It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science does it again: Big Bang going out the window?

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by swanne
 

Hi swanne. The earliest parts of the big bang theory are speculative. Wile the popular media likes to say the LHC created "big bang conditions", it didn't really have sufficient energy to do so except later periods of the big bang.

Well, no offence, but duh!
I wholeheartedly agree. Everybody (well, almost) knows that popular media likes sensationalism.

No, what I was asking was more in the lines of, If Planck length was to be falsified as a minimal space unit, then wouldn't it mean that the "graininess" of the Universe's first moment wouldn't be sufficient to explain the level of energy back then?




posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
here's another angle..

the universe was first in a condensed state according to big bang theory.

what force was keeping it condensed?

gravity?

but where did the force of gravity come from? and the universe itself which was condensed with all that matter? how did the rules which govern when gravity appears come about to set it in that way? and that when the universe reached critical mass that it would bring about all the particles and structure, with it's sacred geometry at it's core,to produce what we see around us? all by chance?

i wait for the day.. i throw some scraps of metal in a sealed room.. and come back eons later to see a fully built ai robot having made himself out of the parts.

Logic defies science within its foundation.

ill tell u what I CAN do tho. i can create a bunch of nanobots. each internetworked with bluetooth and able to locate other nanobots which they need to bond with to take their place in an overall structure. and that overall schematic is a humanoid robot. each nanobot when it comes into contact with it's significant other and related part will take it's position as it was programmed.

the nanobots in this sense, would be atoms and particles.
edit on 8-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
This is obviously just another misinterpretation by the ignorant, who have some bone to pick with the "scientific community" ever since they started getting Ds on their science quizzes in school. Everything builds on everything else. Very rarely does the entire paradigm shift away from one thing to another, and if it does there better be a whole list of very good reasons to do it.

A whole lot of people just don't seem to understand anything about science. But I guess it doesn't occur to them that even if some bit of previous knowledge is shown to be "wrong," it's because SCIENCE was used to determine that. "Duh, scientists are liars and full of it, look how many times they've gotten things wrong in the past." Who figured it out? OTHER SCIENTISTS.

I see it as a variation on, "NASA is hiding proof of life on Mars that is obvious in these photos." Oh, yeah, where did you get the photos? "From NASA."




posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
This is obviously just another misinterpretation by the ignorant, who have some bone to pick with the "scientific community" ever since they started getting Ds on their science quizzes in school. Everything builds on everything else. Very rarely does the entire paradigm shift away from one thing to another, and if it does there better be a whole list of very good reasons to do it.

A whole lot of people just don't seem to understand anything about science. But I guess it doesn't occur to them that even if some bit of previous knowledge is shown to be "wrong," it's because SCIENCE was used to determine that. "Duh, scientists are liars and full of it, look how many times they've gotten things wrong in the past." Who figured it out? OTHER SCIENTISTS.

I see it as a variation on, "NASA is hiding proof of life on Mars that is obvious in these photos." Oh, yeah, where did you get the photos? "From NASA."



nice point. but then... why cant the scientific community be wrong about the existence of an intelligent designer? and some other scientist discover it in the future? in the meantime.. everyone who put all their faith in science and denied God is probably going to burn. risky.

hmm?
edit on 8-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by swanne
No, what I was asking was more in the lines of, If Planck length was to be falsified as a minimal space unit, then wouldn't it mean that the "graininess" of the Universe's first moment wouldn't be sufficient to explain the level of energy back then?
What my previous response tried to suggest was, I don't know, and I don't think anybody else does either, given how speculative the models are for energy levels far beyond anything we've ever actually observed in the earliest part of the big bang.


Originally posted by filledcup
the universe was first in a condensed state according to big bang theory.

what force was keeping it condensed?

gravity?

but where did the force of gravity come from?
If you want to hear some ideas, Lawrence Krauss provides some in this presentation, though in my opinion they are not proven and he even mentions string theory which again isn't proven:




Originally posted by filledcup
nice point. but then... why cant the scientific community be wrong about the existence of an intelligent designer? and some other scientist discover it in the future? in the meantime.. everyone who put all their faith in science and denied God is probably going to burn. risky.
Are you reading some scientific papers about the existence or non-existence of God?

I didn't know science had an opinion on the subject, and I thought the reason was probably because of God's existence not being stated as a scientific hypothesis which can be tested. If that's the case, then all science can say is there's no clearly structured hypothesis to test, so they can't test it, therefore science has no scientifically testable evidence on the subject.

In the case of another religious topic, prayer, a scientifically testable hypothesis was created, and it was tested, with involvement of Harvard and other institutions. Science did form an opinion on prayer of the type in that study that it didn't seem to have any statistically significant effect. The statistically insignificant effect it had was the people who got prayed for actually did worse than the control group.

I suppose one might infer that since God didn't appear to answer the prayers that brings God's existence into question, but that's only an inference and it's the closest I've ever seen science come to addressing the topic. It's not a denial of God's existence as far as I can tell.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


well let's be specific. there is an atheist movement within the scientific community. and that's the part im addressing. i mean.. how is it logical or in any way scientific that an atheist can assume that there is no God, simply based on the claim that they have found no observable evidence. have they considered that they simply have not yet developed the tools to observe the evidence that is already there and waiting to be discovered? why do they come off as so cocksure. some even venturing to ridicule and make mocking statements both directly at God and towards those who believe in God.

then you mention the moral compass that came from religion. and they defend their ability to be moral. but how is it moral to taunt, mock and ridicule others who may be telling the truth of their experiences? and worse, in absolute ignorance taunt and mock at an invisible and all powerful God. and they want to get me to go along with that crap?

"sorry.. ur on ur own buddy"

that is not a chance i have been willing to take. im a scientist. i believe in using the scientific method to understand things. but i also believe in God.
edit on 9-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
^and therein lies a reinforcing of my point:

we say there is no observation of a hidden intelligence at work. but let us again re-examine the double slit experiment. quite simply. a photon carries wave properties when there is no observer. but as the observer looks* (interacts with/communicates with) the photon changes to carry particle state.

is this not an interaction with consciousness on the fundamental levels of creation? a conscious being observing the photon causes it to behave like a particle. suggesting that conscious, thought capability, has the ability to affect the behaviour of the structures on the most fundamentally observable aspects of creation. (my inferrence. and its the same Einstein came to)

it reinforces everything else ive said and in particular, That God uses thought to shape the universe and sustain it in it's structure. his spirit and thought form flows through all matter giving it its structure.

what is matter? energy condensed by thought-induced magnetic force/field. (mystic translation)

without the 'thought form' being applied to an area of the void/abyss/dark matter/darkspace/apparent emptiness.. everything fall apart and back to a wave.
edit on 9-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by filledcup
 

What is the name of this atheist movement? I never heard of it.

As for atheism being an unscientific position, you should reconsidder what atheism is. Atheism is simply the rejection of a god claim, something any scientist who claims to have a scientific worldview should do, based on the lack of evidence. Atheism is not the claim that no god exists.

The fact the you don't know that indicates that you know very little about the subject and are arguing from ignorance.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
just found this guy:



an example of a mystic-scientist. look how much he has excelled!



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by filledcup
 

What is the name of this atheist movement? I never heard of it.

As for atheism being an unscientific position, you should reconsidder what atheism is. Atheism is simply the rejection of a god claim, something any scientist who claims to have a scientific worldview should do, based on the lack of evidence. Atheism is not the claim that no god exists.

The fact the you don't know that indicates that you know very little about the subject and are arguing from ignorance.


pretty words. but atheism is a religion.. an 'ism'. it can also be considered, the religious practice of 'neglect to worship'. and in effect always wishes to voice its opinion and many times, display disgust towards religious believers. considering them fools.. not so? ppl who believe in God are stupid according to many atheists.

the reason the word 'atheism' even exists is because it is a philosophical position. and has a group of people associated with that particular philosophy.. either individually or in individual groups across the world.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by filledcup
 


Again, thats not what atheism is. Its nothing more than the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Just like the rejection of the claim that fairies exist. Its not a philosophyat all.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by filledcup
 


Again, thats not what atheism is. Its nothing more than the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Just like the rejection of the claim that fairies exist. Its not a philosophyat all.


well thats understandably the perspective u would like to hold. but it is still baseless. they dont know enough to know that God doesnt exist FOR SURE!.. thus its a philosophy. a theory.. whether or not aligned politically or however else it is classed. a rose by any other name.



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

In the case of another religious topic, prayer, a scientifically testable hypothesis was created, and it was tested, with involvement of Harvard and other institutions. Science did form an opinion on prayer of the type in that study that it didn't seem to have any statistically significant effect. The statistically insignificant effect it had was the people who got prayed for actually did worse than the control group.

I suppose one might infer that since God didn't appear to answer the prayers that brings God's existence into question, but that's only an inference and it's the closest I've ever seen science come to addressing the topic. It's not a denial of God's existence as far as I can tell.

Yes, that's a fallacy that some folks accept as an argument speaking against the existence of God.

God and the Big Bang do have something in common - you can't experiment with either of them to see whether your hypothesis concerning certain properties and dynamics are to be rejected or not. Religion doesn't assume that God exists; it believes that he does and so that precludes any theoretical work done, as opposed to the Big Bang which is assumed to take place.

I'm not sure why would anyone put down science as a method of investigation in favor of religion, which is not a method of investigation. Science is self-correcting whereas religion, when it comes to accounts of creation, is not or takes pain to adjust. In some cases, religion will even fight to keep things in error.
edit on 9-8-2013 by tremex because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tremex
 


i unfortunately disagree that science is not a method of investigation. i think it is the purest and most fundamental form of investigation having been evolved over the years. the problem is closed-mindedness. to declare the scientific method and then make assumptions which were peer reviewed and a consensus arrived. yet anyone suggesting deviations from the norm on these particular topics are shunned, ridiculed etc. atheist scientists are continually searching for ONE path that can logically declare that God doesnt exist. and still have yet to find it.. nor will they ever. they can only explore a topic as far as a certain point before all roads point to intelligent design, then they abandon it and seek another route to discoveries. and the cycle goes on.

example big bang theory works hand in hand with evolution. yet evolutionists MUST admit, that the theory still cannot answer how the first man was formed. so science has the beginning, it has the end.. but it doesnt know what happened in the middle? same thing happened with the missing link in human evolution theory. always missing the core components.. yet some would choose to be so arrogant as to fly in the face of God for kicks, and because they tell themselves.. "God cant do me anything i can say what i want". not even considering, that God might just let them say all that they want, and let it pile up. when they die and come face to face with the God of life and death. wonder how much they would have to say?

edit on 9-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
WOW mad person predicts doom and gloom... never seen that before! lol



Has ANYONE got one firstv hand?
edit on 9-8-2013 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-8-2013 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Perfect: everywhere. as u go deeper.. infinity, divide by zero, spirit, inter-dimensional bridge, rules of time and space distorted, intelligent design. it cannot be escaped.

Michio just refuses to accept.




posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by filledcup
 


There needs to be another label for people such as me, who belive that religion is really stupid, but are willing to entertain the possibility that the universe has a creator.

All the creationist drivel I have read seems to be an attempt to vindicate the authors particular beliefs.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
People, why are yall bringing God into this thread which deals with science , which is something abstract.
Know ye not, God transcends all science and understanding.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
If there was a real "God", as born from the myths and superstitions of a Middle Eastern (Old Kingdom) desert tribes of nomads, Then I doubt "The Mind of Man" would have anywhere near the capability to understand an Omnipresent creature who made everything.

The "God" we find in the fantasy story called the Bible, is from the mind of man..who at the time of its beginning, thought the stars where little pinholes of light where the Sun shone behind because God put a blanket in the sky to cover the land, after the Sun had sunken into the sand hills or sea...or some-such rubbish.

What we will probably never know, is if this Universe is at all, just a random act of creation (not in the Bible sense), a nice example of intelligent design, or just a natural cycle of life of which us mere Humans can not even possibly conceive.

Me...Im here, therefore I am...
.

I do Believe in a "Life Force" (great movie whoo who), or "the Force" of the Universe...and not in a religious sense.

Our Universe is Big...Very Big. But it may just be a part of something much bigger, well beyond our feable comprehension.



posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by filledcup
Perfect: everywhere. as u go deeper.. infinity, divide by zero, spirit, inter-dimensional bridge, rules of time and space distorted, intelligent design. it cannot be escaped.

Michio just refuses to accept.
I don't know how you get all that gibberish out of that video.

George Box explained that video well when he stated that all models are wrong, but some are useful. That sums up the video in a nutshell. No model is a perfect representation of reality, and when you reach the limits of the model the model no longer works. But the model was just a model, not reality.

It wasn't long ago that our primate ancestors were swinging from the trees, so while our brains have advanced somewhat they might need to advance some more.

Not only that, but it's religious people that tried to stop science from advancing, like when Galileo was not allowed to say the Earth orbited the Sun. If science had been allowed to proceed without religious interference, we might be further ahead by now and have some of this stuff figured out.

However the Catholic church finally did apologize to Galileo, about 300 years after he died. Look at how much we've accomplished in the last 100 years, and imagine if we didn't lose those hundreds of years, how much further ahead we would be in our understanding.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join