Science Admits They Made Up Everything About the Big Bang

[r00t]

So there's this new proposed theory in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics that applied rainbow functions to prove that different wavelengths of light experience spacetime differently. In essence this means that the universe came from a non-singularity (i.e. discredits the big bang theory, which states everything comes from a singularity)

http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2013/10/052/

[r00t]

The paper seems to be implying that at very small distances, the amount of energy can radically change the perceived length. For example, those of us that know about General Relativity know how spacetime can be warped dramatically by gravity. Thus, assuming that energy at such small distances can also warp lengths that would mean different wavelengths of light would behave differently -- And this would be most apparent in a very hot and dense Universe AKA the Big Bang. Obviously we can't notice it today because the Universe is much too cold for it to be apparent.

That is why it would radically change how the Universe would've 'started'. One of the side-effects would be a segregation of how groups of photons of different values would behave, and hence the term 'rainbow' is used. Think of us having to take the equations that describe photons and having to split them by wavelength for example. This is similar to what a prism does through refraction.

[r00t]

Here's another article. In Rainbow Universe, time has no beginning. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rainbow-gravity-universe-beginning

[r00t]

I can't tell you how great it is being an actual scientist not just listening to what I'm told, applying critical thinking and calling the big bang theory bullshit for years; and now being proven right.

[Bardalicious]

Cannot read article w/o subscribing.

[Bardalicious]

There's a huge difference between discrediting a scientific theory (note: theory) and discrediting it with proof. Where was yours?

[Heebo]

Terrible TV show

[r00t]

There's a huge difference between discrediting a scientific theory (note: theory) and discrediting it with proof. Where was yours?

I didn't have any proof, just as scientists had little to support the singularity argument. Burden of proofs on them in science. Also, my search was more for the theory of genesis (not sure if it's the same as the elusive theory of everything Hawkings and such are searching for). I said Big Bang doesn't explain how anything started, or the philosophical question of "What about the second before time began?". Rainbow Universe actually addresses this and proves original thinking of the big bang incorrect.

[Justinuti]

r00t, you're either a terrible "scientist" or a poor troll. Anyone, even without a scientific background, who reads the shit youve posted, can view the author himself, and the general article saying this theory is ungrounded and there's no evidence behind it, its theoretical speculation in physics. This is good and all, but there is no evidence behind this theory.

Also, I like how you italicize the word "theory". The scientific word "theory" has a different connotation than that common version of the word.

You want the big band to be false so badly, that at any sign of it being false you jump on without reading. Did you just read the headline of the article? Heres some copypasta straight from your link:

...Rainbow gravity was first proposed 10 years ago as a possible step toward repairing the rifts between the theories of general relativity (covering the very big) and quantum mechanics (concerning the realm of the very small). The idea is not a complete theory for describing quantum effects on gravity, and is not widely accepted.

..."So far we have no conclusive evidence that this is going on," says Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, a physicist at the Sapienza University of Rome who has researched the possibility of such signals. Modern observatories, however, are just now gaining the sensitivity needed to measure these effects, and should improve in coming years.

Here, directly from your articles author:

Awad and his colleagues found two possible beginnings to the universe based on slightly different interpretations of the ramifications of rainbow gravity.In one scenario, if you retrace time backward, the universe gets denser and denser, approaching an infinite density but never quite reaching it. In the other picture the universe reaches an extremely high, but finite, density as you look back in time and then plateaus. In neither case is there a singularity

hmmm, proposes theory, isint sure what the consequences are, sounds pretty conclusive.

TLDR; The authors themselves admit theres no conclusive evidence for this idea, hadly "science admits trolltrolltroll". Its a neat idea, but theres no evidence behind it.Ill take my experimentally verified evidence of the big bang theory for now,thankyouverymuch

[Justinuti]

Also, before you jump your vagina off the ship, Ill be the first to admit, like any logical person, that we don't know the big bang happened as we think it does, the model of that theory is just the most consistent with our current understanding of nature and the universe. Nothing more, nothing less.

[r00t]

You didn't read this new study, which offers compelling evidence for its viability and would make a theory, in your own definition.

[r00t]

And it says there are 2 possible consequences of the theory, neither of which allow a singularity, and thus disproves the entire premise of the big bang

[r00t]

People are slow to change. I know it's been indoctrinated in your minds, just like sun revolving around the earth or the earth being flat. But you'll adjust eventually.

[Justinuti]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

[r00t]

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/history.bigbang.jpg

[Orruar]

Your knowledge of physics is only rivaled by your knowledge of economics. Now quad post in response.

[r00t]

With this new model of the universe having infinite time, I guess the heat death outcome of the universe is disproven as well.

[r00t]

Your knowledge of physics is only rivaled by your knowledge of economics. Now quad post in response.

http://engaginglifewiththegospel.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/55-VindicationWeb2-300x232.jpg

[Justinuti]

It also means that the chances of velious being released approach 1 as the limit of time approaches infinity amirite?

[r00t]

You guys dont like our new rainbow universe because youre homophobic

[Ahldagor]

does knowledge of this help pay your bills?

[MrSparkle001]

This doesn't help me choose what I want to cook for dinner tonight.

[r00t]

Yeah, can I walk into McDonald's, into the counter and tell em you can make limestone from gunpowder? Will they give me a cheeseburger if I know that shit?

[Justinuti]

Knowledge is power, bros.

[AexDestroy]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

[AexDestroy]

Clearly, 8 pound 6 ounce baby jesus, in his little manger, created everything.

[FoxxHound]

You guys dont like our new rainbow universe because youre homophobic

Yeah I am going to go with God Created everything. Fuck fags, and fuck poor people. Fuck non Christians too. Actually fuck anything not like me.

[Orruar]

http://engaginglifewiththegospel.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/55-VindicationWeb2-300x232.jpg

Too bad Einstein wasn't into confirmation bias like you are.

btw, how's the bitcoin prognostication business going?

[Kutsumo]

The interwebs, where everyone is a doctor, lawyer, and/or scientist.

[Pringles]

Terrible TV show

[Langrisserx]

didnt r00ts dad like, stab his mom

[singol29]

So, my thoughts are... The big bang doesn't actually say that the whole universe was a tiny singularity the size of a marble or something, more like the whole universe was incredibly hot and dense before expansion started. The only reason we tend to think of a small point is because our observable universe is only about 27.4 billion light years across (the farthest we could possibly see into space due to the speed of light) but the universe probably doesn't have a border. So, everywhere is where the big expansion everywhere (the big bang) started. Also, the Bible didn't say how God created everything. Construction pays my bills by the way.

[radditsu]

http://engaginglifewiththegospel.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/55-VindicationWeb2-300x232.jpg

Einstein never failed math.

[Raavak]

Through red shift aren't we measuring all galaxies and deep space objects as moving away from each other? I suppose there could be another explanation of that someday.

And even if there is some truth to the rainbow wave theory. Like most things in modern physics, it raises more questions than it answers.

[radditsu]

The Ripley's believe it or not guy made that (and tons of other shit we think is true today) up.

[singol29]

I don't understand where the hate against the big bang is coming from. Everything was condensed, not singular. Everything moving away from everything else, causing the red shift (Doppler effect) is because* the expansion started everywhere. Everywhere is the center of the universe because it has no boundaries. No boundaries= no center= no singularity.

[radditsu]

If the big bang did not happen, I would love the scientific community to use evidence and testing to prove/disprove the theory. The entire name "big bang" was a dig at a the theory in its inception that was taken over by the scientific community as it grew. In the beginning the theory was thought as ludicrous and "poppycock" to use the parlance of the times. Same way "obamacare" was a dig at the plan in its inception and was then turned into a slogan by Barry.

True scientists tests theory after making a hypothesis of a possible conclusion. More tests, more of a clear picture. One must always take into account that you can and WILL be wrong. Universal constants are not discovered everyday for a reason.

However, lets take our little owl trolling fuck. He takes any hole in science to turn it over to a religious debate. Religion has a conclusion and makes evidence to fit, kinda like those ancient aliens shows. Bad Science can and does exist due to misinformation and obfuscation. Kinda like those ghost shows!

Either way it would be heralded as a giant "meh" by real scientists, who really just want to work on problems instead of trying to make a religion based on scientific theory.

[Kagatob]

I don't understand where the hate against the big bang is coming from.

A troll.

[singol29]

By the way, I don't disagree with the rainbow theory. Its interesting, but what it explains is pretty much the same beginning of the universe that already exists. It just seems to me like it adds a better understanding to the mechanics of the existing model.

[DrKvothe]

You didn't read this new study, which offers compelling evidence for its viability and would make a theory, in your own definition.

Actually, r00t, YOU didn't read this new study. There's not a single experiment in the paper. No data, no evidence, just speculation and mathematical descriptions.

"So far we have no conclusive evidence that this is going on," says Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, a physicist at the Sapienza University of Rome who has researched the possibility of such signals.
--from that Scientific American article you linked

r00t, this isn't religion. It's actual inconsequential how the universe began; what's important is that we figure it out. Our understanding and manipulation of nature is what makes us human. Scientists backpedal all the time as old data is reinterpreted or new data is collected. Sometimes it takes a while for someone to have a really great idea.

[Orruar]

Actually, r00t, YOU didn't read this new study. There's not a single experiment in the paper. No data, no evidence, just speculation and mathematical descriptions.

"So far we have no conclusive evidence that this is going on," says Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, a physicist at the Sapienza University of Rome who has researched the possibility of such signals.
--from that Scientific American article you linked

r00t, this isn't religion. It's actual inconsequential how the universe began; what's important is that we figure it out. Our understanding and manipulation of nature is what makes us human. Scientists backpedal all the time as old data is reinterpreted or new data is collected. Sometimes it takes a while for someone to have a really great idea.

You just don't get it, do you?

no big bang --> root was right about no big bang --> root is right about there being a bearded man in the sky --> we all get an afterlife --> we don't need to learn to deal with mortality in a mature way --> we can keep pretending like death is only an illusion

[Langrisserx]

hawking already covered this in a paper, a very short paper.

basically, god is inconsequential as the above poster said.

observations must match with results... usually math observations.

if two observations match results, then either can be used.

the observation that god exists BASED on what evidence is put forward is not matching the observations, so you need to pick on.

ill go with science for this one.

[kylok]

r00t needs to get better sources for his troll material.

[Langrisserx]

r00t needs a punch in the fukin eye

[radditsu]

r00t needs a punch in the fukin eye

Sharkesha can do it.

[Shaakglith12194]

http://engaginglifewiththegospel.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/55-VindicationWeb2-300x232.jpg

Einstein wasn't bad at math. You are dumb.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/albert-einstein-did-not-fail-at-mathematics-in-school/

[Langrisserx]

done and fuckin done.

[Langrisserx]

http://i.imgur.com/kvwa3FN.gif

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

There is no theory of "where the universe came from." No scientist has one single thing to say about that question. All science does is extrapolate from observed regularities backwards ("the past") and forwards ("the future") in a causal chain.

What comes before that extrapolated causal chain, or after it, is by definition unknowable, since it involves data that cannot be derived from that causal chain, by definition.

"Where did the universe come from?" is not a scientific question. Just like "What happens after the universe?" is.

There never will be a scientific theory of why any of this exists. Just theories on how it exists given that it exists. But its existence is a given beyond which we have no information.

If you prefer, you can think Vishnu created it. Or, me. Why not me? How do you know I didn't create the universe? You cannot disprove it. Therefore, "Sadre created the universe" should be taught in our public schools, since it cannot be disproved that I may have.

[r00t]

I don't understand where the hate against the big bang is coming from. Everything was condensed, not singular. Everything moving away from everything else, causing the red shift (Doppler effect) is because* the expansion started everywhere. Everywhere is the center of the universe because it has no boundaries. No boundaries= no center= no singularity.

This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang",[19]

[r00t]

also I didn make that einstein picture I just searched for a vindication.jpg nad it popped up. Who gives a fuck if he failed at math or not? Hawkings was wrong on a lot of stuff not just the big bang, a brief history of time is worthless fiction at this point. Less historical fact than the good book.

[r00t]

Scientists backpedal all the time

[Langrisserx]

yea... no, yea see... no, yea, no

[runlvlzero]

you got r00t to quad post, good job

[runlvlzero]

i can't count anymore =/ triple post...

[Shaakglith12194]

also I didn make that einstein picture I just searched for a vindication.jpg nad it popped up. Who gives a fuck if he failed at math or not? Hawkings was wrong on a lot of stuff not just the big bang, a brief history of time is worthless fiction at this point. Less historical fact than the good book.

The person whose name you keep misspelling is H A W K I N G, Stephen Hawking. Not H A W K I N G S. God, you are dumb. Also, he has come out and publicly said that he doesn't think there will ever be a grand unified theory. The thing about science is that theories about how the universe works are constantly evolving as our understanding does. But please, enlighten us on how the bible is so historically accurate.

[r00t]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Orruar]

The only way in which religion incorporates new ideas into their worldview is this:

-> story from the bible accepted at face value
-> new evidence/ideas come along to dispute this
-> religious people fight tooth and nail to avoid the new ideas
-> overwhelming support for new ideas makes believing the original story embarrassing
-> religious people now claim old story was just an analogy, not based on actual fact

Noah, 7 day creation, tower of babel, etc. etc. etc.

[Orruar]

"Where did the universe come from?" is not a scientific question. Just like "What happens after the universe?" is.

There never will be a scientific theory of why any of this exists. Just theories on how it exists given that it exists. But its existence is a given beyond which we have no information.
...

I'm glad you know the exact limits of our knowledge. I bet there was an ancient Greek version of you that said we'd never know why the stars are in the sky. We still are fairly infantile in our understanding of our universe. Hell, we haven't managed to get a human farther than 0.0000000000000000000003125% of the way to the edge of the observable universe. Making claims about the limits of our knowledge seems somewhat premature.

[Langrisserx]

"Goldilocks zones are regions around stars that are 'just right' for liquid water and for the chemistry of life as we know it. Now one cosmologist points out that the universe must have been through a Goldilocks epoch, a period in which warm, watery conditions could have existed on almost any planet in the entire cosmos. The key phenomenon here is the cosmic background radiation, the afterglow of the Big Bang which was blazing hot when it first formed. But as the universe expanded, the wavelength of this radiation increased, lowering its energy. Today, it is an icy 3 Kelvin. But somewhere along the way, it must have been between 273 and 300 Kelvin, just right to keep water in liquid form. According to the new calculations, this Goldilocks epoch would have occurred when the universe was about 15 million years old and would have lasted for several million years. And since the first stars had a lifespan of only 3 million years or so, that allows plenty of time for the heavy elements to have formed which are necessary for planet formation and the chemistry of life. Indeed, if live did evolve a this time, it would have predated life on Earth by about 10 billion years."

https://medium.com/p/239bc4cf4ece

[Langrisserx]

Eat Fuck.

[Kagatob]

Current assumed limits?

[Langrisserx]

From your Dick Tip to your Pie Hole as far as you know

[runlvlzero]

i f y o u c a n r e a d t h i s y o u b r o u g h t i t i n t o b e i n g o u t o f t h e q u a n t u m f o a m b e c a u s e y o u a r e t h e c r e a t o r a n d i f y o u w a n t y o u c a n c r e a t e b i g b a n g s a n d h a w k i n g r a d i a t i o n . . .

o b l i g a t o r y X K C D

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/a_bunch_of_rocks.png

G O O D N I G H T N E R D S

[radditsu]

Hbb post but more boring.

[Langrisserx]

^ smartest post in thread... boring as shit for sure. fun comic though

[Shaakglith12194]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

"Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."

Almost universal assent. Note how that wikipedia article never once says anything about proof of existence. In fact, the whole article seems to state that this entire "Historicity of Jesus" is done by people who don't doubt that he existed already and work from that assumption. Here's something worth mentioning though:

""Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that question the existence of Jesus as described in the Christian gospels. The theory that Jesus never existed at all has support from a small minority of modern scholars."

Still waiting for you to point me to any reliable account of history taken from the christian bible.

[Langrisserx]

christianity is a mashup of religions in order to overtake them without violence and because they are unorginal.

its all astro-theological allegory plain as day.

the stars look different from different places on earth.

man is stupid and fearful.

ad nauseum

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

I'm glad you know the exact limits of our knowledge. I bet there was an ancient Greek version of you that said we'd never know why the stars are in the sky. We still are fairly infantile in our understanding of our universe. Hell, we haven't managed to get a human farther than 0.0000000000000000000003125% of the way to the edge of the observable universe. Making claims about the limits of our knowledge seems somewhat premature.


You did not understand my post. It went over your head.

You cannot derive knowledge about what is outside a system of which one is a member.

Imagine I tell you there is a color no human being has ever seen, and more specifically, it cannot ever be observed because its definition is, "a color outside of the system of color." What color is it? An impossible question, by definition.

The same thing happens when you try to think where the universe came from. If you point me to the big bang, or even God, if you so choose, that is part of the universe. What the question means is, what existed prior to the universe?

But by definition one cannot know. You cannot know something that is outside the system from which one is gathering information.

And this is why questions of ultimate origins (and ends) are unanswerable. We only know the thing that is. It is vast, has a history, has laws, has processes, has end states (heat death).

But we do not know why it is here in the first place. never will.

[Langrisserx]

exactly... we would be satisfied with the how.


the Why is irrelevant at this point and possibly for all time.


well put. there is hope yet.

[Ahldagor]

"Improvement makes strait roads, but the crooked roads without Improvement, are roads of Genius."

-william blake

[Csihar]

HYPOTHESIS
THEORY

Different things. Read more, bud

[radditsu]

Dumbass makes another troll thread because he's apparently not getting enough pussy.

Cause I have been crushing that puss when he's not around.

[radditsu]

Word. Skint, landing strip, or fur bikini?

It's like an ewok down there.

When im done munching that box I wipe my face off on it like a wooly towel.

[Orruar]

You did not understand my post. It went over your head.

You cannot derive knowledge about what is outside a system of which one is a member.

Imagine I tell you there is a color no human being has ever seen, and more specifically, it cannot ever be observed because its definition is, "a color outside of the system of color." What color is it? An impossible question, by definition.

The same thing happens when you try to think where the universe came from. If you point me to the big bang, or even God, if you so choose, that is part of the universe. What the question means is, what existed prior to the universe?

But by definition one cannot know. You cannot know something that is outside the system from which one is gathering information.

And this is why questions of ultimate origins (and ends) are unanswerable. We only know the thing that is. It is vast, has a history, has laws, has processes, has end states (heat death).

But we do not know why it is here in the first place. never will.

You do not understand my post. It went over your head.

I guess your idea might be true if you define universe to be everything we can ever observe. But then your point is rather meaningless. If you use the more traditional definition of universe, then it's entirely possible we're just in one universe of some kind of multiverse, and who knows what kind of technology may come along in a few million/billion years that may permit us to move between them. But perhaps you already have the necessary knowledge and wisdom to know exactly what sentient life will be capable of in the far future.

Keep in mind we can make inferences about things that we cannot observe based upon their influence on things we do observe. For instance, it is impossible to observe gravity directly. We can only ever observe its indirect influence on matter and light. That's not to say that gravity exists outside of our universe, but it should be taken as an analogy. How do you know that there aren't things outside of our universe that have some kind of influence on things inside our universe, such that we can deduce the existence based upon observations within the universe? You seem to possess some rather amazing knowledge about the universe. Either you're some extraterrestrial with billions of years of scientific study under your belt, or you're just another internet expert.

[Shannacore]

Cause I have been crushing that puss when he's not around.

n o

[r00t]

"Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."

Almost universal assent. Note how that wikipedia article never once says anything about proof of existence. In fact, the whole article seems to state that this entire "Historicity of Jesus" is done by people who don't doubt that he existed already and work from that assumption. Here's something worth mentioning though:

""Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that question the existence of Jesus as described in the Christian gospels. The theory that Jesus never existed at all has support from a small minority of modern scholars."

Still waiting for you to point me to any reliable account of history taken from the christian bible.

Are you denying that a man named Jesus existed who said he was the messiah and crucified by the Roman governor Pilate? I don't think any serious scholar or historian disputes this. You can't change the course of 2000 years when you never existed.

Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][not in citation given][3][4] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[5] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[6][7][8]

classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11]

[Argh]

...Note how that wikipedia article...

[r00t]

Remember that 12 year old supergenius kid who disproved Newton's elliptical calculus orbits just a couple years ago? He's also working to disprove the big bang theory (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03/25/a-beautiful-mind-12-year-old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/) now. But looks like Rainbow Universe beat him.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/boy-genius-2-270x173.jpg

[DrKvothe]

Are you denying that a man named Jesus existed who said he was the messiah and crucified by the Roman governor Pilate? I don't think any serious scholar or historian disputes this. You can't change the course of 2000 years when you never existed.

The evidence for Jesus's existence is much weaker than the evidence for evolution as a mechanism of speciation. Discuss.

[Orruar]

The evidence for Jesus's existence is much weaker than the evidence for evolution as a mechanism of speciation. Discuss.

The Bible says Jesus existed.

The Bible also says everything in the Bible is the perfect word of god.

How can you then possibly deny the existence of Jesus? It sounds pretty airtight to me.

[myriverse]

The Bible says Jesus existed.

The Bible also says everything in the Bible is the perfect word of god.

How can you then possibly deny the existence of Jesus? It sounds pretty airtight to me.
Why take the word of the Bible's moran, human, evil authors who thought insects had four legs? Fucking twits couldn't even tell the story of the Resurrection (single biggest event in Christianity) correctly.

[Orruar]

Why take the word of the Bible's moran, human, evil authors who thought insects had four legs? Fucking twits couldn't even tell the story of the Resurrection (single biggest event in Christianity) correctly.

But the Bible says the Bible is all true. How can you possibly defeat such perfection?

[Kagatob]

Remember that 12 year old supergenius kid who disproved Newton's elliptical calculus orbits just a couple years ago?

Nope.

[Orruar]

Remember that 12 year old supergenius kid who disproved Newton's elliptical calculus orbits just a couple years ago? He's also working to disprove the big bang theory (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/03/25/a-beautiful-mind-12-year-old-boy-genius-sets-out-to-disprove-big-bang/) now. But looks like Rainbow Universe beat him.

This is the savior you want to put forward for disproving the big bang theory? A kid that has some pretty bad facts when it comes to cosmology? Let me show you some of the ridiculous stuff that is guiding him.

“So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

Ok, good so far.

“So, um, in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it’s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don’t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn’t there have to be some sort of carbon?”

Ignore the poor phrasing, as it's a 12 year old Asperger's kid. But don't ignore the fact that he thinks carbon must somehow be created in the big bang. What leads him to think there must be "some kind of carbon" created? We know pretty well how all the elements above helium are first created and then spread out during supernova events.

“Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn’t be here.

Right, the carbon is coming out of the stars during supernova. We have known this for decades.

Also, the Earth is not made mostly of carbon. Not even close. Carbon is <1% of the Earth's crust, and probably much less in the core.

So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn’t gonna happen.”

Huh? Why is he calculating the time it would take to create 2% of the carbon in the universe? And why would it taking somewhere between "a couple nanoseconds" and "several micro-seconds" mean "that isn't gonna happen"? There is no logical path to follow in this paragraph.

“Because of that,” he continued, “that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We’d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.”

So we went from need a few microseconds to create 2% of the carbon to 21 billion years to create all the carbon?

Maybe he is making multiple steps of logic between each sentence and really is a super-genius that just can't explain it all because of age/mental condition, but given his woeful understanding of many cosmological facts, I'd wait a bit on holding him up as your messiah.

[Greegon]

theres a good chance that singularities do not exist as well

[Langrisserx]

The Bible says Jesus existed.

The Bible also says everything in the Bible is the perfect word of god.

How can you then possibly deny the existence of Jesus? It sounds pretty airtight to me.

/thread

[Massive Marc]

Ed Leedskalnin is the key to knowing all the answers.

[nilbog]

http://coralcastle.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Ed-L.jpg

[Langrisserx]

^

also.. 42

[myriverse]

But the Bible says the Bible is all true. How can you possibly defeat such perfection?
The Bible contradicts itself and states things that are demonstrably false. That's how.

[radditsu]

n o

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up.gif

[Orruar]

The Bible contradicts itself and states things that are demonstrably false. That's how.

If reality conflicts with the bible, then perhaps it is reality that is wrong.

[Tanthallas]

Here's another article. In Rainbow Universe, time has no beginning. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rainbow-gravity-universe-beginning

Everyone who wasnt a retarded monkey who happened to learn statistics knew the big bang 'theory' was just a popularization of physics for a very long time. Critical journals and articles where largely confined to radical outlets that were not given any attention by the mainstream until very recently. Im glad real scientists are actually allowed to publish critical articles again, however.

[Archalen]

After reading the abstract, the only plausible conclusion I can make is that a Christian God does in fact exist.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

If reality conflicts with the bible, then perhaps it is reality that is wrong.

Now you rockin like some old school Jesuit theologian.

That is actually the doctrine. Our age, as it were, is fallen, fundamentally out of joint. This "reality" is askew. We can study it up and down, but it is fundamentally "darkened" by its separation from God.

In this reading, Catholic doctrine becomes nearly indistinguishable from Hinduism. This reality is a veil of maya (illusion) etc.

But what you said, that's the argument, right there.

But then what?

We all end up meditating on mountain tops, trying to escape the cycle of birth and death.

Once you fuck reality, it cannot be unfucked.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

It's like an ewok down there.

When im done munching that box I wipe my face off on it like a wooly towel.

when she gets out of the shower, does she shake it like a big ol' grizzly coming up from a stream with a salmon in its mouth?

cuz that's what I'm talking about.

[runlvlzero]

The Bible contradicts itself and states things that are demonstrably false. That's how.

Ya'll are reading the bible like it's anything better than a shitty knock off of the original mythology that LOTR was based on.

Listen up folks, whatever spirtuality you believe in, and in high level theological scholars (even the christian denomonation ones) will tell you the bible is plagerized from about a billion different other religions that predated it.

God, if you want to believe in him, as "god" and as a "him" or a "white angly male him" is simply the latest iteration of this belief in some singular universe all father force or whatever.

There's plenty hold over from other religious practice though were there was a strong female diefic persona etc. It just so happens that the last time we were nuked into oblivion, what was left of the white anglo sect wanted to oppress and enslave others, use women, and minorities and happenend to pick and choose a bible makeup that omits/incorrectly portrays many significant historical events.

TBH the whole damn thing could be made up. But when I read about "babylon falling" I read about a kingdom getting nuked from orbit. When Sodom and Gomorrah go, they go in great big blazes of fire, nukes from orbit.

I dunno what watches over this planet, or who's keeping what secrets, but for the most part people are ignorant of the truth.

I'm not saying it was aliens. But there is a bloodline and dynasty of people who have contact with the people who have their hands on the trigger. And they are pretty mad about something in our past.

Hence the artifacts and anomalies found throughout our solar system. And obviously the easy ones to find out about on earth (aluminum landing gear, hammers, horseshoes, industrial steel, precision gears, monoliths.

Go re-read the bible than go learn about it's roots, read it like a sci-fi/fantasy novel like it's supposed to be read as.

P.S. I've seen non-faked and fairly plausible JPL photos, and lots of other evidence of ruins on mars, the moon. It's not even very well covered up, but with the internet/information age, the well documented stuff is obscured by a lot of hoaxes/crap now.

TBH The stuff on JPLs very own website is finally getting taken down out of public site. I'm sure if you got a degree and worked in engineering/aerospace you could readily get your hands on more interesting evidence.

We really aught to rise up and overthrow our government and take back our human heritage. We were once rules of the solar system at the very least, people should know about it. The resistance from the government/Illuminati, rich military industrial complex is going to be worse than if they just finally stopped covering up the truth from casual inspection.

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

I guess your idea might be true if you define universe to be everything we can ever observe.

That's all I meant. we misunderstood each other, or rather, I you. Did not see /wit

[Ahldagor]

Ed Leedskalnin is the key to knowing all the answers.

All according to the whims of the great magnet.

[r00t]

If the Big Bang happened 13.7 Billion years ago, how is the edge of the observable universe 16 Billion light years away? Did the universe expand faster than the speed of light?

[Kagatob]

If the Big Bang happened 13.7 Billion years ago, how is the edge of the observable universe 16 Billion light years away? Did the universe expand faster than the speed of light?

You're adorable... thinking were in the center of the universe or something.

[radditsu]

when she gets out of the shower, does she shake it like a big ol' grizzly coming up from a stream with a salmon in its mouth?

cuz that's what I'm talking about.

I swear that big ol beaver makes wookie sounds and could audition for zz top.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AjMhGRMhO6s


That shit is bad to the bone.


I know where the arizona skunk ape is hiding!

[r00t]

It doesn't matter where our vantage point is. Yes, two objects moving away from each other at a constant velocity, in opposite directions, in classical physics at the speed of light would be 2c (v1+v2=2v). But this equation breaks down when we talk about relativity, and we get the following formula.

v = (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c^2)

Now you see when velocity is low, it is very close to the v1+v2 formula. But as the velocities approach c, the limit goes to c.

[r00t]

v = (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c^2)


v = (c+c)/(1+(c*c)/c^2)

v = 2c / 1+1

v = 2c/2

v = c

[radditsu]

C is not a number. .neither is v

[runlvlzero]

That's only so that the formula fits whats observable, cause Einstein used light as a base constant. And they only could measure light. He was a smart guy for not making assumptions.

We now also know that light behaves more weirdly and can be slowed down/sped up. I wonder how many physicists have thought to take that into consideration?

Not saying his equations are bad, but they do not explain everything possible. Only a finite set of probabilities. Based on light.

[r00t]

Let me see if I can explain this better.

Let's say we have one photon at the "north pole" of the universe, and one at the "south pole". Both of them traveled straight from the "center" of the universe at the speed of light. According to the Velocity-addition formula using theory of special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Special_theory_of_relativity), the max distance between them is still time * c, not time * 2c

[r00t]

so it doesnt matter if we're not at the "center" of the universe, any edge we can measure is still capped by the big bang. I was wondering how this is possible that they measure the expansion at 16 billion and the universe age at 13.7, on the off chance any of you are an actual scientist like me ofc.

[r00t]

err trillion* not billion obv

[r00t]

owait I was right with billion hohoho

[radditsu]

so it doesnt matter if we're not at the "center" of the universe, any edge we can measure is still capped by the big bang. I was wondering how this is possible that they measure the expansion at 16 billion and the universe age at 13.7, on the off chance any of you are an actual scientist like me ofc.

Care to comment on the furriness of your wife's burger?

[runlvlzero]

Yes, and anything outside of that would be outside of your frame of reference, and therefore not observable?

[runlvlzero]

Care to comment on the furriness of your wife's burger?

It's probably pretty shaggy.

[kylok]

on the off chance any of you are an actual scientist like me ofc.

What's your field of expertise? 'Cause you sure as shit don't sound like a physicist.

[kylok]

Furthermore, as a wannabe scientist myself I would greatly appreciate if you would accurately cite your sources when you make claims. It's just good science =D

[radditsu]

Wickerpedia.org

[kylok]

I love wikipedia, shit's not a primary source.

[radditsu]

Drat that actually exists

[radditsu]

http://www.wickerpedia.org

[kylok]

http://www.wickerpedia.org

I lol'd

[r00t]

I only linked to a wikipedia article of OH just one of the most well known and basic formulas in all of theoretical physics after Einsteins plagiarized one

[Shannacore]

You're adorable...

/agree

[Shannacore]

Care to comment on the furriness of your wife's burger?

WHO IS HIS WIFE

[Ahldagor]

he never told you he was mormon did he?

[kylok]

I only linked to a wikipedia article of OH just one of the most well known and basic formulas in all of theoretical physics after Einsteins plagiarized one

I'm not saying the information linked is "wrong", I'm arguing that you're not very good at science.

[r00t]

more specifically

[radditsu]

WHO IS HIS WIFE

Why you madam. He bought the cow didn't he?

[r00t]

So I'm digging deeper and science is literally not making any sense.

All the pieces add up to 78 billion-light-years. The light has not traveled that far, but "the starting point of a photon reaching us today after traveling for 13.7 billion years is now 78 billion light-years away," Cornish said. That would be the radius of the universe, and twice that -- 156 billion light-years -- is the diameter. That's based on a view going 90 percent of the way back in time, so it might be slightly larger.

[r00t]

Dark Flow. In 2008, astronomers discovered something very strange and unexpected – galactic clusters were all streaming in the same direction at immense speed, over two million miles per hour. New observations in 2010 confirmed this phenomenon, known as Dark Flow. The movement defies all predictions about the distribution of mass throughout the universe after the Big Bang.

[Kagatob]

Dark matter is a thing...

[r00t]

Black Hole Spawning. A theory proposed by physicist Lee Smolin, known as the fecund universes theory, suggests that every black hole in our universe causes the formation of a new universe. Each universe will have slightly different physical laws than the forerunner universe. In this way, Smolin suggests a sort of natural selection for universes, as laws that lead to the frequent formation of black holes lead to the creation of more universes, while non-black hole forming universes "die out."

[kylok]

So I'm digging deeper and science is literally not making any sense.

All the pieces add up to 78 billion-light-years. The light has not traveled that far, but "the starting point of a photon reaching us today after traveling for 13.7 billion years is now 78 billion light-years away," Cornish said. That would be the radius of the universe, and twice that -- 156 billion light-years -- is the diameter. That's based on a view going 90 percent of the way back in time, so it might be slightly larger.

Get used to it.

"The image below is both the oldest and youngest picture ever taken. It is the oldest because it has taken the light nearly 14 billion years to reach us. And it is the youngest because it is a snapshot of our newborn universe, long before the first stars and galaxies formed. The bright patterns show clumps of simple matter that will eventually form stars and galaxies. This is as far as we can see into the universe. It is time, not space, which limits our view. Beyond a certain distance, light hasn't had time to reach us yet. " http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_How_Big_is_Our_Universe.html

Personally I hate all this physics shit. It's highly speculative and usually creates more questions than answers. However, I'm not understanding what you're point is. That the age of the universe and it's size don't reconcile?

[kylok]

your* goddamn RnF

[r00t]

Dark matter is a thing...

dark matter has nothing to do with anything being presented

[kylok]

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/howfar/howbig.html

This is pretty much how I look at this.

[kylok]

dark matter has nothing to do with anything being presented

If you're talking about the big bang, you're talking about the origins of all matter dark or otherwise.

[Kagatob]

dark matter has nothing to do with anything being presented

If dark flow is what I'm thinking it is it has everything to do with the gravitational forces of otherwise undetectable dark matter.

[r00t]

I was talking about dark flow which is apples and oranges

[r00t]

Dark flow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Dark matter, dark energy, or dark fluid.

[r00t]

Big bang is intrinsically illogical when you express it mathematically

0+0=0
0*0=0
0-0=0
0/0=undefined

[kylok]

Big bang is intrinsically illogical when you express it mathematically

0+0=0
0*0=0
0-0=0
0/0=undefined

Seriously, wtf are you talking about? Let's try and do this in english.

nothing and nothing is nothing.

nothing times nothings is nothing.

the difference between nothing and nothing is nothing.

the number of times nothing can go into nothing is not defined. It's improper to use an equals sign there.

How this relates to the big bang is beyond me. First and foremost the big bang doesn't say we started with nothing, it says we started with something. If anything this supports genesis. There was a beginning.

[r00t]

The big bang theory violates the first and second laws (read: not theories) of thermodynamcs

1. matter cannot be created or destroyed
2. Everything tends towards disorder


It says 0+0=1, and that everything went from disorder (an unstable singularity) to order (our structured universe)

Not only this, but a singularity exploding from rapid spinning (let alone the matter, where'd it get the energy?) would send all particles in the same direction. This is known as conservation of angular momentum, another very basic law of physics.

I'm tellin you, full of holes.

[kylok]

The big bang theory violates the first and second laws (read: not theories) of thermodynamcs

1. matter cannot be created or destroyed
2. Everything tends towards disorder


It says 0+0=1, and that everything went from disorder (an unstable singularity) to order (our structured universe)

Not only this, but a singularity exploding from rapid spinning (let alone the matter, where'd it get the energy?) would send all particles in the same direction. This is known as conservation of angular momentum, another very basic law of physics.

I'm tellin you, full of holes.
"It says 0+0=1, and that everything went from disorder (an unstable singularity) to order (our structured universe)" - you have this backwards, a singularity is more ordered than a vast and expanding universe. The big bang theory/hypothesis/Idontcare suggests that all the energy/matter of the universe was present at its inception (E=mc^2).

"Not only this, but a singularity exploding from rapid spinning (let alone the matter, where'd it get the energy?) would send all particles in the same direction. This is known as conservation of angular momentum, another very basic law of physics." - You also have this wrong, first of all you're applying Newtonian physics in the relativistic realm which is improper, please do not make the mistake of applying Newtons laws outside of the Earthly realm (that's where they work). Secondly, if you take a look at the classic picture of the cosmic background radiation it's clear (if properly interpreted) that the universe did not expand uniformly, otherwise that picture instead of having blotches of green, red, and black representing temperature differences would all be the same color.

Again - what's your field of expertise in the scientific realm?

[kylok]

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Modern-4th/dp/0131495089

This is my physics book btw.

[r00t]

I guess the disorder bit is subjective. There is a relativistic application of the angular momentum formula, to which I was referring to, that basically draws the same conclusion (i.e. uranus and saturn going opposite directions from inertia would be a violation).

[r00t]

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Workbook-MasteringPhysics/dp/0321844351/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_0_1

That's mine

[r00t]

mine costs more so is better

[kylok]

I guess the disorder bit is subjective. There is a relativistic application of the angular momentum formula, to which I was referring to, that basically draws the same conclusion (i.e. uranus and saturn going opposite directions from inertia would be a violation).

I haven't personally seen the bit on relativistic angular momentum - if you could provide a link I'd love to read it. As far as the disorder bit goes - sorry but it's not subjective, you simply have it backwards. Here's an analogy for you - water. Steam is more disordered than liquid water, which is more disordered than ice. The "singularity" is the ice, our universe as we currently observe it is the steam.

[kylok]

mine costs more so is better

I've actually read mine. Ergo stfu? =D Quote when your book supports your arguments.

[r00t]

here I am trying to work out the angular momentum

http://i.imgur.com/7y35YcR.jpg

[kylok]

I have no doubt that you're capable of doing the math. What troubles me is the conclusions you draw from the concepts you're being presented.

[r00t]

I figured it out

http://weusemath.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DidYouKnow0FactEq1-640x295.jpg

[Orruar]

If the Big Bang happened 13.7 Billion years ago, how is the edge of the observable universe 16 Billion light years away? Did the universe expand faster than the speed of light?

Because space itself can expand, and this expansion is not limited by the cosmic speed limit. Any amateur cosmologist would know this.

[kylok]

I figured it out

http://weusemath.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DidYouKnow0FactEq1-640x295.jpg

Prove it =D.

[r00t]

0! is clearly the factorial operation, and equals one. I have found the basic arithmetic to prove the big bang. I shoudl get a nobel prize for this. Sorry for being a disbeliever

[r00t]

0 != 1, but (0!) = 1

[kylok]

Factorial Example :

5! = 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 120

0! = 1

- I always just took this at face value and never bothered to look up why,

[Orruar]

The big bang theory violates the first and second laws (read: not theories) of thermodynamcs

1. matter cannot be created or destroyed
2. Everything tends towards disorder


It says 0+0=1, and that everything went from disorder (an unstable singularity) to order (our structured universe)

Not only this, but a singularity exploding from rapid spinning (let alone the matter, where'd it get the energy?) would send all particles in the same direction. This is known as conservation of angular momentum, another very basic law of physics.

I'm tellin you, full of holes.

Your grasp of the concept of entropy is sorely lacking. It's ok to not understand such an esoteric concept, but don't pretend to have knowledge about a subject whilst wallowing in ignorance.

[r00t]

entropy doesnt exist in the rainbow universe

[kylok]

Entropy exists in the universe that we live in, and that's really all I care about.

[r00t]

Factorial Example :

5! = 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 120

0! = 1

- I always just took this at face value and never bothered to look up why,

similar to the laws of exponents

x^0+x^1 = x^(1+0) = x^1 = x

if x^0 was defined to = 0, then the above equation wouldn't work

[r00t]

meant to multiply the lhs tho

[Langrisserx]

oh thats right.. you're the guy struggling to reconcile his illusion of knowledge from his year at college with his small brain...

just stay ignorant bro you wont hurt anyone. stay on that ritalin.

[kylok]

I see what you're saying, but that's still not explaining why it's defined that way other than the math doesn't work without it.

[Langrisserx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing is a book by physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, first published in 2012, discussing various scientific ideas related to cosmogony.

it is a small book, but, unlike your small brain, is useful.

r00t = fgt /confirmed

[JayN]

no such thing as nothing ya morans!

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

"It is both necessary and true to think and to say being is. It is impossible and false to think and to say nothing is."

-- Parmenides of Eletea, 5th century bc

[Sadre Spinegnawer]

I haven't personally seen the bit on relativistic angular momentum - if you could provide a link I'd love to read it. As far as the disorder bit goes - sorry but it's not subjective, you simply have it backwards. Here's an analogy for you - water. Steam is more disordered than liquid water, which is more disordered than ice. The "singularity" is the ice, our universe as we currently observe it is the steam.

That's gonna be a pretty big download though, I would imagine.

[runlvlzero]

Our universe is just a bubble in a bigger universe. The universe is bounded by other universes.

Nassim Harrimen figured this out and did a lot of good work on that b4 he went nuts.

Look up the flower of life.

[kylok]

That's possible, but also impossible to prove.

[Orruar]

That's possible, but also impossible to prove.

It's good you continue to claim knowledge on what is not possible to prove.

[kylok]

It's good you continue to claim knowledge on what is not possible to prove.

Provide the evidence of interactions beyond the "boundaries" of our universe and I will gladly recant my statement. Everything I've ever learned about physics tells me that if you can't directly, or indirectly observe and interaction with "something" then you can not accurately say whether it is, or is not there - you simply don't know.

[kylok]

an*

[Orruar]

Provide the evidence of interactions beyond the "boundaries" of our universe and I will gladly recant my statement. Everything I've ever learned about physics tells me that if you can't directly, or indirectly observe and interaction with "something" then you can not accurately say whether it is, or is not there - you simply don't know.

I'm not saying we currently have the technological means to gather such evidence. But to claim that we never will seems rather ignorant.

[kylok]

*currently impossible to prove. My mistake.

[Ahldagor]

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

-Macbeth (Shakespeare for you non readers)

all of you haven't even hit the 1900's with the thinking in this thread. langrisserx is doing their part very well too.

[Orruar]

*currently impossible to prove. My mistake.

Which makes your point (were you even making a point?) completely meaningless.

[kylok]

No point, just waxing poetic about science and what can and can not *currently be proven. I feel silly having to qualify my statements as being in the present.

[Orruar]

It's not even just "the present". It's quite possible that in 2 minutes, an alien species will make contact and give us the technology necessary to prove these things. When you say something is impossible to prove, you make it sound like you are making an epistomological argument, not a practical one.

[kylok]

While I respect your devotion to the absolute of the possible - aliens aren't going to land on earth in two minutes and hand us advanced technology fundamentally changing our world view as a species - that's not practical. Would it be better if I stated that it is extremely unlikely that in the foreseeable near future we will be able to prove that anything exists beyond what we can observe and interaction with directly or otherwise? You're arguing semantics.

[kylok]

And yes, it is a philosophical argument in my opinion since it can not be verified empirically - we've crossed from the tangible to the esoteric.

[runlvlzero]

Provide the evidence of interactions beyond the "boundaries" of our universe and I will gladly recant my statement. Everything I've ever learned about physics tells me that if you can't directly, or indirectly observe and interaction with "something" then you can not accurately say whether it is, or is not there - you simply don't know.

TBH, I put some thought into this after I made my post.

I think the way Nassim demonstrates it is wrong in his assumptions.

That boundary would be a soft boundary and move with the frame of reference, the bubbles would move with the point of view of the observer. This is of course all mathematical simulation of physics. That's probably the most simplified way of seeing it. I couldn't begin to really grasp the math at it. But the abstract is there. It would be something worthy to look into.

In his lectures he asserts you couldn't possibly pass up a boundary, but only down a boundary.

I think that's incorrect, and that the boundaries aught to be represented more holographically, maybe simultaneously co-existing, and indeed, there is no boundary at all if your near the edge. You only perceive such boundaries.

And add in the idea that as above, so below, the universe/nature is fractal (this is just a perceptual, constant). You would get an ideal model.

A easy example of what I'm talking about is:

As you move your universe changes gradually, but you could leave the universe behind. I.e. your origin can pass beyond your boundary. At which point you are no longer in the old known universe. Probably at these points you might see duplication or replication.

A further affect would be that... you are being reached by photons while, in the past, that are from the extreme boundry of your current universe, and that information is constantly there. You don't have to physically be at the end of the universe to see it. Time complicates things obviously and this is were I fall at conceptualizing space/time. And probably were Einstien kicks ass.

Currently improvable to an extent. Yet if you look at the far away background radiation of the galaxy you see what visually represents the same picture as a Nueral network. See Chandra X Ray observatory: http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_040805.html (Provide the evidence of interactions beyond the "boundaries" of our universe and I will gladly recant my statement. Everything I've ever learned about physics tells me that if you can't directly, or indirectly observe and interaction with "something" then you can not accurately say whether it is, or is not there - you simply don't know. TBH, I put some thought into this after I made my post. I think the way Nassim demonstrates it is wrong in his assumptions. That boundary would be a soft boundary and move with the frame of reference, the bubbles would move with the point of view of the observer. This is of course all mathematical simulation of physics. That's probably the most simplified way of seeing it. I couldn't begin to really grasp the math at it. But the abstract is there. It would be something worthy to look into. In his lectures he asserts you couldn't possibly pass up a boundary, but only down a boundary. I think that's incorrect, and that the boundaries aught to be represented more holographically, maybe simultaneously co-existing, and indeed, there is no boundary at all if your near the edge. You only perceive such boundaries. And add in the idea that as above, so below, the universe/nature is fractal (this is just a perceptual, constant). You would get an ideal model. A easy example of what I'm talking about is: As you move your universe changes gradually, but you could leave the universe behind. I.e. your origin can pass beyond your boundary. At which point you are no longer in the old known universe. Probably at these points you might see duplication or replication. A further affect would be that... you are being reached by photons while, in the past, that are from the extreme boundry of your current universe, and that information is constantly there. You don't have to physically be at the end of the universe to see it. Time complicates things obviously and this is were I fall at conceptualizing space/time. And probably were Einstien kicks ass. Currently improvable to an extent. Yet if you look at the far away background radiation of the galaxy you see what visually represents the same picture as a Nueral network. See Chandra X Ray observatory: http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_040805.html)

If you think about it. One day, we'll be able to map enough of the sky to see that this observation does have some evidence backing it up. Currently we don't.

But the theory is sound at the moment. As the ideas are based in current known scientific models. I'm sure we'll refine them over the years. But the basic abstract concepts aught to not change much.

If they do, that will be an eye opener.

[Orruar]

And yes, it is a philosophical argument in my opinion since it can not be verified empirically - we've crossed from the tangible to the esoteric.

Right, and from an epistomological point of view, you can't say that it's impossible to prove other universes exist. All you can really say is that we have not at present time shown good evidence to believe other universes exist. I guess that's what you consider a good point of discussion?

[Shannacore]

You're arguing semantics.

Literally had to tell him I wasn't going to argue semantics with him in another thread. LOL.

[runlvlzero]

TBH, I put some thought into this after I made my post.

I think the way Nassim demonstrates it is wrong in his assumptions.

That boundary would be a soft boundary and move with the frame of reference, the bubbles would move with the point of view of the observer. This is of course all mathematical simulation of physics. That's probably the most simplified way of seeing it. I couldn't begin to really grasp the math at it. But the abstract is there. It would be something worthy to look into.

In his lectures he asserts you couldn't possibly pass up a boundary, but only down a boundary.

I think that's incorrect, and that the boundaries aught to be represented more holographically, maybe simultaneously co-existing, and indeed, there is no boundary at all if your near the edge. You only perceive such boundaries.

And add in the idea that as above, so below, the universe/nature is fractal (this is just a perceptual, constant). You would get an ideal model.

A easy example of what I'm talking about is:

As you we move our universe changes gradually, but you could leave the universe behind. I.e. our origin can pass beyond your boundary. At which point we are no longer in the old known universe. Probably at these points we might see duplication or replication. Earth2, not perfect perhaps it might take infinite regression to find that one... but similarities on a very weird level.

We are being reached by photons while, in the past, that are from the extreme boundary of your current universe, and that information is constantly there. You don't have to physically be at the end of the universe to see it. Time complicates things obviously and this is were I fall at conceptualizing space/time. And probably were Einstein kicks ass.

Currently improvable to an extent. Yet if you look at the far away background radiation of the universe you see what visually represents the same picture as a Neural network. See Chandra X Ray observatory: http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_040805.html ( TBH, I put some thought into this after I made my post. I think the way Nassim demonstrates it is wrong in his assumptions. That boundary would be a soft boundary and move with the frame of reference, the bubbles would move with the point of view of the observer. This is of course all mathematical simulation of physics. That's probably the most simplified way of seeing it. I couldn't begin to really grasp the math at it. But the abstract is there. It would be something worthy to look into. In his lectures he asserts you couldn't possibly pass up a boundary, but only down a boundary. I think that's incorrect, and that the boundaries aught to be represented more holographically, maybe simultaneously co-existing, and indeed, there is no boundary at all if your near the edge. You only perceive such boundaries. And add in the idea that as above, so below, the universe/nature is fractal (this is just a perceptual, constant). You would get an ideal model. A easy example of what I'm talking about is: As you move your universe changes gradually, but you could leave the universe behind. I.e. your origin can pass beyond your boundary. At which point you are no longer in the old known universe. Probably at these points you might see duplication or replication. A further affect would be that... you are being reached by photons while, in the past, that are from the extreme boundry of your current universe, and that information is constantly there. You don't have to physically be at the end of the universe to see it. Time complicates things obviously and this is were I fall at conceptualizing space/time. And probably were Einstien kicks ass. Currently improvable to an extent. Yet if you look at the far away background radiation of the galaxy you see what visually represents the same picture as a Nueral network. See Chandra X Ray observatory: http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_040805.html)

If you think about it. One day, we'll be able to map enough of the sky to see that this observation does have some evidence backing it up. Currently we don't.

But the theory is sound at the moment. As the ideas are based in current known scientific models. I'm sure we'll refine them over the years. But the basic abstract concepts aught to not change much.

If they do, that will be an eye opener.

I changed a bit of the wording after I read it, major changes highlighted. It's really not unique to Nassims perspective on physics. He's just the person who got me thinking about how the universe might be organized a bit more aggressively than other thinkers. (Note I'm not calling anyone here a scientist)

[runlvlzero]

And the whole point of my TLDR double post, is that some philosophy can be backed up by science. See chandra/dark matter.

[runlvlzero]

meaning yeah, some empirical thought beyond philosophy. to say you cant empirically prove a philosophical point is kinda illogical.

[runlvlzero]

Literally had to tell him I wasn't going to argue semantics with him in another thread. LOL.

sorry to detract from your trolling i had to brian dump

[kylok]

TBH, I put some thought into this after I made my post.

I think the way Nassim demonstrates it is wrong in his assumptions.

That boundary would be a soft boundary and move with the frame of reference, the bubbles would move with the point of view of the observer. This is of course all mathematical simulation of physics. That's probably the most simplified way of seeing it. I couldn't begin to really grasp the math at it. But the abstract is there. It would be something worthy to look into.

In his lectures he asserts you couldn't possibly pass up a boundary, but only down a boundary.

I think that's incorrect, and that the boundaries aught to be represented more holographically, maybe simultaneously co-existing, and indeed, there is no boundary at all if your near the edge. You only perceive such boundaries.

And add in the idea that as above, so below, the universe/nature is fractal (this is just a perceptual, constant). You would get an ideal model.

A easy example of what I'm talking about is:

As you move your universe changes gradually, but you could leave the universe behind. I.e. your origin can pass beyond your boundary. At which point you are no longer in the old known universe. Probably at these points you might see duplication or replication.

A further affect would be that... you are being reached by photons while, in the past, that are from the extreme boundry of your current universe, and that information is constantly there. You don't have to physically be at the end of the universe to see it. Time complicates things obviously and this is were I fall at conceptualizing space/time. And probably were Einstien kicks ass.

Currently improvable to an extent. Yet if you look at the far away background radiation of the galaxy you see what visually represents the same picture as a Nueral network. See Chandra X Ray observatory: http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_040805.html ( TBH, I put some thought into this after I made my post. I think the way Nassim demonstrates it is wrong in his assumptions. That boundary would be a soft boundary and move with the frame of reference, the bubbles would move with the point of view of the observer. This is of course all mathematical simulation of physics. That's probably the most simplified way of seeing it. I couldn't begin to really grasp the math at it. But the abstract is there. It would be something worthy to look into. In his lectures he asserts you couldn't possibly pass up a boundary, but only down a boundary. I think that's incorrect, and that the boundaries aught to be represented more holographically, maybe simultaneously co-existing, and indeed, there is no boundary at all if your near the edge. You only perceive such boundaries. And add in the idea that as above, so below, the universe/nature is fractal (this is just a perceptual, constant). You would get an ideal model. A easy example of what I'm talking about is: As you move your universe changes gradually, but you could leave the universe behind. I.e. your origin can pass beyond your boundary. At which point you are no longer in the old known universe. Probably at these points you might see duplication or replication. A further affect would be that... you are being reached by photons while, in the past, that are from the extreme boundry of your current universe, and that information is constantly there. You don't have to physically be at the end of the universe to see it. Time complicates things obviously and this is were I fall at conceptualizing space/time. And probably were Einstien kicks ass. Currently improvable to an extent. Yet if you look at the far away background radiation of the galaxy you see what visually represents the same picture as a Nueral network. See Chandra X Ray observatory: http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_040805.html)

If you think about it. One day, we'll be able to map enough of the sky to see that this observation hopefully does have some evidence backing it up. Currently we don't.

But the theory is sound at the moment. As the ideas are based in current known scientific models. I'm sure we'll refine them over the years. But the basic abstract concepts aught to not change much.

If they do, that will be an eye opener.

Bold is what I have been taught, I challenged my physics professor on this point and he concisely corrected me. I agree the hypothesis is plausible, but I'm hesitant to take anything purely based in math as empirical evidence. Yes it's logical, yes it makes sense, but we don't *currently have a way of verifying it. It's sort of like talking about the possibility of deities existing, we can talk about it for years on end and never reach a conclusion because both sides of that argument can be argued equally well. I choose to take the QM approach, until the results are observed all answers are true - and even then observing them changes them. Part of the problem with attempting to determine where the boundary of the universe is that you have to pick a point that is the middle, and *currently we have no means of doing this besides arbitrarily using our planet.

[runlvlzero]

Bold is what I have been taught, I challenged my physics professor on this point and he concisely corrected me. I agree the hypothesis is plausible, but I'm hesitant to take anything purely based in math as empirical evidence. Yes it's logical, yes it makes sense, but we don't *currently have a way of verifying it. It's sort of like talking about the possibility of deities existing, we can talk about it for years on end and never reach a conclusion because both sides of that argument can be argued equally well. I choose to take the QM approach, until the results are observed all answers are true - and even then observing them changes them. Part of the problem with attempting to determine where the boundary of the universe is that you have to pick a point that is the middle, and *currently we have no means of doing this besides arbitrarily using our planet.

I concur, but it was interesting to think about =) and has some relevant impact on how we perceive our reality from a philosophical standpoint :D

[Orruar]

Literally had to tell him I wasn't going to argue semantics with him in another thread. LOL.

You literally had to tell me? As opposed to figuratively telling me?

And as I recall, you were the one to start arguing semantics in that other thread... You women and your poor grasp of logic. So cute when you try to participate in a meaningful conversation.

[kylok]

I concur, but it was interesting to think about =) and has some relevant impact on how we perceive our reality from a philosophical standpoint :D

Absolutely.

Another point that was made in regards to determining the size of the universe was that after the big bang for a time all the forces were unified, if they were unified then there was no light as it was bound up in this unified force. All the while the universe was expanding, then at some later point the forces "untangled" and light was born. Following this logic it would be impossible to observe the "edge of the universe" without physically going there. Also, to reach the edge of the universe I *think* and correct me if I'm wrong, you would have to exceed the speed of light as the universe is expanding faster than light can travel. Again I'm no physicist, I'ma wannabe chemist.

Perception of reality is a hugely ignored topic in the academic realm (in my opinion) which is why I've chosen to pursue pharmacology with the intention of shedding some light on this subject. Would be a lot easier if humans didn't differ so much on an individual basis =/.

[Langrisserx]

It's like seeing a monkey on rollerskates. It means nothing to them, but it's so adorable for us.

[Shannacore]

You literally had to tell me? As opposed to figuratively telling me?

And as I recall, you were the one to start arguing semantics in that other thread... You women and your poor grasp of logic. So cute when you try to participate in a meaningful conversation.

Quite literally.

[Clark]

http://s27.postimg.org/gq7kft5o3/SAP_on_HANA_Hasso_Vishal_HP.jpg

[kylok]

I blame not having labs near the end of the semester, too much free time. When I'm done with classes at 11 I invariably start drinking and cruising RnF at noon.