What denomination or sect are you?

[Aupmanyav]

You got proof?

Yeah. "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe. Under this theory, space and time emerged together 13.799±0.021 billion years ago." You got better proof than that?

Wow? your reality.

That is what I said, like it or not, THIS IS THE REALITY. You want to live by fairy tales? You are welcome to do that.

 

[Thomas]

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe.

It is, but curiously, although understandably, it seems to be one that requires one to accept assumptions, with no empirical support, to explain the model.

Because inflation theory relies on ad hoc contrivances to accommodate almost any data, and because its proposed physical field is not based on anything with empirical justification. This is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to bridge the transition from an unknowable big bang to a physics we can recognise today. So, is it science or a convenient invention?

The whole essay is here

You got better proof than that?

But the theory has no proof as such? It's just currently the strongest theory?

The explanation of the evidence involves accepting certain elements of the argument on the grounds that it has to be so, else the evidence we have would not work. It's a bit of a trick.

In Scripture, for example, there was a lot of talk about the 'Q' source, an unknown, lost source of Scripture that's not emtioned by anyone, anywhere. Then why 'Q', because it conveniently validates a proposed model of Scriptural development.

That is what I said, like it or not, THIS IS THE REALITY. You want to live by fairy tales? You are welcome to do that.

Not really, it's just the 'reality' you're most comfortable with.

And, of course, Big Bang and evolution is not incompatible with Abrahamic theology or metaphysics.

 

[Craz]

Let me be clear, I know you are a member of the one and only perfect and true belief.

For you.

As we all are.

For us.

Otherwise why would we profess so (to be x sect of y religion)

This includes you atheists or agnostics.

Me, I am a nontheistic, Christian Unitic.

How bout you?

I am a non-theist which took me some time to realise.
However I am just as passionate about existence/life as I was in my former devotion to God/Guru.
I enjoy all scriptures/poetry which I mostly take as allegoric, with possibly a smattering of history.

I suppose I could say that my God/Guru is existence itself. as that is the only thing that is self-evident.

I try and live by the saying "Live today as if it's your last; learn today as if you will live forever".


@wil knows I am a member of the one and only perfect and true belief

I have not been here for a while and it is a pleasure to be back.

@Aupmanyav thanks for
"Sanch ko aanch kya?" (Put truth in fire, it is not affected - Hindi proverb). Let people make stories about it.

 

[RJM]

The universe came into being in a single instant from nothing. Life arose from the dust. Where's the discrepancy with scripture? Modern science only makes it clearer, imo?

 

[wil]

Dust? At the vent at the bottom of the ocean?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is, but curiously, although understandably, it seems to be one that requires one to accept assumptions, with no empirical support, to explain the model.

That is true, but only for the time being. There is enough empirical support. Otherwise the thory would have been discarded like the Steady-State theory.

 

[Thomas]

There is enough empirical support.

That's not quite there, though. There's enough empirical support for what can be empirically demonstrated, but to make the maths works requires the acceptance of dark matter, for example, for which there is no evidence whatsoever ... some might regard that as a sleight of hand solution, even a deus ex machina kind of argument.

Otherwise the thory would have been discarded like the Steady-State theory.

Well its early days yet ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but to make the maths works requires the acceptance of dark matter, for example, for which there is no evidence whatsoever ..

Not true. It is so easy to check things in Wikipedia. Get into the habit of doing that. There are reasons when science proposes something.
"Dark matter is a form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total energy density. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

[RJM]

... to make the maths works requires the acceptance of dark matter ...

Not true. It is so easy to check things in Wikipedia. Get into the habit of doing that.

It IS true. Perhaps we should do a bit deeper research than wikipedia? I'm swinging a bucket in a 100ft circle, on only 10 feet of rope. Where's the other 90 feet of rope? It's not there. Can't find it anywhere. Let's call it dark matter. Ok fine: that balances the gravity and so now we can go on ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Going on is more important. That is how we find new things, which will straighten what we do not know. Not that we will stop and the 100 ft. rope.

 

[RJM]

Going on is more important. That is how we find new things, which will straighten what we do not know. Not that we will stop and the 100 ft. rope.

Sigh ...

 

[Thomas]

It IS true. Perhaps we should do a bit deeper research than wikipedia?

Scientific American?

I'm swinging a bucket in a 100ft circle, on only 10 feet of rope. Where's the other 90 feet of rope? It's not there. Can't find it anywhere. Let's call it dark matter. Ok fine: that balances the gravity and so now we can go on ...

From that article:

The crux of today's cosmological paradigm is that in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification.

In the end, the conundrum for cosmology is its reliance on the framework as a necessary presupposition for conducting research. For lack of a clear alternative, as astrophysicist Disney also notes, it is in a sense stuck with the paradigm. It seems more pragmatic to add new theoretical floors than to rethink the fundamentals.

Contrary to the scientific ideal of getting progressively closer to the truth, it looks rather like cosmology, to borrow a term from technology studies, has become path-dependent: overdetermined by the implications of its past inventions.

 

[RJM]

From that article:

I'll read the article today. Sorry. But I hope no-one thinks I'm accusing @Thomas of relying on wiki for his information, lol

 

[RJM]

@Thomas

Ok, I've read it. Nail on the head. Concise and understandable.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/

I like this:

" ...Today's space telescopes provide no direct view of anything—they produce measurements through an interplay of theoretical predictions and pliable parameters, in which the model is involved every step of the way.

The framework literally frames the problem; it determines where and how to observe. And so, despite the advanced technologies and methods involved, the profound limitations to the endeavor also increase the risk of being led astray by the kind of assumptions that cannot be calculated ..."

It may be the stunning success of the quantum Standard Model in predicting the Higgs etc, is creating a bit of over confidence in the ability to achieve the same on cosmic scales? And the arrogance of celebrity cosmologists like Neil de Grasse Tyson doesn't help, imo

 

[Aupmanyav]

It may be the stunning success of the quantum Standard Model in predicting the Higgs etc, is creating a bit of over confidence in the ability to achieve the same on cosmic scales? And the arrogance of celebrity cosmologists like Neil de Grasse Tyson doesn't help, imo

Science has its checking system. Piltdown men do not last.

 

[KnowSelf]

Yeah. "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the Universe. Under this theory, space and time emerged together 13.799±0.021 billion years ago." You got better proof than that?
That is what I said, like it or not, THIS IS THE REALITY. You want to live by fairy tales? You are welcome to do that.

If it were THE REALITY more people would have a clue of what you are saying, and it were the reality more people would be like you. Not my reality, Not the reality you speak of

 

[KnowSelf]

Not true. It is so easy to check things in Wikipedia. Get into the habit of doing that. There are reasons when science proposes something.
"Dark matter is a form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total energy density. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Academic papers do not accept wilkipedia as a reliable reference source

 

[RJM]

Wikipedia is a brilliant resource, but it's still just an encyclopedia, imo.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If it were THE REALITY more people would have a clue of what you are saying, and it were the reality more people would be like you. Not my reality, Not the reality you speak of

People do not have the clue because they have prejudices, brain-wash by scriptures, not just in the Abrahamic religions, but in Hinduism as well.
IMHO, Buddhism and my belief (Advaita Hinduism, non-duality) have been most successful in breaking away from prejudices.
All prejudices begin with the acceptance of existence of God and soul, and of prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis.

Academic papers do not accept wilkipedia as a reliable reference source

The Wiki page on Dark Matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#References) has 170 references.

 

[RJM]

Knowing the name for something doesn't mean I know what that thing is. The assumption that: 'We don't know yet but we will find out' is unsound, imo.

Why do the proton and electron charge exactly balance? There are lots of questions like that. Constants that just 'are'. Science is brilliant, but it only knows a tiny fraction.

It has revealed a very small part of the mechanism of nature. And in so doing lost all humility.

Newton said: Whatever the world thinks of me, I am to myself just a child on a beach picking up pebbles, and every now and then I find a pretty one and have a closer look at it.

Einstein spoke of exploring the mind of God.

Wonderful though it is, early 21st century science knows very very little of nature. It is wrong to speak as if scientists like Dawkins have disproved the existence of Spirit, imo. They have done nothing of the kind.

The arrogance is actually funny.