That isn't proof to me, the fact that Big Bang theory denies plasma cosmology any say, is indicative.
Isn't it possible that our interpretation of redshift is false?
then tell me what's your interpretation of the red shift and give me some links to papers with experimental data proving your theory... you don't even know what red shift really is, do you?
“Life is life everywhere. Life is in ourselves and not outside us. There will be men beside me, and the important thing is to be a man among men and to remain a man always, whatever the misfortunes, not to despair and not to fall - that is the aim of life, that is its purpose.”
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
then tell me what's your interpretation of the red shift and give me some links to papers with experimental data proving your theory... you don't even know what red shift really is, do you?
Yea, redshift is the expansion of light through time/space.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well I can't claim to be an expert in this, but my vague understanding of the beginning of the universe it this:
Time is relative, so even though we can say the universe is 13.8 billion years old, that is only in measurable years as per our perspective. Based on Einstein's Theory of Generalized Relitivity, with the compression of infinate matter and energy into an infinitately small space, time itself becomes infinite, therefore there was nothing before the big bang, because time did not exist in the way we can percieve it before the big bang.
In other words, one way of looking at it is that the very first instant of the big bang extends back to infinity.
I have no idea what that means, but that's the way someone once explained it to me.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If you're going to critisize religious folks for their "faith," then you can't possibly be serious about that theory.
I don't see how this is anything like religion.
I'm not worshiping a deity or anything like that.
The thing about Big Bang is, it estimates that a whole lot of something came from nothing, which leads people to believe in God, because something had to create it.
So, as you see, we will never be satisfied with finite things, something has to be infinite, typically this is God, whereas, I feel it's the universe that is infinite. However, following finite rules.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The thing about Big Bang is, it estimates that a whole lot of something came from nothing, which leads people to believe in God, because something had to create it.
So, as you see, we will never be satisfied with finite things, something has to be infinite, typically this is God, whereas, I feel it's the universe that is infinite. However, following finite rules.
So in layman's terms, neither you, nor anyone else, have a clue. It doesn't lead me to believe that a God created it, but, given the existing scientific theories God doesn't sound like the worst idea anyone ever had.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
So in layman's terms, neither you, nor anyone else, have a clue. It doesn't lead me to believe that a God created it, but, given the existing scientific theories God doesn't sound like the worst idea anyone ever had.
I have a few clues, but I don't have a definite answer. My view is also plastic, an infinite steady-state universe is my inclination, however, I also acknowledge the possibility of a causal loop, which includes Big Bang. I just don't accept the existance of a God, though that may very well be the truth. I see through historical study of the nature of Gods that it is little more than a myth created by men.
"The truth is incontrovertable, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston Churchill
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I have a few clues, but I don't have a definite answer. My view is also plastic, an infinite steady-state universe is my inclination, however, I also acknowledge the possibility of a causal loop, which includes Big Bang. I just don't accept the existance of a God, though that may very well be the truth. I see through historical study of the nature of Gods that it is little more than a myth created by men.
"The truth is incontrovertable, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston Churchill
I'd give up both testicles to have that man be the leader of my country.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
I'd give up both testicles to have that man be the leader of my country.
I use the quote in a broad sense of course. I may be the mallice or the ignorance, just as any other might be. But the truth will always exist.
Churchill was a smart man, but he fucked up too, we are fallable creatures.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i dont buy that argument because under that logic something would have had to create god, right?
Exactly! That's what I've been trying to say, but amazingly it doesn't sink in.
I watched this video on google the other day called "The Holographic Universe" it was going over how we perceive everything by electrical impulse in our brains, quantum mechanics, blah blah, then it says "So, there must have been a creator" and I think "What? That's a huge stretch, who the fuck made this video?" then it says "And his name is Allah!" and I thought "Well there you have it."
The video sucked anyway, "What the BLEEP?" is way better at explaining that stuff, I disagree with it's "conclusions" as well.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I have a hard time believing the universe is just 14 billion years old.
And before that there was nothing.
So I always theorized that the universe fluctuates. I was aware of the theory that the universe is expanding, I thought it was this woman, Henrietta something, that figured out a way to measure distance to stars. This is true, called "red shift" and the observations suggest it is so, but some observations apparently contradict that theory.
However, my theory was that although the universe may be expanding, it doesn't exactly mean that it was once nothing.
Perhaps the universe is the beginning. You can't make a painting without a canvas, right?
I actually learned a little bit about the Big Bang in my Astronomy class over the fall.
We believe the Universe to be 13.8 billion years old, because that's how far we can see into the Universe.
Also, an explaination for something coming from nothing can be explained by a thing called the Uncertainty Principle. I forget the exact details of this principle, but I think it basically explains that something can appear out of nothing for really no reason at all.
And yet another:
"Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars provide strong evidence for the Big Bang. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions, and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the universe and are helping to complete details of the theory."
I actually learned a little bit about the Big Bang in my Astronomy class over the fall.
We believe the Universe to be 13.8 billion years old, because that's how far we can see into the Universe.
Also, an explaination for something coming from nothing can be explained by a thing called the Uncertainty Principle. I forget the exact details of this principle, but I think it basically explains that something can appear out of nothing for really no reason at all.
The uncertainty principle is speculative at best, IMO. I am strongly inclined to believe in a hidden variable. It basically the old "the earth is flat" argument. The uncertainty is in our ability to understand quantum physics. I strongly believe that there are no random events. Every attempt at making a random number generated ultimately has to follow rules, therefor it isn't random. The only thing in support of the uncertainty principle is the fact that we don't know. We can't create uncertainty, as hard as we may try, we can not create uncertainty. So we have no empirical evidence that anything uncertain exists. The principle arises from an experiment called the double slit experiment. Where electrons were fired at a barrier with two slits in it, the electrons hit in uncertain places, but when an observer was placed the electrons hit the same spot. What that means is totally speculative. Schrödinger showed us that if we look at the electrons as a wave, where the electrons seemed uncertain, we could predict them, they followed some laws. I would imagine the electromagnetic disturbances from each electron affected their own trajectory as well as their neighbors. However, if we view them as single electrons, they make no sense. This implies, like light, or radio signals, electrons behave as waves. But we don't know. It doesn't mean there is anything uncertain about it, just that we don't know.
And yet another:
"Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars provide strong evidence for the Big Bang. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions, and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the universe and are helping to complete details of the theory."
This is interesting, I watched a video with the discoverer of cosmic background radiation saying it was an argument against big bang. I personally don't see how it's evidence at all of either theory. The remaining theories are all based on our interpretation of redshit. We can't test empirically our interpretation of redshift. We can't sit down with a CRT and figure out how it affects the redshift, because we can't test it from 4,000 lightyears away. We can test it from 4 meters away in which there is no redshift effect. The real deal about cosmology is that it's almost all speculative, there is virtually no empirical evidence to be tested.
I'm not saying that Big Bang is absolutely false, it just seems kind of stretched and not much supporting it that isn't based on a single controversial theory.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
whose reality?
reality is subjective don't you think?
I highly doubt that reality is subjective. The experience of reality is however.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The uncertainty principle is speculative at best......
The only thing in support of the uncertainty principle is the fact that we don't know.
That is the entire uncertainty principle- that we can't know everything about a particle because measuring one quantity of the particle simultaneously affects all other quantities. Eg- we cannot know both the speed and position of a particle because measuring speed automatically changes the position, and vice versa.
The uncertainty principle does not directly pass judgement on how anything behaves, if something is random etc., merely on our ability to interpret every precise detail about a particle.
Also, a few people have referred to the big bang as creating something from nothing. This is not the case. The big bang theory explains from singularity to present- but does not attempt to explain the origin of the singularity. An interesting side note is that the concept of nothing is perhaps only a human one- even the purest vacuum contains quantum fluctuations- so maybe 'nothing' doesn't actually exist.
There are some quantum theories for the origin of the singularity, but we are still a long way from having a complete understanding of the absolute origins of the universe. However, science is the best tool we have in our attempt to understand it, and it is a pretty exciting journey of discovery along the way.
It was also mentioned that the big bang theory leaves the door open for god to have created the universe by creating the singularity- and I guess it does, but it equally leaves room for a gigantic chicken to have created the universe. Both are equally rational.
Finally, it is worth noting that there are different versions of the big bang theory. Quantum inflation has the widest support amongst physicists.
By the way, good luck to anyone trying to support the steady state theory... there aren't many of you left and the vast majority of the world's leading physicists disagree with you- but that doesn't mean that you are certain to be wrong.
which leads to my theory: "no-thing" is a theoretical construct to give differentiation/depth/meaning/understanding to "what is".
It was also mentioned that the big bang theory leaves the door open for god to have created the universe by creating the singularity- and I guess it does, but it equally leaves room for a gigantic chicken to have created the universe. Both are equally rational.
Considering people of all types and backgrounds have continually perceived an all-pervasive creator of the universe through time, and have not perceived an all-pervasive gigantic chicken of the universe, I say it is not equally rational to come to your conclusion. Again, it's the thing about "no-thing". The opposite of "what is" is handy in making a point. However that does not make no-thing a thing.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"Reality is based on the word res meaning "thing" and the thing is what is known. You see, the word res is based on the word rere, meaning to think, and the thing is what you can think about, essentially. So reality is just what man can know. Now, essentially what they [contemporary physicists] are saying (although it doesn't make sense) is that man's reality is confined to the results of some operations of scientific instruments but they wouldn't seriously argue for that either."
"....you must engage in logical gymnastics in order to accomodate the present view. The typical reaction of a student who studies quantum mechanics is that at first he doesn't understand it and by a year or two later he says there is nothing to understand because its nothing but a system of computation. At the same time they've got to say no, it isn't just that, we're discussing reality. After all, physicists would have no motive for doing the work they do if they didn't believe that these particles are really the building blocks of the universe. So, you see, you have to engage in and become very skillful at mental gymnastics in order to sustain this myth. It's actually not so easy. It takes several years and a lot of skill to train people to be able to do it [ie: avoid the philosophical implications]"
"...they say its the truth about these hard little particles which the equations deny could exist and we just go off into confusion, and then we finally say let's give up all those questions because we just can't answer them and there is no point to them. The only thing that has a point is to get the results to work."
--Physicist David Bohm, "The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
A really interesting discussion... just a couple of points I would like to make:
That is the entire uncertainty principle- that we can't know everything about a particle because measuring one quantity of the particle simultaneously affects all other quantities. Eg- we cannot know both the speed and position of a particle because measuring speed automatically changes the position, and vice versa.
The uncertainty principle does not directly pass judgement on how anything behaves, if something is random etc., merely on our ability to interpret every precise detail about a particle.
Also, a few people have referred to the big bang as creating something from nothing. This is not the case. The big bang theory explains from singularity to present- but does not attempt to explain the origin of the singularity. An interesting side note is that the concept of nothing is perhaps only a human one- even the purest vacuum contains quantum fluctuations- so maybe 'nothing' doesn't actually exist.
There are some quantum theories for the origin of the singularity, but we are still a long way from having a complete understanding of the absolute origins of the universe. However, science is the best tool we have in our attempt to understand it, and it is a pretty exciting journey of discovery along the way.
It was also mentioned that the big bang theory leaves the door open for god to have created the universe by creating the singularity- and I guess it does, but it equally leaves room for a gigantic chicken to have created the universe. Both are equally rational.
Finally, it is worth noting that there are different versions of the big bang theory. Quantum inflation has the widest support amongst physicists.
By the way, good luck to anyone trying to support the steady state theory... there aren't many of you left and the vast majority of the world's leading physicists disagree with you- but that doesn't mean that you are certain to be wrong.
That's what I'm saying, I constantly hear that the uncertainty principle proves some metaphysical state of existence or free-will. I'm simply saying what it really means.
The problem with solid-state theorists is that they lose their jobs for their line of research. It's the same with epidemiologists research alternate causes of AIDS. They just get their funding cut. So of course most are going to buy into the Quantum Inflation theory. It takes a special kind of scientist to go against the grain.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i'd really like to be in this discussion but its been a couple years since i read up on this stuff.
i agree partly with the thread starter that a lot of these theories have been stretched and modified on purpose to fit a pre-concieved notion, possibly to the detriment of other theories and possibilities. there is still plenty that we dont know and a lot of this is still just best guesses supported by some evidence etc.
havent we been able to measure or at least detect the presence of dark matter recently? i remember reading about how it affects the gravitational pull within solar systems or something, i forget now.
i also remember reading that the measurement of dark matter fits into the big bang equations in a certain way... can somebody help refresh me here?
Dark matter was supposedly observed in August 2006. I posted it here about a month ago. I know the original article I linked was to cern, but it's mentioned in this wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Considering people of all types and backgrounds have continually perceived an all-pervasive creator of the universe through time, and have not perceived an all-pervasive gigantic chicken of the universe, I say it is not equally rational to come to your conclusion. Again, it's the thing about "no-thing". The opposite of "what is" is handy in making a point. However that does not make no-thing a thing.
I don't entirely agree with what you are saying there... People have indeed perceived a creator through time- however that is not necessarily statistically significant. Much of that would be due to the flow on effect- cosmologies being passed down through generations.
Of much greater statistical significance would be a simultaneous event where people proclaim a similar creator indapendently.
As for the chicken/god rationality- It is worth noting that different cosmologies have radically different gods (or equivalent). For instance the cosmology of some tribes of the Australian Aboriginal people involves, amongst other things, a giant snake (the rainbow serpent) that helped shape the earth. I would argue that the rainbow serpent is as rational as any other concept of god.
I would also argue that as the concepts of the rainbow serpent, western god and the giant chicken all lack any empirical evidence; they hold equal degrees of rationality.
I understand that people have different views on what is rational, but mine relates to reason, logic, testability, consistency etc.
I am glad though, that some people share my fascination with the concept of nothing- have spent many wine fuelled nights wrapping my brain around that one. Anyway, great discussion, and I look forward to continuing it but right now I am about to go climbing and listen to pearl jam- a tough combination to beat!
It's interesting throughout history. Originally we believed in multiple gods as the romans, greeks and native indians did. Then we reduced it to one, now we just need to reduce it to zero.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm but one cog in the machine. I doubt we will ever get rid of religion. But at least I won't be brainwashing my kids with it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think where most of us have problems is imagining what it means that our physical dimensions are set into time. We seem to assume because we have three dimensions that we perceive in time, then the nature of the universe hinges on this time, and therefore on beginnings and endings which are time-constructs. If we take our own logical minds into consideration--our minds that must perceive beginnings and endings in order to be linear, logical and analytical, maybe we're just seeing what we want to see, rather than what is there: unbroken wholeness, without start and finish.
I like that point, except for the last sentence, which seems to imply that you believe you have a better understanding of the nature of the universe than everyone else.
I do agree however, that the way our puny linear minds operate, with our need to view everything as occuring on a continuum of time, is sure to be limiting our ability to see the universe for what it is. . . . whatever that is.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I don't entirely agree with what you are saying there... People have indeed perceived a creator through time- however that is not necessarily statistically significant. Much of that would be due to the flow on effect- cosmologies being passed down through generations.
Of much greater statistical significance would be a simultaneous event where people proclaim a similar creator indapendently
As for the chicken/god rationality- It is worth noting that different cosmologies have radically different gods (or equivalent). For instance the cosmology of some tribes of the Australian Aboriginal people involves, amongst other things, a giant snake (the rainbow serpent) that helped shape the earth. I would argue that the rainbow serpent is as rational as any other concept of god
I would also argue that as the concepts of the rainbow serpent, western god and the giant chicken all lack any empirical evidence; they hold equal degrees of rationality.
Vast scientific study regarding different levels of consciousness show that at different levels of evolution, worldviews change. For example, there are "magical" worldviews which are strong in third world settings. This view also shows in North American culture in such beliefs as "voodoo", magical ethnic beliefs, or superstitions. At each stage of evolution with the corresponding worldview, understanding of our surroundings expands, while including the preceeding view. Also, for each worldview, those at similar stages see the same thing, and understand similar concepts as others at the same stage. Therefore maps have been created that can trace our stages of awareness of existing universal truths.
If you mean the concepts of God, giant chicken, etc. are lacking scientific experiment, I agree, since the physical sciences can only understand the physical surfaces of life. It cannot appreciate the depths, and it is not a study of interpretation. Philosophy is what science has sprung from. The "whys" of life cannot be ascertained by physical science. Philosophies cannot be proven/disproven except based on logic. I'm guessing as you say it, the giant chicken does not carry the same degree of rationality to you subjectively as other possibilities. However were it actually used as a symbol in the interpretation of meanings of life, I would agree with your point--it would be given equal weight.
I understand that people have different views on what is rational, but mine relates to reason, logic, testability, consistency etc.
I'm not arguing science, I'm addressing interpretation of the empirical.
I am glad though, that some people share my fascination with the concept of nothing- have spent many wine fuelled nights wrapping my brain around that one. Anyway, great discussion, and I look forward to continuing it but right now I am about to go climbing and listen to pearl jam- a tough combination to beat!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I like that point, except for the last sentence, which seems to imply that you believe you have a better understanding of the nature of the universe than everyone else.
I feel that most people don't recognize how their own perception alters what they see. Therefore I feel that a large majority of people are trapped seeing what they are conditioned to see. I also know I have spent much time working to see beyond that. I have had personal experience with unbroken wholeness. I know anyone can stretch their perceptions and many others do. Take that as you will.
I do agree however, that the way our puny linear minds operate, with our need to view everything as occuring on a continuum of time, is sure to be limiting our ability to see the universe for what it is. . . . whatever that is.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
then tell me what's your interpretation of the red shift and give me some links to papers with experimental data proving your theory... you don't even know what red shift really is, do you?
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Yea, redshift is the expansion of light through time/space.
Or so it's assumed.
Check out NGC 7603
http://perso.orange.fr/lempel/ngc_7603_RS1.jpg
Time is relative, so even though we can say the universe is 13.8 billion years old, that is only in measurable years as per our perspective. Based on Einstein's Theory of Generalized Relitivity, with the compression of infinate matter and energy into an infinitately small space, time itself becomes infinite, therefore there was nothing before the big bang, because time did not exist in the way we can percieve it before the big bang.
In other words, one way of looking at it is that the very first instant of the big bang extends back to infinity.
I have no idea what that means, but that's the way someone once explained it to me.
-Ashley Montagu
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/arp5.jpg
If you're going to critisize religious folks for their "faith," then you can't possibly be serious about that theory.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I don't see how this is anything like religion.
I'm not worshiping a deity or anything like that.
The thing about Big Bang is, it estimates that a whole lot of something came from nothing, which leads people to believe in God, because something had to create it.
So, as you see, we will never be satisfied with finite things, something has to be infinite, typically this is God, whereas, I feel it's the universe that is infinite. However, following finite rules.
So in layman's terms, neither you, nor anyone else, have a clue. It doesn't lead me to believe that a God created it, but, given the existing scientific theories God doesn't sound like the worst idea anyone ever had.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I have a few clues, but I don't have a definite answer. My view is also plastic, an infinite steady-state universe is my inclination, however, I also acknowledge the possibility of a causal loop, which includes Big Bang. I just don't accept the existance of a God, though that may very well be the truth. I see through historical study of the nature of Gods that it is little more than a myth created by men.
"The truth is incontrovertable, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston Churchill
I'd give up both testicles to have that man be the leader of my country.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I use the quote in a broad sense of course. I may be the mallice or the ignorance, just as any other might be. But the truth will always exist.
Churchill was a smart man, but he fucked up too, we are fallable creatures.
We can debate peoples faults until the cows come home. Then analyze the cows. I'm not interested in splitting minutia.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Exactly! That's what I've been trying to say, but amazingly it doesn't sink in.
I watched this video on google the other day called "The Holographic Universe" it was going over how we perceive everything by electrical impulse in our brains, quantum mechanics, blah blah, then it says "So, there must have been a creator" and I think "What? That's a huge stretch, who the fuck made this video?" then it says "And his name is Allah!" and I thought "Well there you have it."
The video sucked anyway, "What the BLEEP?" is way better at explaining that stuff, I disagree with it's "conclusions" as well.
I actually learned a little bit about the Big Bang in my Astronomy class over the fall.
We believe the Universe to be 13.8 billion years old, because that's how far we can see into the Universe.
Also, an explaination for something coming from nothing can be explained by a thing called the Uncertainty Principle. I forget the exact details of this principle, but I think it basically explains that something can appear out of nothing for really no reason at all.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is one pillar of evidence for the Big Bang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
Another is Hubble's Law expansion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
The abundance of primordial elements is another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
And yet another:
"Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars provide strong evidence for the Big Bang. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions, and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the universe and are helping to complete details of the theory."
Just ask my wife. She's sound asleep right now, though--think I wore her out.
The uncertainty principle is speculative at best, IMO. I am strongly inclined to believe in a hidden variable. It basically the old "the earth is flat" argument. The uncertainty is in our ability to understand quantum physics. I strongly believe that there are no random events. Every attempt at making a random number generated ultimately has to follow rules, therefor it isn't random. The only thing in support of the uncertainty principle is the fact that we don't know. We can't create uncertainty, as hard as we may try, we can not create uncertainty. So we have no empirical evidence that anything uncertain exists. The principle arises from an experiment called the double slit experiment. Where electrons were fired at a barrier with two slits in it, the electrons hit in uncertain places, but when an observer was placed the electrons hit the same spot. What that means is totally speculative. Schrödinger showed us that if we look at the electrons as a wave, where the electrons seemed uncertain, we could predict them, they followed some laws. I would imagine the electromagnetic disturbances from each electron affected their own trajectory as well as their neighbors. However, if we view them as single electrons, they make no sense. This implies, like light, or radio signals, electrons behave as waves. But we don't know. It doesn't mean there is anything uncertain about it, just that we don't know.
This is interesting, I watched a video with the discoverer of cosmic background radiation saying it was an argument against big bang. I personally don't see how it's evidence at all of either theory. The remaining theories are all based on our interpretation of redshit. We can't test empirically our interpretation of redshift. We can't sit down with a CRT and figure out how it affects the redshift, because we can't test it from 4,000 lightyears away. We can test it from 4 meters away in which there is no redshift effect. The real deal about cosmology is that it's almost all speculative, there is virtually no empirical evidence to be tested.
I'm not saying that Big Bang is absolutely false, it just seems kind of stretched and not much supporting it that isn't based on a single controversial theory.
whose reality?
reality is subjective don't you think?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I highly doubt that reality is subjective. The experience of reality is however.
That is the entire uncertainty principle- that we can't know everything about a particle because measuring one quantity of the particle simultaneously affects all other quantities. Eg- we cannot know both the speed and position of a particle because measuring speed automatically changes the position, and vice versa.
The uncertainty principle does not directly pass judgement on how anything behaves, if something is random etc., merely on our ability to interpret every precise detail about a particle.
Also, a few people have referred to the big bang as creating something from nothing. This is not the case. The big bang theory explains from singularity to present- but does not attempt to explain the origin of the singularity. An interesting side note is that the concept of nothing is perhaps only a human one- even the purest vacuum contains quantum fluctuations- so maybe 'nothing' doesn't actually exist.
There are some quantum theories for the origin of the singularity, but we are still a long way from having a complete understanding of the absolute origins of the universe. However, science is the best tool we have in our attempt to understand it, and it is a pretty exciting journey of discovery along the way.
It was also mentioned that the big bang theory leaves the door open for god to have created the universe by creating the singularity- and I guess it does, but it equally leaves room for a gigantic chicken to have created the universe. Both are equally rational.
Finally, it is worth noting that there are different versions of the big bang theory. Quantum inflation has the widest support amongst physicists.
By the way, good luck to anyone trying to support the steady state theory... there aren't many of you left and the vast majority of the world's leading physicists disagree with you- but that doesn't mean that you are certain to be wrong.
Considering people of all types and backgrounds have continually perceived an all-pervasive creator of the universe through time, and have not perceived an all-pervasive gigantic chicken of the universe, I say it is not equally rational to come to your conclusion. Again, it's the thing about "no-thing". The opposite of "what is" is handy in making a point. However that does not make no-thing a thing.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"....you must engage in logical gymnastics in order to accomodate the present view. The typical reaction of a student who studies quantum mechanics is that at first he doesn't understand it and by a year or two later he says there is nothing to understand because its nothing but a system of computation. At the same time they've got to say no, it isn't just that, we're discussing reality. After all, physicists would have no motive for doing the work they do if they didn't believe that these particles are really the building blocks of the universe. So, you see, you have to engage in and become very skillful at mental gymnastics in order to sustain this myth. It's actually not so easy. It takes several years and a lot of skill to train people to be able to do it [ie: avoid the philosophical implications]"
"...they say its the truth about these hard little particles which the equations deny could exist and we just go off into confusion, and then we finally say let's give up all those questions because we just can't answer them and there is no point to them. The only thing that has a point is to get the results to work."
--Physicist David Bohm, "The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes".
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's what I'm saying, I constantly hear that the uncertainty principle proves some metaphysical state of existence or free-will. I'm simply saying what it really means.
The problem with solid-state theorists is that they lose their jobs for their line of research. It's the same with epidemiologists research alternate causes of AIDS. They just get their funding cut. So of course most are going to buy into the Quantum Inflation theory. It takes a special kind of scientist to go against the grain.
Big bang baby, it's a crash, crash, crash
I wanna cry, but I gotta laugh
Orange crush mama is a laugh, laugh, laugh
NOTHINGS FOR FREE !!!!
Dark matter was supposedly observed in August 2006. I posted it here about a month ago. I know the original article I linked was to cern, but it's mentioned in this wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
I don't entirely agree with what you are saying there... People have indeed perceived a creator through time- however that is not necessarily statistically significant. Much of that would be due to the flow on effect- cosmologies being passed down through generations.
Of much greater statistical significance would be a simultaneous event where people proclaim a similar creator indapendently.
As for the chicken/god rationality- It is worth noting that different cosmologies have radically different gods (or equivalent). For instance the cosmology of some tribes of the Australian Aboriginal people involves, amongst other things, a giant snake (the rainbow serpent) that helped shape the earth. I would argue that the rainbow serpent is as rational as any other concept of god.
I would also argue that as the concepts of the rainbow serpent, western god and the giant chicken all lack any empirical evidence; they hold equal degrees of rationality.
I understand that people have different views on what is rational, but mine relates to reason, logic, testability, consistency etc.
I am glad though, that some people share my fascination with the concept of nothing- have spent many wine fuelled nights wrapping my brain around that one. Anyway, great discussion, and I look forward to continuing it but right now I am about to go climbing and listen to pearl jam- a tough combination to beat!
It's interesting throughout history. Originally we believed in multiple gods as the romans, greeks and native indians did. Then we reduced it to one, now we just need to reduce it to zero.
Good luck with that.
fucking sheesh.
I'm but one cog in the machine. I doubt we will ever get rid of religion. But at least I won't be brainwashing my kids with it.
I like that point, except for the last sentence, which seems to imply that you believe you have a better understanding of the nature of the universe than everyone else.
I do agree however, that the way our puny linear minds operate, with our need to view everything as occuring on a continuum of time, is sure to be limiting our ability to see the universe for what it is. . . . whatever that is.
-C Addison
If you mean the concepts of God, giant chicken, etc. are lacking scientific experiment, I agree, since the physical sciences can only understand the physical surfaces of life. It cannot appreciate the depths, and it is not a study of interpretation. Philosophy is what science has sprung from. The "whys" of life cannot be ascertained by physical science. Philosophies cannot be proven/disproven except based on logic. I'm guessing as you say it, the giant chicken does not carry the same degree of rationality to you subjectively as other possibilities. However were it actually used as a symbol in the interpretation of meanings of life, I would agree with your point--it would be given equal weight.
I'm not arguing science, I'm addressing interpretation of the empirical.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!