Cosmology

[jamesbond007]

Nope. There isn't any overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe according to the Big Bang Theory. Agree that the universe is expanding, but that's due to God's doing as explained in the Bible. Here is what bothers me about the BBT. It's the initial picoseconds afterward. First, how can there be any state or place where the laws of physics does not apply? And understanding how three out of our four forces work (except for gravity), how did it become this state? The beginning was a state of singularity with infinite temperature and infinite mass. We cannot have infinite anything in the real world. It's just in mathematics. However, let's assume that some quantum particles achieved this state.

"1. The very early universe – the first picosecond (10−12) of cosmic time. It includes the Planck epoch, during which currently understood laws of physics may not apply; the emergence in stages of the four known fundamental interactions or forces – first gravity, and later the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions; and the expansion of space and supercooling of the still immensely hot universe due to cosmic inflation, which is believed to have been triggered by the separation of the strong and electroweak interaction.
Tiny ripples in the universe at this stage are believed to be the basis of large-scale structures that formed much later. Different stages of the very early universe are understood to different extents. The earlier parts are beyond the grasp of practical experiments in particle physics but can be explored through other means."
So even if Stephen Hawking can hypothesize how an expansion could happen out of nothing, i.e. very, very, very tiny invisible particles, he cannot explain the impossible happening after singularity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope. There isn't any overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe according to the Big Bang Theory. Agree that the universe is expanding, but that's due to God's doing as explained in the Bible. Here is what bothers me about the BBT. It's the initial picoseconds afterward. First, how can there be any state or place where the laws of physics does not apply? And understanding how three out of our four forces work (except for gravity), how did it become this state? The beginning was a state of singularity with infinite temperature and infinite mass. We cannot have infinite anything in the real world. It's just in mathematics. However, let's assume that some quantum particles achieved this state.

"1. The very early universe – the first picosecond (10−12) of cosmic time. It includes the Planck epoch, during which currently understood laws of physics may not apply; the emergence in stages of the four known fundamental interactions or forces – first gravity, and later the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions; and the expansion of space and supercooling of the still immensely hot universe due to cosmic inflation, which is believed to have been triggered by the separation of the strong and electroweak interaction.
Tiny ripples in the universe at this stage are believed to be the basis of large-scale structures that formed much later. Different stages of the very early universe are understood to different extents. The earlier parts are beyond the grasp of practical experiments in particle physics but can be explored through other means."
So even if Stephen Hawking can hypothesize how an expansion could happen out of nothing, i.e. very, very, very tiny invisible particles, he cannot explain the impossible happening after singularity.

But don't you see their incompatibility?????

They want gravity to be the first thing formed after the explosion, but then what made the hot dense state dense??????

Why was everything condensed into a super dense singularity to begin with if the laws of physics, including gravity, were not already in place and functioning?????

What made it hot if not the laws of thermodynamics?????

They can't talk about hot dense states if they claim the laws of physics did not operate..... as there would be no hot dense anything......

A singularity requires gravity to form in the first place...... Heat requires thermodynamics..... The Big Bang is a book of fiction that requires the laws of physics to even be in the state they claim it was in before it even began.....

 

[Ophiolite]

Get to destroying boy, because all I hear is pathetic claims and crybabies......


What are you gonna do, show me more seismic data that couldn't even get it right ANY time at all and claim see? Lol.

Your approach is unpleasant and unscientific, emotional and egregious. I intend to analsyse your buffoonery and your bombast and provide a measured report on the data you choose to mangle and misinterpret, providing sufficient citations to assure any serious reader what they likely already suspect regarding your loud assertions.

This will take some time, largely because those assertions of your, while loud, lack coherence. You aren't so much arguing a point as screeching "that's wrong", "that's not true", "how silly". That provides you with plenty of room to back off, change subject, pretend you said something else, or any of a host of similar reprehensible gamesmanship evident in most of your posts. I intend to cut off each avenue of escape and leave your arguments exposed for what they are.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your approach is unpleasant and unscientific, emotional and egregious. I intend to analsyse your buffoonery and your bombast and provide a measured report on the data you choose to mangle and misinterpret, providing sufficient citations to assure any serious reader what they likely already suspect regarding your loud assertions.

This will take some time, largely because those assertions of your, while loud, lack coherence. You aren't so much arguing a point as screeching "that's wrong", "that's not true", "how silly". That provides you with plenty of room to back off, change subject, pretend you said something else, or any of a host of similar reprehensible gamesmanship evident in most of your posts. I intend to cut off each avenue of escape and leave your arguments exposed for what they are.

Yah, yah. Claims after empty claims.....

So far you have done nothing but talk about it......

Notice how jamesbond got respect because he himself isn't disrespectful, something you should learn and maybe you'll get some....

 

[Ophiolite]

Yah, yah. Claims after empty claims.....

So far you have done nothing but talk about it......

Notice how jamesbond got respect because he himself isn't disrespectful, something you should learn and maybe you'll get some....

No, I'm not making any claims. I was just giving you a heads up. It seemed the polite thing to do. I'm not looking for any respect from you. Why would I? With almost as many ratings as I have posts I appreciate the positive views of my contributions from those whose opinions I do value. Let's talk again after my November the 5th post. Feel free to retract your statements at point up until then.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I'm not making any claims. I was just giving you a heads up. It seemed the polite thing to do. I'm not looking for any respect from you. Why would I? With almost as many ratings as I have posts I appreciate the positive views of my contributions from those whose opinions I do value. Let's talk again after my November the 5th post. Feel free to retract your statements at point up until then.

Ok, well let me know when you start.....

First evidence of a fraud, pointing to his own popularity because he thinks that is more important than facts......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Problem after problem.....

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

It is even easier to see someone misrepresent someone else because they cannot stand to be exposed as a phony

Pitiful

. Claiming God exists and created the universe because evolution increases information is not a model, cosmological or otherwise.

The funny thing is that everyone understood that I was not trying to prove the existence of God except you. Do not rejoice yourself, it's not a sign of intelligence.

Your non sequitur fallacy is hilarious - and pretty sad

Poor guy

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Chrétien de Troyes, argument by insult is never good, especially with the addition of implied ignorance.
This is a scientific model. This is the Lambda-CDM model. You wrote a story, not a scientific or cosmological model.
Evolution is a process that can generate more information through chemistry and physics. For example gene duplication is a chemical process, mutation of one of those genes is more like physics, and the result is more information.
Nothing "comes from the creation of new information". New information comes from chemistry and physics.
Human beings are not the culmination of imaginary "fundamental processes". We are a fragile part of the evolution of all species on Earth. Evolution has no direction.
Evolution is not cosmology !
Cosmology is not religion and says nothing about God ! Note that our current cosmology starts with an existing universe (no need for a God to create the universe).

We have overwhelming physical evidence for an expanding universe. Thus the textbook cosmological model includes an expanding universe.
We have strong physical evidence for dark matter. Thus the textbook cosmological model includes dark matter.
We have strong physical evidence for dark matter. Thus the textbook cosmological model includes dark matter.
We have good physical evidence for inflation. Thus the textbook cosmological model includes inflation.
That gives cosmological model that explains the physical evidence and gives testable, falsifiable predictions.

Another who thinks he is a specialist in philosophy, definitely it is a frequent behavior on the English-speaking forums.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

The funny thing is that the model comes from one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century: Henri Bergson, and then Claude Tresmontant. But our two philosophers have surely missed this part in their "very serious research".

 

[RealityCheck01]

Another who thinks he is a specialist in philosophy, definitely it is a frequent behavior on the English-speaking forums.

Resorts to irrelevant ignorance when my post is about science and cosmology so:
27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: Irrelevant ignorance that my science and cosmology post is about philosophy

 

[RealityCheck01]

The funny thing is that the model comes from one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century: Henri Bergson, and then Claude Tresmontant.

27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A lie that Henri Bergson or Claude Tresmontant wrote about "the model" (his imaginary story?) when they were philosophers, not cosmologists.
Henri Bergson and Claude Tresmontant.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A lie that Henri Bergson or Claude Tresmontant wrote about "the model" (his imaginary story?) when they were philosophers, not cosmologists.
Henri Bergson and Claude Tresmontant.

Hum.. What ??

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

It's available on YouTube for Claude Tresmontant. Thank you for stopping to say anything.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Henri Bergson and the creative evolution. It must not be known to our specialist.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Problem after problem.....

27 September 2018 Justatruthseeker: Lie after lie by linking to a crank radio host's video channel .
Baryon asymmetry
This is a reasonable description by Fermilab. This 4 minute video misses out that we have mechanisms to convert some of the antimatter to matter.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Hum.. What ??

27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A "Hum.. What ??" reply to a clear statement with evidence that his post lied.

27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A lie that Henri Bergson or Claude Tresmontant wrote about "the model" (his imaginary story?) when they were philosophers, not cosmologists.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Henri Bergson and the creative evolution. It must not be known to our specialist.

27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A lie since I gave the Wikipedia article on Henri Bergson and philosophy is still is irrelevant to this cosmology thread.

27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A fantasy that I am a specialist (my specialty would be solid state physics but that is well out of date).
I can read and understand what I read. I know that a philosopher is not a cosmologist, unlike him !

What makes this post really ignorant that Bergson's book "Creative Evolution" was written in 1907 before important discoveries on cosmology like Hubble's law !

27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A lie that Henri Bergson or Claude Tresmontant wrote about "the model" (his imaginary story?) when they were philosophers, not cosmologists.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A lie since I gave the Wikipedia article on Henri Bergson and philosophy is still is irrelevant to this cosmology thread.

27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A lie that Henri Bergson or Claude Tresmontant wrote about "the model" (his imaginary story?) when they were philosophers, not cosmologists.

Intellectual terrorism.
Lazyness

One can interpret cosmology with a Bergsonian approach.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Intellectual terrorism. ...

27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: Argument by insult and a fantasy of a "Bergsonian approach".
Cosmology is not interpreted with a fanasy of a "Bergsonian approach".
Cosmology is "interpreted" using science and evidence. The interpretation of dark matter is that it is non-baryonic particles because that is what the evidence shows. We also allow the possibility that the interpretation of dark matter is a modification of physics.

27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: Argument by insult is never good, especially with the addition of implied ignorance.
27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: Irrelevant ignorance that my science and cosmology post is about philosophy
27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A lie that Henri Bergson or Claude Tresmontant wrote about "the model" (his imaginary story?) when they were philosophers, not cosmologists.
27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A "Hum.. What ??" reply to a clear statement with evidence that his post lied.
27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A lie since I gave the Wikipedia article on Henri Bergson and philosophy is still is irrelevant to this cosmology thread.
27 September 2018 Chrétien de Troyes: A fantasy that I am a specialist (my specialty would be solid state physics but that is well out of date).