In fact, it is the science that establishes the consensus...
The physics of such accretion discs has been studied, and observed around other celestial bodies, e.g. neutron stars; the material accreting at extremely high velocities can generate very high temperatures, powerful jets of radiation from the 'poles', and intense magnetic fields that twist and rupture, spewing material into space (similar magnetic torsion and breakage happens around our sun, causing coronal mass ejections). Other mechanisms may also be involved, but - by definition - nothing escapes the event horizon (bar Hawking radiation).
I tend to doubt the credentials and beliefs of those who note the value of empirical evidence, when they cannot spell empirical.I'm sorry, but in science consensus means nothing. Empherical evidence is the definition of science and not what a bunch of people believe or want to be true.
In both examples I gave of empherical evidence it was only "overturned" by theory. Theory does not beat empherical evidence. You know, observable, testable and repeatable?
Einstein wanted to do away with the aether so he theorized that the measuring ruler shrank. How did he test that? Can you show me the demonstration of this effect? You are aware that this is why he came up with SR, right?
No, I'm not an expert, just interested.Just asking, are you an expert on black holes?
There's plenty of indirect observational data, e.g. orbits of stars, accretion disk emissions, etc., but obviously it's not possible to directly observe a BH.I'm interested in the experiments we have done or plan on doing. If we have not done any then it is theory, if we have then I would be interested in the science.
That's how science does things - no 100% certainties or proofs, plenty of caveats, always room for doubt, always someone who has a different idea...I couldn't help but catch a few of the highlighted words; theoretical, possible, expected, may and consensus.
I tend to doubt the credentials and beliefs of those who note the value of empirical evidence, when they cannot spell empirical.
Consensus is not "what a bunch of people believe, or want to be true" it is, as I noted, what a majority of experts consider to be the case, based upon repeated observation and experiment. It seems that not only is your writing suspect, but also your reading comprehension.
Feel free to make further ineffective defence of your position, but your audience will not include me. Your argument has been fully disposed of.
No, I'm not an expert, just interested.
There's plenty of indirect observational data, e.g. orbits of stars, accretion disk emissions, etc., but obviously it's not possible to directly observe a BH.
That's how science does things - no 100% certainties or proofs, plenty of caveats, always room for doubt, always someone who has a different idea...
But observations show that something incredibly massive and incredibly dense is at the centre of most galaxies that matches the observational criteria for a BH. By General Relativity, something that small and massive should be a BH; if it's not a BH as generally understood, it's something else very weird. We know that GR is incomplete for describing such objects and that quantum mechanics becomes significant for them at macro-scales, but we don't know precisely how they combine together, so 'Black Hole' is partly a label for such an object and partly a description of what it's expected to be like.
All observation is indirect in some sense. We do have observational evidence - apart from the characteristic orbital and radiation signatures that have been observed, several gravitational wave signatures matching predictions for merging black holes have been observed (and clearly distinguished from the gravitational wave signatures predicted and observed for merging neutron stars).Yes, indirect evidence. We must assume some things when evaluating indirect evidence. I don't discount it but it is not in the same ballpark as observational evidence. Observational evidence can be tested and repeated.
It's not a question of 'necessary exclusion', but of redundancy. Where there's no need to invoke additional hypotheses to explain observations, it is redundant to invoke them.Yes, but ideas are just that until you can test them. What I am trying to state here is that many people have "ideas" that necessarily exclude God from the equation. I would not suggest listening to these people.
Establishing the limits within which a particular theory is known to be a good description and make accurate predictions is important. For example, we know Newtonian mechanics is a good descriptive model and makes accurate predictions at non-relativistic speeds, and we know that it breaks down at relativistic speeds, where Einsteinian Relativity is a better descriptive model - but we also know that it too has limits, where quantum effects become significant."We know" is a strange expression for theoretical ideas. That's kinda my point.
Science deals only with the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The supernatural is - in general - simply irrelevant, although testable claims of the supernatural have been investigated. If some god or supernatural phenomenon produces consistent and observable patterns of influence on the physical and natural world, it can be addressed by science; but it will be addressed in terms of its observed effects, rather than the unsupported claims of some particular group of believers in the supernatural.Many of the "evidences" that point to the modern theories can only be derived by very exclusive means that are not available to the general public. Most of these people hold to the new "science" that says that God can NEVER be the answer. In other words, most of mordern science has at its heart an anti-God view.
There are thousands of books and scriptures professing to be the words of thousands of gods. Many contradict each other or claim to hold unique truth, and there's no plausible evidence that any of them are real. The vast majority have all the hallmarks of human-created myth and legend.It comes down to who do we believe, God and His Word or the godless and their theories.
All observation is indirect in some sense. We do have observational evidence - apart from the characteristic orbital and radiation signatures that have been observed, several gravitational wave signatures matching predictions for merging black holes have been observed (and clearly distinguished from the gravitational wave signatures predicted and observed for merging neutron stars).
It's not a question of 'necessary exclusion', but of redundancy. Where there's no need to invoke additional hypotheses to explain observations, it is redundant to invoke them.
If you want to propose ideas that include God, you can. The main problem is that the 'God hypothesis' is ill-defined, has no explanatory value, and fails all abductive criteria.
You can attribute every unknown or unexplained phenomenon to the God hypothesis by default if you wish; that's your prerogative. I don't see the utility though.
Establishing the limits within which a particular theory is known to be a good description and make accurate predictions is important. For example, we know Newtonian mechanics is a good descriptive model and makes accurate predictions at non-relativistic speeds, and we know that it breaks down at relativistic speeds, where Einsteinian Relativity is a better descriptive model - but we also know that it too has limits, where quantum effects become significant.
Science deals only with the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The supernatural is - in general - simply irrelevant, although testable claims of the supernatural have been investigated. If some god or supernatural phenomenon produces consistent and observable patterns of influence on the physical and natural world, it can be addressed by science; but it will be addressed in terms of its observed effects, rather than the unsupported claims of some particular group of believers in the supernatural.
There are thousands of books and scriptures professing to be the words of thousands of gods. Many contradict each other or claim to hold unique truth, and there's no plausible evidence that any of them are real. The vast majority have all the hallmarks of human-created myth and legend.
I prefer to follow explanatory models based on the results of observation and experiment. YMMV.
So when Krauss claims "something coming from nothing" or "nothing is not really nothing" is he making the statement as an atheist or as a cosmologist?As an atheist I can understand why you would want to begin with an assumption of no God. However, that places you in the unenviable position of beginning with illogical claims.
Where did matter come from? "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" would sufficiently explain it.
But without an eternal source you are left with something (matter) from nothing. Can't happen - illogical!
Look closer at the beauty and precision of the Word of God:
In the beginning (time)
God created (energy)
The heavens (space)
And the earth (matter)
Now you may attempt to use pseudo-scientific phraseology like, "nothing is not really nothing" like Krauss but in the end it is just nonsense. Either there was something eternal or there can be nothing because nothing can produce nothing.
Then we must assume, by rejecting God, that simple forms became more structured and complex. When we obviously observe that organization tends toward entropy.
Scientology is the new religion built upon nothing.
So when Krauss claims "something coming from nothing" or "nothing is not really nothing" is he making the statement as an atheist or as a cosmologist?
What would happen if Krauss was a Christian or in general would a Christian cosmologist make the same statements (Christian cosmologists do exist in sizeable numbers).
The answer is yes.
Without getting into the technical details the conservation of energy which in its crudest form tells us that something cannot come from nothing is an example of a local conservation law.
Local conservation laws apply within the Universe, but for expanding Universes (Big Bang and Steady State) there is no global conservation law for energy that applies to the Universe overall.
So there is nothing preventing a Big Bang Universe popping out of nothing.
Ironically the question of how the Big Bang Universe came into existence is a problem in Particle Physics rather than the phenomenological theory of Cosmology.
When individuals encounter a concept they do not understand or lack the knowledge of such as the conservation laws being local and not global they can react in 3 ways.What difference would it make, idiotic statements are not confined to a particular political or religious position.
As I stated, it makes no difference what denomination or lack there of a person is. If it is illogical then it is illogical and no veneer of religion or lack of it can help.
Thanks for that delightful display of scientism. Nothing can produce something... Thanks but I'm going with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
And we come to the bottom line, God is necessary for a logical existence. For further support you may wish to look up Psalm 14:1.
As an atheist I can understand why you would want to begin with an assumption of no God. However, that places you in the unenviable position of beginning with illogical claims.
Where did matter come from?
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" would sufficiently explain it.
But without an eternal source you are left with something (matter) from nothing. Can't happen - illogical!
Look closer at the beauty and precision of the Word of God:
In the beginning (time)
God created (energy)
The heavens (space)
And the earth (matter)
Now you may attempt to use pseudo-scientific phraseology like, "nothing is not really nothing" like Krauss but in the end it is just nonsense. Either there was something eternal or there can be nothing because nothing can produce nothing.
Then we must assume, by rejecting God, that simple forms became more structured and complex.
When we obviously observe that organization tends toward entropy.
Scientology is the new religion built upon nothing.
You don't yet know what claims I 'begin' with.As an atheist I can understand why you would want to begin with an assumption of no God. However, that places you in the unenviable position of beginning with illogical claims.
Any other origin myth would 'explain' it just as well - as would, "It's magic". None are explanations in any meaningful sense, they're just unsupported claims.Where did matter come from? "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" would sufficiently explain it.
We've discovered quite a few apparently illogical things are real - that mass and relative velocity distort both space and time; that the speed of light is constant regardless of your acceleration or relative velocity; that events that one observer sees as simultaneous, another observer may see as not being simultaneous; that particles can be in multiple states and/or places at one time; that the 'arrow of time' (and perhaps causality itself) is an emergent phenomenon; etc.But without an eternal source you are left with something (matter) from nothing. Can't happen - illogical!
Scientology is just another religious scam, invented by a con-man. Perhaps you mean 'scientism'?Scientology is the new religion built upon nothing.
Yes, it's a 'fallacy of composition' to expect the universe itself to have the properties of its constituents; also, the conservation of energy has its limits - it is not necessarily conserved under General Relativity (depending on how one defines one's terms).Without getting into the technical details the conservation of energy which in its crudest form tells us that something cannot come from nothing is an example of a local conservation law.
Local conservation laws apply within the Universe, but for expanding Universes (Big Bang and Steady State) there is no global conservation law for energy that applies to the Universe overall.
So there is nothing preventing a Big Bang Universe popping out of nothing.
When individuals encounter a concept they do not understand or lack the knowledge of such as the conservation laws being local and not global they can react in 3 ways.
(1) They can accept the concept in which case life proceeds normally.
(2) They can demonstrate intellectual curiosity, learn about the about the concept and in rare cases develop a degree of understanding that goes beyond the concept resulting in a paradigm shift.
(Einstein being an example of this).
(emphasis mine)(3) Or they can be individuals like yourself; plodders unable to think for themselves; reliant on a source book at least two thousand years old to do their thinking which contains archaic ideas such as the Earth being flat or the centre of the Universe; and displaying hostility or intolerance towards those that do not conform to this idea.
Would you like to discuss the illogical claims of a tri-omni god? That's where REAL logical fails occur...not something based on your misunderstanding of what the Big Bang describes.
Don't know.
Except that you are in the unenviable position of beginning with illogical claims.
Show me that there ever was a state of "nothing." The only one who actually claims something came from nothing is YOU. Science doesn't even claim that a state of nothingness has even existed.
Wow. How. um. profound.
Got an example of "nothing" we can test that on? Didn't think so.
Evolution is silent concerning religion. Supporting it is not rejection of god, it is rejection of your myopic interpretation of an ancient book.
You mean like when we go from zygote to adult? Oh...wait...no...that's like the opposite of what you say we obviously observe.
Nah, Scientology is a religion built on the ramblings of a hack science fiction writer. And it's not that new.
It's like light, just at a different frequency.Everyone is quick to show us how we can detect a radio wave but none; as of yet, can say "what" a radio wave "is" and frankly the answer to that question is simple enough; no one knows what it "is" & that is good enough for me.
My quest for the unreachable has been reached.
I'm off to the far side of the moon just to see whats on the other side.
later
Well, the "profound" part is the only thing I agree with you about. I do hear the disdain in the tone of your posts for anyone who thinks other than you.
And no, it is you who must decide the origin of matter. I already know the origin.
Going from zygote to adult takes what? Come on you can say it, programming! There, I knew you could.
What does programming require though? I'll wait... a Programmer! Right again.
What would happen to a plant without the programming to handle the sun's energy? It's called toast.
Since you challenge me to come up with an example of "nothing" (which is not possible after the material universe has already been created - and is a misnomer because God being eternal has always existed and He is not nothing!) one might assume that you believe that something must be eternal. What would that be? Can you give me an example of it? If not then I'll just assume you believe in something eternal.
Scientism is so illogical and yet it puffs itself up like a king looking down on his subjects.
It cannot explain the origin of matter or the complexity of life, much less how life even arose and yet it's arrogance is on display for all to see.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?