Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
Just How Big the Universe is
Rank: Veteran Joined: 9/11/2015 Posts: 1,024
|
¿ wrote:Anti_Burglar wrote:¿ wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:harrydre wrote:but these scientists need to explain where that original matter that blew up during the big bang came from! just how far back can they go? I am not sure they can explain. The direction Science is taking seems to show that the questions of 'what...' or 'where...' are simply not answerable, unless as theoretical postulates, in a universe where none of the things we take for granted seem real. A sample: - String theory - the basic nature of reality is not particles or waves but strings, whose vibration creates the patterns we perceive as objects... - The Universe as a hologram - none of the things we perceive are real. They are projections of.... - Quantum theory - time does not exist, neither does space, nor particles/waves etc unless you 'the observer decrees it so' (you create your own reality) And now we have gravity waves. Remember that gravity is not a 'thing' according to Einstein but the effect of space/time curving in the presence of mass or acceleration. So what exactly did LIGO see? Illusion upon illusion. Is it any wonder that the language of Scientists is sounding increasingly religious? If they are answerable, then big science would likely determine if and when we get the answers. Big science does not exist. If it did it would answer that. Big Science - It does 'exist'. They don't have to answer anything when theories and the narratives built around them can be taken as truth. It must be very lazy science. Of what use is it then? It is as good as non-existent.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 6/4/2015 Posts: 604
|
Anti_Burglar wrote:¿ wrote:Anti_Burglar wrote:¿ wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:harrydre wrote:but these scientists need to explain where that original matter that blew up during the big bang came from! just how far back can they go? I am not sure they can explain. The direction Science is taking seems to show that the questions of 'what...' or 'where...' are simply not answerable, unless as theoretical postulates, in a universe where none of the things we take for granted seem real. A sample: - String theory - the basic nature of reality is not particles or waves but strings, whose vibration creates the patterns we perceive as objects... - The Universe as a hologram - none of the things we perceive are real. They are projections of.... - Quantum theory - time does not exist, neither does space, nor particles/waves etc unless you 'the observer decrees it so' (you create your own reality) And now we have gravity waves. Remember that gravity is not a 'thing' according to Einstein but the effect of space/time curving in the presence of mass or acceleration. So what exactly did LIGO see? Illusion upon illusion. Is it any wonder that the language of Scientists is sounding increasingly religious? If they are answerable, then big science would likely determine if and when we get the answers. Big science does not exist. If it did it would answer that. Big Science - It does 'exist'. They don't have to answer anything when theories and the narratives built around them can be taken as truth. It must be very lazy science. Of what use is it then? It is as good as non-existent. Until it's not.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 8/27/2010 Posts: 495 Location: Nairobi
|
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 9/11/2015 Posts: 1,024
|
¿ wrote:Anti_Burglar wrote:¿ wrote:Anti_Burglar wrote:¿ wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:harrydre wrote:but these scientists need to explain where that original matter that blew up during the big bang came from! just how far back can they go? I am not sure they can explain. The direction Science is taking seems to show that the questions of 'what...' or 'where...' are simply not answerable, unless as theoretical postulates, in a universe where none of the things we take for granted seem real. A sample: - String theory - the basic nature of reality is not particles or waves but strings, whose vibration creates the patterns we perceive as objects... - The Universe as a hologram - none of the things we perceive are real. They are projections of.... - Quantum theory - time does not exist, neither does space, nor particles/waves etc unless you 'the observer decrees it so' (you create your own reality) And now we have gravity waves. Remember that gravity is not a 'thing' according to Einstein but the effect of space/time curving in the presence of mass or acceleration. So what exactly did LIGO see? Illusion upon illusion. Is it any wonder that the language of Scientists is sounding increasingly religious? If they are answerable, then big science would likely determine if and when we get the answers. Big science does not exist. If it did it would answer that. Big Science - It does 'exist'. They don't have to answer anything when theories and the narratives built around them can be taken as truth. It must be very lazy science. Of what use is it then? It is as good as non-existent. Until it's not. Arrrghhh.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 4/4/2007 Posts: 1,162
|
Anti_Burglar wrote:[quote=¿][quote=Anti_Burglar][quote=¿][quote=Anti_Burglar][quote=¿][quote=Wakanyugi][quote=harrydre]but these scientists need to explain where that original matter that blew up during the big bang came from! just how far back can they go? The causality dilemma is a common fallacy expressed otherwise with the question: what came first, the egg or the chicken? Stephen Hawking has postulated in his book "A Brief History of Time" that the universe has no beginning or end and therefore does not need a Creator. It means then that chicken and eggs can have existed at the same time and one does not have to precede the other. In the same vein, asking where the original matter came from milliseconds before the big bang is also a fallacious premise.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
majimaji wrote:Anti_Burglar wrote:[quote=¿][quote=Anti_Burglar][quote=¿][quote=Anti_Burglar][quote=¿][quote=Wakanyugi][quote=harrydre]but these scientists need to explain where that original matter that blew up during the big bang came from! just how far back can they go? The causality dilemma is a common fallacy expressed otherwise with the question: what came first, the egg or the chicken? Stephen Hawking has postulated in his book "A Brief History of Time" that the universe has no beginning or end and therefore does not need a Creator. It means then that chicken and eggs can have existed at the same time and one does not have to precede the other. In the same vein, asking where the original matter came from milliseconds before the big bang is also a fallacious premise. 'Singularity' is 'God'. That's the conclusion many are grappling to reconcile with. But in due time...
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 6/4/2015 Posts: 604
|
Anti_Burglar wrote:¿ wrote:Anti_Burglar wrote:¿ wrote:Anti_Burglar wrote:¿ wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:harrydre wrote:but these scientists need to explain where that original matter that blew up during the big bang came from! just how far back can they go? I am not sure they can explain. The direction Science is taking seems to show that the questions of 'what...' or 'where...' are simply not answerable, unless as theoretical postulates, in a universe where none of the things we take for granted seem real. A sample: - String theory - the basic nature of reality is not particles or waves but strings, whose vibration creates the patterns we perceive as objects... - The Universe as a hologram - none of the things we perceive are real. They are projections of.... - Quantum theory - time does not exist, neither does space, nor particles/waves etc unless you 'the observer decrees it so' (you create your own reality) And now we have gravity waves. Remember that gravity is not a 'thing' according to Einstein but the effect of space/time curving in the presence of mass or acceleration. So what exactly did LIGO see? Illusion upon illusion. Is it any wonder that the language of Scientists is sounding increasingly religious? If they are answerable, then big science would likely determine if and when we get the answers. Big science does not exist. If it did it would answer that. Big Science - It does 'exist'. They don't have to answer anything when theories and the narratives built around them can be taken as truth. It must be very lazy science. Of what use is it then? It is as good as non-existent. Until it's not. Arrrghhh. Independent verification of findings is difficult and practical applications elusive but that can change. In the meantime, welcome to the metaphysical side of physics.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/3/2007 Posts: 1,635
|
majimaji wrote:Anti_Burglar wrote:[quote=¿][quote=Anti_Burglar][quote=¿][quote=Anti_Burglar][quote=¿][quote=Wakanyugi][quote=harrydre]but these scientists need to explain where that original matter that blew up during the big bang came from! just how far back can they go? The causality dilemma is a common fallacy expressed otherwise with the question: what came first, the egg or the chicken? Stephen Hawking has postulated in his book "A Brief History of Time" that the universe has no beginning or end and therefore does not need a Creator. It means then that chicken and eggs can have existed at the same time and one does not have to precede the other. In the same vein, asking where the original matter came from milliseconds before the big bang is also a fallacious premise. In other words time as we know it does not exist (Professor Hawkins book was clearly mis-titled). If we accept this as a fact, then the whole "reality" house of card comes tumbling down...namely, there is no space, no change, no distance, no acceleration etc. I think Tycho got it right; the entire Universe, including you and I, is a singularity. This singularity (or 'all that is' - to borrow a term from the New Age crowd) is indeed God. What else could we call it? "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth." (Niels Bohr)
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 6/4/2015 Posts: 604
|
Wakanyugi wrote:majimaji wrote:Anti_Burglar wrote:[quote=¿][quote=Anti_Burglar][quote=¿][quote=Anti_Burglar][quote=¿][quote=Wakanyugi][quote=harrydre]but these scientists need to explain where that original matter that blew up during the big bang came from! just how far back can they go? The causality dilemma is a common fallacy expressed otherwise with the question: what came first, the egg or the chicken? Stephen Hawking has postulated in his book "A Brief History of Time" that the universe has no beginning or end and therefore does not need a Creator. It means then that chicken and eggs can have existed at the same time and one does not have to precede the other. In the same vein, asking where the original matter came from milliseconds before the big bang is also a fallacious premise. In other words time as we know it does not exist (Professor Hawkins book was clearly mis-titled). If we accept this as a fact, then the whole "reality" house of card comes tumbling down...namely, there is no space, no change, no distance, no acceleration etc. I think Tycho got it right; the entire Universe, including you and I, is a singularity. This singularity (or 'all that is' - to borrow a term from the New Age crowd) is indeed God. What else could we call it? No science?
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 9/11/2015 Posts: 1,024
|
¿ wrote:Wakanyugi wrote:majimaji wrote:Anti_Burglar wrote:[quote=¿][quote=Anti_Burglar][quote=¿][quote=Anti_Burglar][quote=¿][quote=Wakanyugi][quote=harrydre]but these scientists need to explain where that original matter that blew up during the big bang came from! just how far back can they go? The causality dilemma is a common fallacy expressed otherwise with the question: what came first, the egg or the chicken? Stephen Hawking has postulated in his book "A Brief History of Time" that the universe has no beginning or end and therefore does not need a Creator. It means then that chicken and eggs can have existed at the same time and one does not have to precede the other. In the same vein, asking where the original matter came from milliseconds before the big bang is also a fallacious premise. In other words time as we know it does not exist (Professor Hawkins book was clearly mis-titled). If we accept this as a fact, then the whole "reality" house of card comes tumbling down...namely, there is no space, no change, no distance, no acceleration etc. I think Tycho got it right; the entire Universe, including you and I, is a singularity. This singularity (or 'all that is' - to borrow a term from the New Age crowd) is indeed God. What else could we call it? No science? It is dead? Hello, brother?
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
Just How Big the Universe is
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|