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.
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.
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."
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 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?
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
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?
Are you reading some scientific papers about the existence or non-existence of God?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't know how you get all that gibberish out of that video.
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.