science books".......

when i said flat earthers and geocentrism,, i am referencing the scientific paradigms of the day and their constant changing,,, i know that is sciences way,,, i have a feeling that is something you would reply to.,..,,.


I challenge you to play a skeptic to every news of science you come across,, question every aspect of the information that is being presented,,, for once,,, a few articles,, maybe more,,,, about the fundamental comprehension of the variables being discussed.,.,. you will lose your mind at the amount of mans ignorance/ ignorance of ignorance......

so i know it is a hard positon to play the skeptic,,, its easier and safer to play on the team,, that brought you the cool toys,,,, dont ever effing think that i dont understand science,, the value of the human dedicating its life to understanding an aspect of science and using that understanding to implement technology and progress the ability and prosperity of the species,,,,, dont think because i question every single thing i read and see and am told by another human, that i dont know the value and magnificence of science,,,

i see you post on these boards all the time,,,, the way you pop into threads and drop your poetic zingers,,, reminds me of the confidence christians have when they tell someone they have a relationship with god,, they have jesus in their hearts,, and your going to hell.,..,.,.

i am fully prepared for you to try to make fun of me for a few minor things i stated and totally skip over the meat of my message,,,

Originally posted by dayve

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Take what I just wrote about binding and loosing compared to baptism...

You do know that the church now considers baptism as only an initiation into the Catholic religion, right?

Central to the overall parable is baptism into 6 states of being. Earth, Air, Water, Fire and Spirit.

That's five.

What church is that.,,,?

This one: From google, but I was told this by a priest years ago

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Scientists form conclusions from the measured data. The data does not care for opinions, belief systems, wishes or expectations, the data is what it is. You are free to disagree with the data, but to disregard it is to disregard reality. Reality is quite indifferent to our opinions and beliefs, however.

No, no,no, it's still scientists (very human scientists) translating that data to mean what they want it to. These math wizards first come up with an idea, and when tests refuse to validate their hypotheses, they manipulate the math to fit it.

This from: The Holographic Universe

Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

These scientists will not stop until their "elaborate ways" and "radical explanations" prove out their theories.

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

Really? We're a hologram? REALLY?

reply to post by ImaFungi


And I challenge you to learn and understand the science you are so quick to dismiss. It's easy to attack the efforts and endeavours of those who are actually contributing to humanity's understanding of the universe from the comfort of your own armchair, it's a different game entirely to train hard and educate yourself so you can make a positive contribution yourself. What is your contribution to humanity's understanding of the world? How have you enlightened us with practical knowledge and empirical evidence that will beneficial for many years to come?

Again, I state my original point: the data does not care one iota what you think, the data is what it is. Science does not draw conclusions contrary to the data just because some people don't like the data.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

And I challenge you to learn and understand the science you are so quick to dismiss. It's easy to attack the efforts and endeavours of those who are actually contributing to humanity's understanding of the universe from the comfort of your own armchair, it's a different game entirely to train hard and educate yourself so you can make a positive contribution yourself. What is your contribution to humanity's understanding of the world? How have you enlightened us with practical knowledge and empirical evidence that will beneficial for many years to come?

Again, I state my original point: the data does not care one iota what you think, the data is what it is. Science does not draw conclusions contrary to the data just because some people don't like the data.

edit on 7-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

im just worried about scientist failing to correctly and accurately interpret advanced meanings and significances which in truth and nature may be attributed to reality,..,i understand that is sciences goal,,, and science is the route at which the understanding and utilization of nature is unraveled and achieved,,,, but in conversation,, about ideas and concepts, and what mysteries reality may hold,,, when trying to fundamentally understand all there may be to know about reality,,, I hate when a science minded indivdual does not think about what another is trying to say,,, because they confuse the question to be at odds with their understanding of the details of the latest scientific model,,, every question they didnt see in their text book is absurd and crazy.,,. i keep saying this but they dont know what they dont know,, they dont know how familiar and cozy their view of reality is,, and how it is still very blurry,.,. i know it is the sharpest its been in history,,, but what if there is 999999999x more potential sharpening.,.,, and im on this planet talking to an entity what knows the smallest smidgen of a piece of tiny about "truth".... you can only ever give me "platos cave descriptions" of the reflection of your imaginations comprehension of external reality,..,., you know those,, very well,, i dont doubt that,,,

reply to post by ImaFungi


ImaFungi, I think what you're missing is that you think scientists only consider the model they believe. This isn't the case. You don't see all the other models they tried to fit to the data, which failed. These far exceed the number of models that succeeded, but you only see the latter so you don't appreciate that they already did try many other ideas. But since they failed to explain the data, they never got published, but they were considered.

Regarding the OP, I don't always agree with Maslo but I do in this case. I think this is an accurate assessment:

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

One side says the universe was always here and the other says it came from nothing.

And both can be accomodated by the big bang theory. Big bang theory as defined by current consensus states that the universe came from an extremely hot and dense state which expanded. Thats it, nothing more, nothing less. There is a singularity beyond this point, where our equations break down. So even tough there are various hypotheses, some stating that the universe existed eternally, some stating that the spacetime began in this singularity, some say that it began from nothing, some say it came from something, nothing is proven.

This is also how I see it. Starred. We made up things to explain what happened where our equations broke down, like the inflaton field, but no inflaton field has ever been experimentally demonstrated. So we may want to start with finding out if this inflaton field is even a real concept before we try to figure out what happened before that. The further back in time we go, the greater the uncertainty.

What happened before the big bang is unknown, and it might also be unknowable. We must learn to deal with the idea that we might never know the answer to some questions.

Our equations also break down inside a black hole, and there is no way we can think of to observe the inside, so we may never know what the inside of a black hole is really like. We must learn to deal with the fac that there are certain questions that may never be answered.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"What happened before the big bang is unknown, and it might also be unknowable. We must learn to deal with the idea that we might never know the answer to some questions.

Our equations also break down inside a black hole, and there is no way we can think of to observe the inside, so we may never know what the inside of a black hole is really like. We must learn to deal with the fac that there are certain questions that may never be answered"

ok i agree with you,,, like ive said,,, i dig science,.,.,.

what i dont dig is the fact that someone whose read a few books,, will tell me all of these things they know about black holes,, space expanding,, the beginning of the universe,, the fact that time and space did not exist before the universe,, and that the universe is not expanding into any space,,,,

they can tell me all about these things,,,,, but they cant tell me what space actually is,,, they cant tell me what energy is,,, they cant tell me what a black hole is,,, they cant tell me why they assume know space or time existed before the universe,,, they cant tell me why they assume a virtual particle magically appears from the depths of planck length nothingness which proves zero point energy and the potential for vacuum fluctuations to create the universe,, instead of interpreting the recording of that phenoman as a limited comprehension of our minds and technology,, have we known about the microwave background radiation,and red shift, for more then 100 years? but we know that the data tells us the galaxies billions of light years away are expanding at an accelerating rate,,, well they are not traveling further away from us faster,, the space between the galaxy and ours is expanding at a faster rate ( semantics),,,.,. has any physisct( / scientist) began to think about a theory of everything ( the relationship between quantum mechanics, classical physics cosmology, chemistry, and biology,?) or is that left for the "pseudo scientests" to imagine,,,, we already know everything is an accident,, so theres no decipherable meaning or purpose to these qualities, themes, and potentials of the universe,,, that would be adding something to the data,, that would be adding whats known as intelligence to the data..... and we all know the universe happened by itself by accident so there is no meaning or purpose anyway,,, we just gotta figure out what kind of blow up machines we can make and quickly..,.,

if scientists dont know what existed before the universe and cannot know,,, why would any of them have such a brash opinion on the nature of the universe,,, as in an intelligence might have created the universe.... is it because even if it did that wouldnt and couldnt mean anything? it wouldnt have any connotations on human behavior, inlook and outlook?

what is the goal of science? its certainly beyond discovery and knowledge,,,,,,. half of science is the implication and application of that knowledge,,.,,., what tells us what we should implicate and how we should apply it? is there ever a goal? you do understand that humans dabbling in science is what changes what humans are and what they can do? from the spear and harnessing of fire,, to medicine,, to the automobile, plane and internet and beyond..... you do know there is potentially no limit to what the comprehension of infinite potential can produce and create? who is the guide? what is the guide? are we taking it one day at a time and playing it by ear? is there a natural destiny? if we reach a crossroads or fork, forced to make a decision will the outcome matter? will there be points of no return? who will make these decisions and why will they decide in the manner they choose to?

reply to post by ImaFungi

That post is mostly about the limits of science. Scientists don't claim to know everything. Whether there's a creator or not can't be addressed scientifically unless scientific evidence of this is found. But some aspects of religion can be scientifically studied, like an experiment done to evaluate whether praying for a sick person helps them become healthy or not.

Now there are some things that a few scientists call science that don't seem all that scientific. String theory is more math than physics until proof is found that it's really physics. So it could be called speculative. And what happened before the big bang is also speculative.

Remember any scientist can make any claim, but that alone doesn't make it scientific. Science also includes the peer review and replication processes, so a given claim isn't accepted until it satisfactorily passes those.

So treat a claim by a scientist (including the one in tyhe OP) like you would any other claim...ask to see their evidence. If they've published a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal they at least have that much going for them though that's no guarantee they're right. If you looked for evidence for all the stuff you'd mentioned, you'd find out that in many cases, there is some. In other cases, there isn't evidence, like "string theory". Learn to tell the difference.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

That post is mostly about the limits of science. Scientists don't claim to know everything. Whether there's a creator or not can't be addressed scientifically unless scientific evidence of this is found. But some aspects of religion can be scientifically studied, like an experiment done to evaluate whether praying for a sick person helps them become healthy or not.

Now there are some things that a few scientists call science that don't seem all that scientific. String theory is more math than physics until proof is found that it's really physics. So it could be called speculative. And what happened before the big bang is also speculative.


So treat a claim by a scientist (including the one in tyhe OP) like you would any other claim...ask to see their evidence. If they've published a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal they at least have that much going for them though that's no guarantee they're right. If you looked for evidence for all the stuff you'd mentioned, you'd find out that in many cases, there is some. In other cases, there isn't evidence, like "string theory". Learn to tell the difference.

reality is exactly a certain way,.,.,.. scientists are trying to comprehend that way,.,.

when it comes down to it,.,.,,. string theory is very similar to the particle model and quantum mechanics,.,.,. in the sense that there are multiple "brands" of micro micro micro scopic bundles of "space-wave" which jiggle together to form patterns..... string theory thinks the wave functions and particles of quantum mechanics,, are really vibrating wave functions which interact with one another to form patterns,..

as for the first part,,, you address religion,,, ive gone over this before with you and your posse ,,,, when arguing about the potential for intelligence to be behind the creation or order of reality/ the universe,,
NEVERRRR relate that potential to what man has written, said, or thought in his religious texts and customs.,,. they are completely separate ball parks,.,,. do you understand that,, and do you understand why that is?

the entire universe can be contained,, and created by a specific intelligence,,,, like a man establishes a fish tank in his home...

I know its not provable at this junction.,.,.,.,.

but what evidence ( from being one of the fish) do you have that it is more then likely not true..

knowing how complex reality is,.,. how infinitely long in time the past is,,, how we are an emergent creation,, not original creators,.,., we are as if,, we created an artificial intelligent race of creatures,,, wouldnt it be true for them to assume they were created in some intelligent process? made with sense?

how do you see the universe? what is it? do you think all that exists is this universe like it is,,? do you think all reality can do is this universe? once? or can this happen multiple times?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
how do you see the universe? what is it? do you think all that exists is this universe like it is,,? do you think all reality can do is this universe? once? or can this happen multiple times?

New evidence changed my opinion. Prior to 1998, I like nearly all scientists thought one possibility was that the universe might stop expanding, and collapse, and another big bang might happen.

But given the data presented in 1998 and subsequent replications, it now seems unlikely the universe will collapse as we thought it might prior to 1998. Had that possibility been confirmed it might have been knowable at least that the universe would collapse.

But now that we rejected that possibility, I'd say many aspects are unknowable. There's the idea of different bubbles which form universes but since there's no way to prove it, it's just an idea. I don't think we will ever know. There are so many more relevant things I can speculate on that we might actually find proof of someday I'd rather focus on those things.

The way I see the bigger picture, if the universe isn't eternal, that's a problem. How can it just have a beginning and nothing before it? And if the universe is eternal, that's a problem too, because how can it NOT have a beginning? Since there are problems either way and we will never know, take your pick, whatever makes you happy!

But the problems are with the limits of human comprehension, and not with the universe.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
how do you see the universe? what is it? do you think all that exists is this universe like it is,,? do you think all reality can do is this universe? once? or can this happen multiple times?

New evidence changed my opinion. Prior to 1998, I like nearly all scientists thought one possibility was that the universe might stop expanding, and collapse, and another big bang might happen.

But given the data presented in 1998 and subsequent replications, it now seems unlikely the universe will collapse as we thought it might prior to 1998. Had that possibility been confirmed it might have been knowable at least that the universe would collapse.

But now that we rejected that possibility, I'd say many aspects are unknowable. There's the idea of different bubbles which form universes but since there's no way to prove it, it's just an idea. I don't think we will ever know. There are so many more relevant things I can speculate on that we might actually find proof of someday I'd rather focus on those things.

The way I see the bigger picture, if the universe isn't eternal, that's a problem. How can it just have a beginning and nothing before it? And if the universe is eternal, that's a problem too, because how can it NOT have a beginning? Since there are problems either way and we will never know, take your pick, whatever makes you happy!

But the problems are with the limits of human comprehension, and not with the universe.

you didnt answer my questions at all.,.,.,.,,. and your last statement is something i might as well have said and agree with......

can you describe at all how you view the universe? what you think it is? whats up with it? in your own words,,, your feelings on its and yours existence? or can you only point me in the direction of ,, from what you perceive in our discussion to be,, some missing links?

One idea that has never been discussed is that the expansion of the universe does not change its external size. It is only the internals that change dimensions. For an external observer, the universe may be a single infinitely small point in their space.

Personally, I like the idea that the universe is static and infinite. It does not expand, or collapse, or change at all. Red shifting is a property of light, not of space. That's the theory I like.

reply to post by jiggerj


What was their formula / algorithm to support their claim? Anything? If I can't see numbers / variables, their theory is pure fantasy. My professor mentioned a few days ago, that the theoretical physics community is becoming so abstract they are making a mockery out of the entire physics community. My professor said, 80% of any theoretical thesis proposal better consist of your underlying principles and the other 20% should be defending your thesis.

90% (exaggerated) of these modern day theoretical physicist could not stand before a board and logically defend their thesis, but keep saying could could could. Guess what? Could isn't helping us. It isn't hard to come up with could ideas. They are a penny a million.

I don't understand why they keep making TV shows about ridiculous theoretical material when they need to be educating people on how actual physicist are trying to prove einstein's theories he proposed .... a long time ago.