ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
No need to apologise, Zachary Smith. As long as you recognize/admit that your speculations are just that: unsupported speculations.
"Time Travel" via the Hyperinflationary Bubble Universe Method
- Thread starter Zachary Smith
- Start date
No need to apologise, Zachary Smith. As long as you recognize/admit that your speculations are just that: unsupported speculations.
I never intended to suggest otherwise. Let.s not forget in my original presentation I suggested the use of "exotic matter" (basically "magic") to manipulate a singularity, which then required being placed into a nearby (and wholly imaginary) dimension of space in order to "rotate" an ENTIRE universe and artificially age it relative to the parent universe.
I'm actually surprised some people took it as seriously as they did. Might say more about THEIR intelligence in regarding it all with such gravity than it does about mine in promoting it in the first place.
No; the problem was that you dismissed actual scientific theory which is supported by evidence, both of the observational and mathematical variety as "magical" because you don't like the implications that come along with it.
No; the problem there is that you present your "actual scientific theory" along with its "observational and mathematical evidence" as if it is the completes picture and reveals The Answer instead of actually raising MORE questions.
I did no such thing. As I said (and I'm paraphrasing a previous one of my posts here), science knows it doesn't know everything because if it did it would stop! More questions are good... pretty much every scientific discovery just gives us more questions to answer. That's how the process works.
But dismissing answers just because you don't like the questions that it raises... that ain't good.
Criminy! And here I could just SWEAR if was YOU dismissing QUESTIONS when you said (and I quote)
Please note the underlined sections establishing the LIMITATIONS you so humbly impose on humanity' ability to learn about the origins of the universe (and beyond). This in response to my QUESTION about establishing the origin of the singularity from which the Big Bang arose.
Now, as to my "dismissal" of answers, you're gonna have to refresh me because I have NO recollection of challenging the veracity of the Big Bang, taking umbridge at any particulars cited as fact concerning it, claiming I didn't accept it's premise or otherwise "dismissing" the Big Bang as the most likely theory as supported by a preponderance of evidence for the origin of the universe. Rather than DISMISSING the Big Bang and claiming invalid, inaccurate or otherwise wrong or incorrect, instead, while I DID do is allege that it is INSUFFICIENT and AS AN ANSWER, it suffers from INCOMPLETENESS because it fails completely to address the FUNDAMENTAL source for the "stuff" from which the Universe was built. And I MAINTAIN that perspective.
FAILING to address that point leaves open ANY and ALL possibilities, from the singularity having been a Mote in God's Eye to it being a bump on the back of a giant cosmic turtle to, yes, MAGIC.
You may hurumph and claim I don't understand science or scientific principles etc. but I DO know one "truth" about the "Scientific Method". it does NOT relish one-off, chance-in-a-life-time, single event explanations for ANYTHING. It likes REPRODUCIBLE results that arise predictably from a measurable and observable set of parameters which, idealy are consistent and repeatable under laboratory conditions.
Well, guess what? Claiming the singularity "always has been" and that it "existed without EVER having been created or having otherwise arisen from ANY fundamental origin is EXACTLY that; a one-off, explain-it-away EXCUSE rather than an "answer".
NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING else in this universe exists without ever having been created, even if, say in the case of energy (which "can never be created or destroyed but only changes form and location blah blah blah"), you must go ALL THE WAY back to the Big Bang itself to find the "point of origin". Your singularity is a uniquity: the ONLY thing in all of this reality or beyond which EXISTS without having been EVER created by any being, process, event, reaction etc. It has, according to you, absolutely NO causal manifest. It just "was".
Now, my friend, THAT explanation is a violation of scientific method and principles. And your inability to address it ABSOLUTELY leaves the concept of "God" did it or "magic" of even the philosophical meandering that all this is REALLY just a product of MY imagination as being as VALID as ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION.
Uh, great. But you're continuing to miss the point. Where the "stuff" comes from is outside of the scope of the big bang theory: it says absolutely nothing about it in any sense. What it does do is describe what happened from (near) time 0+ to now as to the expansion of the universe. It does not, and never has, addressed the question of "where did the universe come from" and instead addresses the question of "how has the universe behaved." You've gone round and round with your rather large posts and you just keep skipping over this. And this is fundamentally what I meant when I first said you didn't appear to understand the theory. It is also why your claims that it is "magical" is incorrect because the question you are referring to... where did the singularity come from... is not addressed by the theory. And therefore, your assertion that the theory is somehow relying on "magic" is incorrect.
Your appraisal of the scientific method seems off as well; it isn't about reproducing events but reproducing measurements... we don't need to create new universes to measure the existence of, say, the cosmic microwave background. We just have to be able to consistently measure it. You're essentially saying that because we're only aware of one universe that saying anything about it is unscientific which is of course wrong... it's not going anywhere, so we can do whatever measurements we want as many times as we want! If someone makes a claim based on observation then other people will make their own observations to verify, no new universes required. So, no, saying that the singularity at one end of the timeline of the universe is a "one-off" and is therefore not scientifically valid is not correct at all.
Further, as the big bang theory does not say anything about where the singularity came from, it doesn't say anything about there only being one of them in a unique event. Some people believe that the universe could be in a constant loop of expanding outward from a singularity and contracting back again, some believe that there are multiple singularities as part of some extra-universal structure, some believe that it was a unique event... and all of these bits of speculation would still be consistent with the big bang theory. We simply have no way of scientifically proving or disproving any of that; if one day we do then there will obviously be a new theory. It's as simple as that. No magic required.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Zachary Smith
The universe either always existed or was created in the big bang.
Let's say the universe was created from something else/by someone (God) in the moment of the big bang.
Then who created this something else/God? And who created this creator? And the creator's creator?
It's an endless chain. And either, at the start of it, something was created from nothing, or the chain really is infinite and the universe always existed - as I said at the beginning of this post. There is no other alternative.
Saying that you refute both alternatives, yet failing to offer even the beginning of a third option is worthless as an argument - it's more like a far-fetched religious affirmation - I believe in something without any proof, and I don't even know what it is I'm believeing in.
The universe either always existed or was created in the big bang.
Let's say the universe was created from something else/by someone (God) in the moment of the big bang.
Then who created this something else/God? And who created this creator? And the creator's creator?
It's an endless chain. And either, at the start of it, something was created from nothing, or the chain really is infinite and the universe always existed - as I said at the beginning of this post. There is no other alternative.
Saying that you refute both alternatives, yet failing to offer even the beginning of a third option is worthless as an argument - it's more like a far-fetched religious affirmation - I believe in something without any proof, and I don't even know what it is I'm believeing in.
Don't mind Zach. He's just enamored of the clattering of his keyboard, that's all.
Goodness gracious me! Digging a month-long dead thread from its grave in order to copy-cat a crack I made about you a couple days ago in another thread entirely!
Aren't you a petty little thieving git with your snarky ol'self?
