pbhj's Journal: past post - Flat earth flame ... but I'm hooked!

Flat earth flame ... but I'm hooked! (Score:3, Interesting)
by pbhj (607776) on Mon 31 Oct 01:36AM (#13911938) Homepage Journal
>>> "Sure. Explore it all you want. It has been explored for thousands of years. You can explore the idea that the earth is flat too if you want. Just because some people are exploring it doesn't mean we need to start teaching that to children in science class. Teach that myth the same place we teach the other myths - in religion or humanities classes or the like."

[Here's a Christian idea ...]

The big bang? Sure. Explore it all you want. It has been explored for tens of years. You can explore the idea that the Earth is flat too if you want ....

The big-bang, incidentally is an untestable event as by definition the established principles of physical science break down at the singularity (and how would we observe, a temporal action, before time existed). So, it becomes a matter of faith as to whether there were a big bang or a re-expansion or some other creative event [or none! like Newton, Maxwell, Einstein et al. thought] ... which I find hilarious. What's doubly funny is that a lot of people arguing against a creator argue for a big bang whilst cosmologist are moving towards alternate theories. And to cap it all the big-bang was proposed by a Belgian priest (LeMaitre) - I'd like to think that his faith inspired him at least in part.

I guess the big-bang is probably still the standard model. But every standard model I ever studied was proven to be inconsistent with observations ...

Oh well.

LeMaitre - http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/ sc0022.htm [catholiceducation.org]

=======

Re:Flat earth flame ... but I'm hooked! (Score:4, Insightful)
by jdclucidly (520630) Alter Relationship on Mon 31 Oct 02:35AM (#13912160) Homepage
I'm not an astrophysicist but that's just flat-out wrong. The big-bang theory IS a verifiable theory. That's why why have astronomers staring at the cosmic background radiation and analyzing the motion of stars (which shows that the universe is expanding). As far as I know, most all cosmic observations have given credibility to the big-bang theory. And it will continue to be tested. If there's ever some falsifying data, then the theory is destroyed. Plain and simple.

=======

Re:Flat earth flame ... but I'm hooked! (Score:2)
            by pbhj (607776) on Mon 31 Oct 05:24AM (#13912874) Homepage Journal
            Except we don't know whether the CBR is from a re-expansion or a big bang (or some other form, eg a crazy steady state) and so ultimately we can't verify. But, yes, it is scientific from the perspective of falsifiability.

            Incidentally, current expansion proves nothing. And at the point of ex-nihilo (sp?) creation there was nothing to radiate nor time to pass for a fluctuation to occur in. So no radiation eminates from a big bang event, only after an event, and there are multiple possible explanations for the post-event radiation ... hence no way of knowing for sure. Hence, you either use faith, or random chance, or populism, ... but not science to determine the root cause of the universes current existence.

            Oh and big bang theory AFAIK has no explnation for baryonic assymmetry (for want of the proper term) ...?

            If I concede the verity of an inflationary model will you explain where the inflating universe came from?

            If it's branes colliding then I'm quite excited by the possibility of God being personally manifest within those extra dimensions. in which the branes move. But, at the end of the day it's all just a systematic self consistent construct that aids in our conception of reality.

=======

Re:Flat earth flame ... but I'm hooked! (Score:2)
                        by jdclucidly (520630) Alter Relationship on Mon 31 Oct 05:49AM (#13912964) Homepage
                        On CBR, I think you have it backwards; the big bang theory suggests certain kinds of CBR which have been observed now that the technology exists. We didn't observe the different kinds of CBR first and then come up with the big bang as a possible explanation. This lends credence to the theory but of course doesn't prove it.

                        And on 'proving nothing' you are not getting it... we're not out to /prove/ anything. We seek only to /disprove/ people's wild ideas. If we can test them and can't disprove them then they are considered not-so-wild. And with time, perhaps accepted as a theory. Science has nothing to say, currently, about what might have happened "before" the big bang (if indeed time itself even existed). So, yes, you must turn to theology or philosophy to answer such questions. But that's not the domain of science. The point is that no faith is required to say that 'the big bang is currently the strongest theory on what the "first" event in our universe was'. I don't think anyone is saying that they are 100% certain.

                        And on baryonic asymmetry, we're at the very fringes of my knowledge but I don't think it really matters. All I remember on it is that the theory not being able to account for this doesn't disprove it; it's just means the the theory will need some enhancing once we understand baryonic asymmetry more fully. If I recall correctly, the super-collider being built in France is designed to help in this area.

                        I don't really have anything to say about the rest of the stuff. It would be a complicated philosophical discussion about the nature of reality and whether or not you are a supernaturalist at all if you believe in intelligent lifeforms living on other branes manipulating our reality...

                        If they were listening/reading right now, I would want them to know that they are some arrogant fucks and they certainly don't deserve any worship, I'd take freedom instead...

=======

Re:Flat earth flame ... but I'm hooked! (Score:4, Insightful)
by nathanh (1214) Alter Relationship on Mon 31 Oct 08:09AM (#13913349) Homepage

        The big-bang, incidentally is an untestable event as by definition the established principles of physical science break down at the singularity (and how would we observe, a temporal action, before time existed).

The big-bang is entirely testable. The background microwave radiation is one test. The velocity vs distance of galaxies is another test. The COBE satellite was launched to test the big-bang theory (and the theory passed that test).

The singularity is an untestable event. The big-bang itself, entirely testable. In your own words you admit it's testable:

        I guess the big-bang is probably still the standard model. But every standard model I ever studied was proven to be inconsistent with observations ...

If there are observations that could disprove the big-bang theory then the theory is testable. That's what testable means. But be careful: the theory is not the same thing as a model.