Why do intellectually superior humans have around 7,000 distinct languages?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I disagree.

In science one needs to know the initial state of the entity to start the calculations. The singularity is beyond space time, hence, the singularity cannot be measured.

Since the singularity is beyond the realm of science, one cannot then mathematically connect the singularity with the observable universe.

As I said before, it is mathematically impossible to support the Big Bang.

The singularity is the point where known physics fails to provide a meaningful description; what it really means is unknown at present. But classical physics is fundamentally time-reversible; on a macro scale, where behaviour is largely classical, we can 'rewind' our cosmological model to the earliest time it gives meaningful results for, and find a very hot & very dense universe - the visible universe would have been very small (one respected astrophysicist puts it at ~17 cm at 10^-35 seconds).

Predictions can be made, using the same model, about what we should expect to see today given those early conditions, and those predictions have been, and continue to be, confirmed. This makes it a good model within its known bounds of applicability (it's incomplete).

It's a fully mathematical model.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello FrumiousBandersnatch.

An interesting reply.

The singularity is the point where known physics fails to provide a meaningful description;

Simply because the extrapolated scientific theory becomes unworkable. There are other problems with the Big Bang theory also, not just the magical singularity. Take a look at string theory and get back to me.

what it really means is unknown at present.

Perhaps we may never know.

But classical physics is fundamentally time-reversible; on a macro scale,

That is the assumption of course. I get nervous when science starts to wind the clock back into deep time.

where behaviour is largely classical, we can 'rewind' our cosmological model to the earliest time it gives meaningful results for, and find a very hot & very dense universe - the visible universe would have been very small (one respected astrophysicist puts it at ~17 cm at 10^-35 seconds).

It appears to fit the available evidence but I remain utterly skeptical. Classical physics always has it's issues, it is a scientific model after all. That is why you call it, 'classical', physics.

Predictions can be made, using the same model, about what we should expect to see today given those early conditions, and those predictions have been, and continue to be, confirmed. This makes it a good model within its known bounds of applicability (it's incomplete).

Of course predictions can be made and the confirmation of these predictions can be observed. Still this does not mean that the theory is correct. Science is in flux at all times, what is popular today may be redundant in one hundred years time.

There are problems with the Big Bang and these problems are not minor problems. Yet, it is the only plausible theory we have that fits the observable data.

 

[dad]

Apologise for what? An empty claim that you made with absolutely zero substance and when questioned on it, you decided to try and attack what you think are my religious beliefs?

Physician, heal thyself.

Guess it was you then. Ha

 

[dad]

The singularity is the point where known physics fails to provide a meaningful description; what it really means is unknown at present

Ha. Some baloney word then. OK.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Guess it was you then. Ha

Again: Apologise for what? An empty claim that you made with absolutely zero substance and when questioned on it, you decided to try and attack what you think are my religious beliefs?

Physician, heal thyself.

Although now I'm beginning to see why I had you on my ignore list to begin with.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Simply because the extrapolated scientific theory becomes unworkable.

It's known to become unworkable in situations where gravity & quantum effects have significant interplay.

There are other problems with the Big Bang theory also, not just the magical singularity. Take a look at string theory and get back to me.

The singularity isn't magical, it's just an unknown. String theory is a theoretical framework for fundamental physics; it's not particularly relevant to the big bang - although one formulation of superstring theory has been shown to produce a big bang universe like ours.

It appears to fit the available evidence but I remain utterly skeptical. Classical physics always has it's issues, it is a scientific model after all. That is why you call it, 'classical', physics.

We know its not a complete description, but it works extraordinarily well within its known bounds - much as Newtonian mechanics does as a limit of relativity. Scepticism is good approach, as long as it's accompanied by critical thinking and based on reason rather than emotion.

Of course predictions can be made and the confirmation of these predictions can be observed. Still this does not mean that the theory is correct. Science is in flux at all times, what is popular today may be redundant in one hundred years time.

In science theories are provisional, but a well-tested, well-accepted model with multiple lines of consilient evidence, is called a 'correct' model in the sense that, within its limits, it models and predicts observations with sufficient accuracy to be useful. This doesn't mean it cannot be revised or replaced, but unless we discover significant and consistent errors in our observations to date, it will continue to be a useful model within its domain of relevance.

There are problems with the Big Bang and these problems are not minor problems. Yet, it is the only plausible theory we have that fits the observable data.

Quite; the evidence tells us beyond reasonable doubt that the universe was once extremely hot and dense and expanded to become what we see today. The initial expansion is called the big bang. We don't know what happened to start it, but we do have a well-tested and well-accepted mathematical model for subsequent events.

 

[dad]

Again: Apologise for what? An empty claim that you made with absolutely zero substance and when questioned on it, you decided to try and attack what you think are my religious beliefs?

Physician, heal thyself.

Although now I'm beginning to see why I had you on my ignore list to begin with.

If tectonic activity pushed the area where the original tower was down deep under the earth, we would not know where it is. The ground radar cited is a joke as far as being able to do this.

Many bible believers feel that the separation of continents was in the days of Peleg. That would involve a lot of continents smashing into various land masses and uplift, etc.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If tectonic activity pushed the area where the original tower was down deep under the earth, we would not know where it is. The ground radar cited is a joke as far as being able to do this.

But there is no evidence for such tectonic activity happening. Your 'idea' is simply because you don't want to accept that you have no evidence for your claim.

 

[dad]

But there is no evidence for such tectonic activity happening. Your 'idea' is simply because you don't want to accept that you have no evidence for your claim.

?? You kidding? They know that the continents moved apart.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ha. Some baloney word then. OK.

The word has a well-defined meaning - it means that the calculated values become infinite.

 

[klutedavid]

The word has a well-defined meaning - it means that the calculated values become infinite.

Infinite is defined as boundless, in other words the infinite cannot be measured.

How can finite calculations reach an infinite result?

 

[Shemjaza]

?? You kidding? They know that the continents moved apart.

And we know that birds pick things up, but we don't just say "A bird took it." and stop looking every time something is lost or stolen.

More specifically we don't say: "My tie is missing, so we know a bird took it, and since Odin has birds working for him we know you can't take a tie to Vallhalla."

 

[dad]

The word has a well-defined meaning - it means that the calculated values become infinite.

Gets into crazyville then. OK.

 

[dad]

Infinite is defined as boundless, in other words the infinite cannot be measured.

How can finite calculations reach a infinite result?

Just leave creation/God out of the picture, and run numbers till it gets insane.

 

[dad]

And we know that birds pick things up, but we don't just say "A bird took it." and stop looking every time something is lost or stolen.

More specifically we don't say: "My tie is missing, so we know a bird took it, and since Odin has birds working for him we know you can't take a tie to Vallhalla."

You want to check if there was uplift in the particular area!? No birds needed.

 

[Shemjaza]

You want to check if there was uplift in the particular area!? No birds needed.

That's a good point. Babylon want leveled by an earth quake... one way we know this is that it contributed to exist both in and out of the Bible.

 

[klutedavid]

It's known to become unworkable in situations where gravity & quantum effects have significant interplay.

The singularity isn't magical, it's just an unknown. String theory is a theoretical framework for fundamental physics; it's not particularly relevant to the big bang - although one formulation of superstring theory has been shown to produce a big bang universe like ours.

We know its not a complete description, but it works extraordinarily well within its known bounds - much as Newtonian mechanics does as a limit of relativity. Scepticism is good approach, as long as it's accompanied by critical thinking and based on reason rather than emotion.

In science theories are provisional, but a well-tested, well-accepted model with multiple lines of consilient evidence, is called a 'correct' model in the sense that, within its limits, it models and predicts observations with sufficient accuracy to be useful. This doesn't mean it cannot be revised or replaced, but unless we discover significant and consistent errors in our observations to date, it will continue to be a useful model within its domain of relevance.

Quite; the evidence tells us beyond reasonable doubt that the universe was once extremely hot and dense and expanded to become what we see today. The initial expansion is called the big bang. We don't know what happened to start it, but we do have a well-tested and well-accepted mathematical model for subsequent events.

Universe's Expansion Rate Is Different Depending on Where You Look (space.com)

Our universe's rate of expansion keeps getting stranger. New data continues to show a discrepancy in how fast the universe expands in nearby realms and more distant locations.

The study's researchers said this "tension" could mean we need to revise our understanding of the physics structuring the universe, which could include exotic elements such as dark matter and dark energy.

New measurements from the Hubble Space Telescope and the Gaia space telescope together showed that the rate of expansion nearby is 73.5 kilometers (45.6 miles) per second per megaparsec. This means that for every 3.3 million light-years a galaxy is farther away from Earth, it appears to move 73.5 kilometers per second faster.

But the more distant background universe, according to previous measurements from the Planck telescope, is moving somewhat slower at 67 kilometers (41.6 miles) per second per megaparsec.

In fact, the discrepancy between the two measurements keeps getting wider as the researchers refine their work. The new data shows a wider gap between the measurements that is about four times the size of their combined uncertainty — a value that reflects their level of confidence in the results — team members said in a statement.

"At this point, clearly it's not simply some gross error in any one measurement," lead author Adam Riess, a senior member of the science staff at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, which manages Hubble operations, said in the statement.

"It's as though you predicted how tall a child would become from a growth chart, and then found the adult he or she became greatly exceeded the prediction. We are very perplexed," added Riess, who is also an astronomy and physics professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

 

[dad]

That's a good point. Babylon want leveled by an earth quake... one way we know this is that it contributed to exist both in and out of the Bible.

So let's get the aprox area for Shinar (Babel).

"almost all sources, whether biblical or secular, have placed the land of Shinar somewhere in the southern half of Mesopotamia (southern Iraq)"

Here is a pic showing tectonic faults and such.

So, would you like to question whether there was massive faulting and folding, and etc in the area that resulted in some areas being forced under?

Ha.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

?? You kidding? They know that the continents moved apart.

They? Who is 'they'?
You're coming across as incredibly desperate to avoid admitting that you don't have any evidence that the tower of Babel existed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So let's get the aprox area for Shinar (Babel).

"almost all sources, whether biblical or secular, have placed the land of Shinar somewhere in the southern half of Mesopotamia (southern Iraq)"

Here is a pic showing tectonic faults and such.

So, would you like to question whether there was massive faulting and folding, and etc in the area that resulted in some areas being forced under?

Ha.

And where was the tower of Babel located in all of that?