Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Parameter, Mar 14, 2013.
Lmao. I think Prof. Layman is using one. He churns out paragraph after paragraph of weird stuff.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The Big Bang Theory is the best explanation of the reason things are as they are, based on best evidence, whereas Creationism is ignorance, superstition and lies.
There may be some who link the big bang with genesis, and feel good about it.
As eram said, some would link the two. Chris Langan is just one example. He says the universe is conspanding.
Reason I said spacetime is most fundamental is because without spacetime nothing could exist.
Also, what can we say about the wavefunction being the only true reality that perception collapses?
Also, was reality at one point nothing but a point and then it expanded to become all we see today?
That is like saying with out the universe the universe could not exist.
The first thing we can say is that is not an accurate statement.
If you define reality to be the universe - that could be a defensibe statement.
how so? a "point" is a math concept and doesn't exist in reality.
the so called "big bang" HAD to have some initial radius.
frankly i find it impossible to believe particles can be hurled trillions upon trillions upon trillions of miles.
how much energy would that take? where did it come from?
where are all the math models that are consistent with each other that explains all of this?
i believe we don't actually know what we are dealing with.
is there such a thing as conservation of space and time, one could be converted into the other?
Why do you assume your intuition has any validity when we're talking about conditions which are, by definition, some of the most extreme ever to occur in existence? Quantum physics is counter intuitive enough, quantum gravity in a fireball containing all of the matter and energy in the universe a pico-pico-second into inflation and has all the forces unified into a single super-force is beyond anyones intution. You say we don't know what we're dealing with. Maybe so, so why are you dismissing things just because you don't get your head around it.
To give an illustration of the danger and non-absolute nature of your statement about points it is possible to formulate a viable model of dynamics of strings in a 'space' which doesn't have any notion of distance or even location. Space-time is so shredded and warped that position loses its meaning! How can that be so? Isn't that a complete contradiction to everything we know? No, it is just different and thanks to the power of mathematics to formalise logic, allowing us to be guided properly even when our intuition not only doesn't help but actually hinders us, we can gain insight into such completely alien concepts.
In inflation objects do not move, they are carried by space-time. Consider the current expansion of the universe. As expansion accelerates some distance objects eventually are carried away from us so fast the light from them cannot reach us. Are they moving faster than light? No, it is the space between us expanding so much light cannot traverse it.
Where is came from is unknown but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Evolution describes the development of life, it doesn't matter it doesn't address how life first arose. Likewise with cosmology, we can describe how the universe has developed even if we don't know how it started. As for the energy, the concept of energy in a highly curved space-time where quantum effects are important is a very complicated concept, notions such as negative contributions can arise. At the very least it isn't the case that all the particles in the universe had to be given kinetic energy in the same way a car droving along the road must.
I get the distinct impression you haven't bothered to look for said models since you wouldn't be asking the questions you are if you'd got any working familiarity with physics. Said models require a degree in maths or physics (or the equivalent level of knowledge/ability) to grasp in a serious working way and if you had either of those you'd know about such models. Complaining about the supposed lack of such models because you don't bother to look for them and you don't understand such things even if you were to have seen them doesn't mean they aren't there. The FRW metric is the standard model of inflation and universe expansion. Symmetry breaking in the electroweak sector contributes to an understanding of force unification. Reheating models describe the influx of particles after force symmetry breaking. Quantum fluctuation models coupled to inflation describe the perturbations and power spectrum of the CMB. Nuclear fusion models explain the relative ratio of isotopes in stellar nurseries.
Ignorance is not an argument.
a nice grandiose explanation, but very little real data.
have i dismissed anything?
do you ever find things hard to believe? are you dismissing them?
i stand by my statement about "points", they are indeed math concepts AND they do not exist.
yes, yes, yes, i can show mathematically i can win the lotto tomorrow.
an assumption that has no real world counterpart except the thing you are trying to show.
and how much energy are we talking about here?
where can i find the math model that describes both globular and spiral galaxy formations with the same parameters?
Separate names with a comma.