Evidence for/against YEC

[tuxbox]

Greetings,

If the *something* caused our "bubble", then it's certain - not just speculation/conjecture - that it can cause (and most probably has caused) other "bubbles".

We are working on an "if" here. That said, for the sake of argument, I will concede that there could be multiple bubbles. Doesn't that beg the question on what caused the first bubble?

We'll draw a kindly veil over that...

lol, thank you.

No - this a logical inference from what we know.

In the grand scheme of things, we know very little about our own bubble. For example, we still do not understand Dark Matter. How I am to trust that "we know" other bubbles exist or that the universe is eternal, based on our current knowledge?

In fact, another possibility is that time exists in the *something* that caused our "bubble" - just that our "clock" runs at a different rate. Now that's just my conjecture there.

Sure, that is a possibility. I just don't think it is logical to come to that conclusion based on our current knowledge of our own universe.

Actually, there was a re-run of a program the other day - BBC Horizon's, How Big is the Universe [54:30 onwards, particularly 56:00] - where it was suggested that any major anomalies in the CMB might indicate where our "bubble" was pressing against another one.

You should watch it, it'll give you a better idea of what I've been talking about - and help with understanding hackenslash's posts in the other thread.

Kindest regards,

James

I watched the video and found it interesting, especially the mapping of our universe. However, I did not find the multiple bubble theory convincing.

Sure it is a possibility, but if another bubble collided with ours, it would seem to me that it would do more damage than just make a bruise. Furthermore, that would mean that our universe has boundaries made of some sort of matter. Otherwise there would be nothing to bruise. That is my conjecture... hehe

 

[Deleted member 619]

Again, we only know of this bubble. Any other bubble is based speculation, or at best conjecture.

I should point out here that, contrary to what you might think, the existence of other bubbles is actually more parsimonious than ours being the only one. It's a little counter-intuitive, but positing the existence of other bubbles passes the test of Occam's Razor, while ours being the only one fails it.

Yes, it sounds backwards, until you realise that positing our bubble as the only one is actually to posit a barrier to other bubbles existing, which means that you're positing additional entities. Once the mechanisms for the instantiation of a cosmic bubble are in place, the existence of other bubbles is the more economical solution.

Sometimes, the obvious answer isn't the right one.

 

[JRChadwick]

I am not coming up with a definition for eternal, that is the definition of eternal. Something that has been existing as time approaches negative infinity is the definition of eternal. Furthermore, it is dishonest to claim that you know for fact something which can not be proven; specifically that you know that the universe was caused by something you can not prove exists.

That is not the definition that I have ever seen in any dictionary, which is why I am asking were you got yours. You, like all the others keep on insisting that I'm injecting god into this. Or at least that is what you seem to be implying.

You are. Just because you avoid the word, god and replace it with something a little more obtuse doesn't make you any more honest. The whole first cause argument is based on a flawed premise that our linear perceptions can be applied in any state the universe is in. My rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics allows me to set aside such preconceived notions, but your own bias clings to them as an excuse to avoid having to change your fixed beliefs.

That is not made up... What else could eternal mean?

According to dictionaries it means, "lasting forever, without end or beginning".

And that is different than my definition how?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

If the *something* caused our "bubble", then it's certain - not just speculation/conjecture - that it can cause (and most probably has caused) other "bubbles".

We are working on an "if" here. That said, for the sake of argument, I will concede that there could be multiple bubbles. Doesn't that beg the question on what caused the first bubble?

Well, we know *something* caused our "bubble" - that is a given. That *something* is naturalistic - that also is a given, though theists/deists might disagree, they have no evidence for their hypothesis whereas science's claims are a logical inference based on the available evidence.

No - this a logical inference from what we know.

In the grand scheme of things, we know very little about our own bubble. For example, we still do not understand Dark Matter. How I am to trust that "we know" other bubbles exist or that the universe is eternal, based on our current knowledge?

As Sean Carroll has noted, all the particles relevant to phenomena in our everyday world are known - so we know a great deal about our own "bubble".

And recent work on Dark Matter is closing in on what it may comprise:

Déjà-vu: New theory says dark matter acts like well-known particle

If this theory is correct, a interesting corollary is that Dark Energy may be this particle's wave counterpart - if it behaves like that wave, then that would be corroboration for the Dark Matter particle.

Again, just my conjecture.

As already has been noted, the probability that ours is the only "bubble" that exists is highly unlikely in contrast to the probability that there are a multitude of "bubbles" - quite possibly a infinite number of such, which would be consistent with a eternal universe, although that would not be evidence, in itself, of a eternal universe.

In fact, another possibility is that time exists in the *something* that caused our "bubble" - just that our "clock" runs at a different rate. Now that's just my conjecture there.

Sure, that is a possibility. I just don't think it is logical to come to that conclusion based on our current knowledge of our own universe.

As I said, it's just my conjecture.

Actually, there was a re-run of a program the other day - BBC Horizon's, How Big is the Universe [54:30 onwards, particularly 56:00] - where it was suggested that any major anomalies in the CMB might indicate where our "bubble" was pressing against another one.

You should watch it, it'll give you a better idea of what I've been talking about - and help with understanding hackenslash's posts in the other thread.

Kindest regards,

James

I watched the video and found it interesting, especially the mapping of our universe. However, I did not find the multiple bubble theory convincing.

Sure it is a possibility, but if another bubble collided with ours, it would seem to me that it would do more damage than just make a bruise. Furthermore, that would mean that our universe has boundaries made of some sort of matter. Otherwise there would be nothing to bruise. That is my conjecture... hehe

Don't get misled by the use of the term "bruise" - it's just a figure-of-speech for the apparent shape/colour of the feature on the CMB map.

Remember too, the CMB map shows microwave background radiation - not matter: so the "bruise" is not necessarily matter-based.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Remember too, the CMB map shows microwave background radiation - not matter: so the "bruise" is not necessarily matter-based.

I have to object here.

The CMB map(s) shows the last scattering surface. It's not the easiest thing to intuit, but those photons are reflected from matter so, in that sense, they most definitely ARE matter-based. Every photon we observe is either reflected by matter or emitted by it. In the case of the CMBR, they're mostly reflected, with a small percentage being emissions from the appropriate time. However you slice it, the CMBR is matter-based.

I should also note that, in physics, the concept of matter is deeply linked to the energy-momentum four-vector and, since photons impact this vector (i.e. they contain energy and thus warp spacetime), it's not a stretch to consider photons matter, regardless of the fact that they don't play a part in the male-up of matter.

A trivial objection in many respects, but an important one.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Remember too, the CMB map shows microwave background radiation - not matter: so the "bruise" is not necessarily matter-based.

I have to object here.

The CMB map(s) shows the last scattering surface. It's not the easiest thing to intuit, but those photons are reflected from matter so, in that sense, they most definitely ARE matter-based. Every photon we observe is either reflected by matter or emitted by it. In the case of the CMBR, they're mostly reflected, with a small percentage being emissions from the appropriate time. However you slice it, the CMBR is matter-based.

I should also note that, in physics, the concept of matter is deeply linked to the energy-momentum four-vector and, since photons impact this vector (i.e. they contain energy and thus warp spacetime), it's not a stretch to consider photons matter, regardless of the fact that they don't play a part in the male-up of matter.

A trivial objection in many respects, but an important one.

Apologies for the misleading usage - rather ironic given I was trying to clear up the misleading "bruise" usage!

When I said "matter-based", I meant that it wasn't the literal physical, material leading-edge of our "bubble" bumping into the physical, material leading-edge of another "bubble", like the physical surface of two expanding balloons pressing into each other.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Furry muff.

 

[tuxbox]

I should point out here that, contrary to what you might think, the existence of other bubbles is actually more parsimonious than ours being the only one. It's a little counter-intuitive, but positing the existence of other bubbles passes the test of Occam's Razor, while ours being the only one fails it.

Yes, it sounds backwards, until you realise that positing our bubble as the only one is actually to posit a barrier to other bubbles existing, which means that you're positing additional entities. Once the mechanisms for the instantiation of a cosmic bubble are in place, the existence of other bubbles is the more economical solution.

Sometimes, the obvious answer isn't the right one.

Indeed! However, we (the royal we) are still positing more bubbles here, are we not? That is not very conclusive. Of course that may change when more data becomes available.

 

[tuxbox]

You are. Just because you avoid the word, god and replace it with something a little more obtuse doesn't make you any more honest. The whole first cause argument is based on a flawed premise that our linear perceptions can be applied in any state the universe is in. My rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics allows me to set aside such preconceived notions, but your own bias clings to them as an excuse to avoid having to change your fixed beliefs.

You need to quit Straw-Manning me! No where in this discussion have I been dishonest, intellectually or otherwise!! I have not erected the first cause argument here, not once! My entire argument has been whether or not the universe/nature is eternal. If you can point out where I have, then I will apologize for my tone here! But as of right now, you have pissed me off!!

And that is different than my definition how?

Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain.

This is your definition. Eternal has no time, no beginning or end. There is no axis for time to follow.

 

[tuxbox]

Greetings,

Well, we know *something* caused our "bubble" - that is a given. That *something* is naturalistic - that also is a given, though theists/deists might disagree, they have no evidence for their hypothesis whereas science's claims are a logical inference based on the available evidence.

According to Michio Kaku the Higgs Bosen caused our bubble, which is naturalistic, is it not?

As Sean Carroll has noted, all the particles relevant to phenomena in our everyday world are known - so we know a great deal about our own "bubble".

And recent work on Dark Matter is closing in on what it may comprise:

Déjà-vu: New theory says dark matter acts like well-known particle

If this theory is correct, a interesting corollary is that Dark Energy may be this particle's wave counterpart - if it behaves like that wave, then that would be corroboration for the Dark Matter particle.

Again, just my conjecture.

As already has been noted, the probability that ours is the only "bubble" that exists is highly unlikely in contrast to the probability that there are a multitude of "bubbles" - quite possibly a infinite number of such, which would be consistent with a eternal universe, although that would not be evidence, in itself, of a eternal universe.

How can one come up with probabilities based on one bubble? We have nothing to compare our bubble to. For example, insurance companies use probabilities to come up with their rates based on a multitude of data.

I actually posted that article on my Facebook page. I found it very interesting, but we still have not found any Dark Matter particles. So I don't really understand how they can be sure of anything if they can't detect DM particle as of yet.

Don't get misled by the use of the term "bruise" - it's just a figure-of-speech for the apparent shape/colour of the feature on the CMB map.

Remember too, the CMB map shows microwave background radiation - not matter: so the "bruise" is not necessarily matter-based.

Kindest regards,

James

Understood.

 

[tuxbox]

While it is true that we don't know if time has an upper or lower boundary, our most viable models indicate that it does not. Obviously they could be wrong, but there is certainly no sound reason for concluding that time is definitely bounded in either direction.

I have been accused of being dishonest, so I need to point out that this is a honest question. What model are you referring to?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Inflation, brane-worlds, loop quantum gravity and the no-boundary proposal. All of these have time existing in one form or another prior to the Planck time.

 

[tuxbox]

Inflation, brane-worlds, loop quantum gravity and the no-boundary proposal. All of these have time existing in one form or another prior to the Planck time.

Thank you Hack!

 

[JRChadwick]

You are. Just because you avoid the word, god and replace it with something a little more obtuse doesn't make you any more honest. The whole first cause argument is based on a flawed premise that our linear perceptions can be applied in any state the universe is in. My rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics allows me to set aside such preconceived notions, but your own bias clings to them as an excuse to avoid having to change your fixed beliefs.

You need to quit Straw-Manning me! No where in this discussion have I been dishonest, intellectually or otherwise!! I have not erected the first cause argument here, not once! My entire argument has been whether or not the universe/nature is eternal. If you can point out where I have, then I will apologize for my tone here! But as of right now, you have pissed me off!!

But you seem to be using the "first cause" argument for the existence of a god. You stated that "what ever started the universe must be outside of the universe and eternal." That is a logical fallacy.

Indeed I did say that, however, I am going under the assumption that time began at the moment of the Big Bang. If time began, then whatever caused the Big Bang must be eternal. Logical fallacy, maybe, that said, it is reasonable. For the record, whatever caused the Big Bang does not need to be an intelligent entity.

It is a logical fallacy, and it is not reasonable.

And that is different than my definition how?

Eternal implies it follows the time axis in both directions with an infinite domain.

This is your definition. Eternal has no time, no beginning or end. There is no axis for time to follow.

Then you do not know what an axis is. That is how you mathematically represent something that has no beginning or end.

 

[tuxbox]

It is a logical fallacy, and it is not reasonable.

First off, which logical fallacy did I commit? Secondly, I do not believe I committed one, which is why I said maybe. That said, if time only exists within this universe, anything outside of time and space would be eternal. That is a reasonable conclusion.

Then you do not know what an axis is. That is how you mathematically represent something that has no beginning or end.

Axis: a fixed reference line for the measurement of coordinates.

Good luck measuring something eternal.

 

[JRChadwick]

It is a logical fallacy, and it is not reasonable.

First off, which logical fallacy did I commit? Secondly, I do not believe I committed one, which is why I said maybe. That said, if time only exists within this universe, anything outside of time and space would be eternal. That is a reasonable conclusion.

Like I have repeatedly said; assuming your perceptions of time and space can be applied on any scale and any configuration of the universe is naive. And believing that your armchair speculation trumps the work of every physicist everywhere is beyond arrogant.

Then you do not know what an axis is. That is how you mathematically represent something that has no beginning or end.

Axis: a fixed reference line for the measurement of coordinates.

Good luck measuring something eternal.

Domain: (∞, ∞)
Gee, that wasn't very hard at all.

 

[tuxbox]

Like I have repeatedly said; assuming your perceptions of time and space can be applied on any scale and any configuration of the universe is naive. And believing that your armchair speculation trumps the work of every physicist everywhere is beyond arrogant.

My assumptions come from reading the available data that I have at my disposal. You are the one injecting my Deistic position into this argument, for whatever reason. I will say it again, this argument is not about my Deistic position. It is about whether or not the universe is eternal. That is the plain and simple truth.

As far as every physicist is concerned, well there is not a 100% consensus among them. There are many competing theories about our universe. Which is why I don’t buy into [b]"scientists are always right"[/b]. Their theories are tentative, like most scientific theories and some of them are conjectures and only based on imagination and mathematical equations that do not always add up with reality. So, excuse me if I don’t put my entire faith into the origins of the universe with scientific postulations, hypotheses, and theories when the scientist do not agree on which theory is correct.

Here are a few examples of the articles that I have read to form my position.

http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6521/20131214/collapse-universe-higgs-particle.htm

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6651/20140109/universe-measured-perfect-accuracy-infinite-flat-eternal.htm
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/02/11/quantum-equation-suggests-the-big-bang-never-occurred-the-universe-has-no-beginning/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ripples-big-bang-reveal-beginning-universe/

http://www.nature.com/news/universe-may-be-curved-not-flat-1.13776

http://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec15.html

That’s right I can read and understand what I am reading. I’m not some YEC blinded by a religious ideology. I used careful thought when I formed my position and that position is tentative.

Domain: (∞, ∞)
Gee, that wasn't very hard at all.

:roll:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Well, we know *something* caused our "bubble" - that is a given. That *something* is naturalistic - that also is a given, though theists/deists might disagree, they have no evidence for their hypothesis whereas science's claims are a logical inference based on the available evidence.

According to Michio Kaku the Higgs Bosen caused our bubble, which is naturalistic, is it not?

Agreed - the Higgs boson is a particle, and, therefore, naturalistic.

Not to disagree with Kaku but I'm not sure that "caused" is the right word - the Higgs boson's properties are fundamental to how/why our space-time "bubble" is the way it is.

As Sean Carroll has noted, all the particles relevant to phenomena in our everyday world are known - so we know a great deal about our own "bubble".

And recent work on Dark Matter is closing in on what it may comprise:

Déjà-vu: New theory says dark matter acts like well-known particle

If this theory is correct, a interesting corollary is that Dark Energy may be this particle's wave counterpart - if it behaves like that wave, then that would be corroboration for the Dark Matter particle.

Again, just my conjecture.

As already has been noted, the probability that ours is the only "bubble" that exists is highly unlikely in contrast to the probability that there are a multitude of "bubbles" - quite possibly a infinite number of such, which would be consistent with a eternal universe, although that would not be evidence, in itself, of a eternal universe.

How can one come up with probabilities based on one bubble? We have nothing to compare our bubble to. For example, insurance companies use probabilities to come up with their rates based on a multitude of data.

I actually posted that article on my Facebook page. I found it very interesting, but we still have not found any Dark Matter particles. So I don't really understand how they can be sure of anything if they can't detect DM particle as of yet.

It's inconceivable that a state of Nature that resulted in our space-time "bubble" coming into existence hasn't caused other "bubbles" - if it can happen once, what's to stop it happening multiple times? Similarly to biogenesis - if it can happen on Earth, it can happen anywhere.

If Dark Matter is behaving like a known particle, it's fairly likely that it's made up totally or mostly of that particle.

Don't get misled by the use of the term "bruise" - it's just a figure-of-speech for the apparent shape/colour of the feature on the CMB map.

Remember too, the CMB map shows microwave background radiation - not matter: so the "bruise" is not necessarily matter-based.

Kindest regards,

James

Understood.

Bearing in mind my clarification following hackenslash's comment.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[JRChadwick]

Like I have repeatedly said; assuming your perceptions of time and space can be applied on any scale and any configuration of the universe is naive. And believing that your armchair speculation trumps the work of every physicist everywhere is beyond arrogant.

My assumptions come from reading the available data that I have at my disposal. You are the one injecting my Deistic position into this argument, for whatever reason. I will say it again, this argument is not about my Deistic position. It is about whether or not the universe is eternal. That is the plain and simple truth.

Your assumptions are based on ignorance. You lack even the rudimentary of time and quantum mechanics that I do and you are still holding on to a Euclidean view of time.

As far as every physicist is concerned, well there is not a 100% consensus among them. There are many competing theories about our universe.

No, there is only one theory regarding the development of our universe.

Which is why I don’t buy into [b]"scientists are always right"[/b].

No one believes that! That's why we still have scientists and not just science teachers. There are many things that are incomplete, and although the the theories are well supported by the evidence available, sometimes certain parts are changed to fit new discoveries.

Their theories are tentative,

The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn’t going away, and this new paper does nothing to question its legitimacy.

like most scientific theories and some of them are conjectures and only based on imagination and mathematical equations that do not always add up with reality. So, excuse me if I don’t put my entire faith into the origins of the universe with scientific postulations, hypotheses, and theories when the scientist do not agree on which theory is correct.

You don't know what a theory is! The big bang theory has been successfully used to create models of predictive utility that accurately represent reality. That is what a theory is. What happened "before" the big bang is still a new field and while several successful predictions have been made, it still does yet not have all the evidence required for it to be granted the high praise of being called a theory.

The problem seems to be that you are only reading the titles of these articles you posted. If you actually read the scientific papers they are quoting, you would find that they don't come close to unseating the big bang theory as the correct history of this phase of our universe. That was not even their intention.

Here are a few examples of the articles that I have read to form my position.

http://earthsky.org/space/what-if-the-universe-had-no-beginning

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6521/20131214/collapse-universe-higgs-particle.htm

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6651/20140109/universe-measured-perfect-accuracy-infinite-flat-eternal.htm
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/02/11/quantum-equation-suggests-the-big-bang-never-occurred-the-universe-has-no-beginning/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ripples-big-bang-reveal-beginning-universe/

http://www.nature.com/news/universe-may-be-curved-not-flat-1.13776

http://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec15.html

None of these articles support your position of a universe of infinite time. If the universe was of infinite time, we would not be here because the universe would be in a state of perfect entropy.

That’s right I can read and understand what I am reading. I’m not some YEC blinded by a religious ideology.

I have not seen any proof of that. Perhaps I should link you to the actual papers quoted in these articles. Unfortunately, articles like these are designed to be attention grabbing to the laymen. They often portray a discovery as being controversial (especially in the title) even when it is not. That seems to be what has fooled you.

I used careful thought when I formed my position and that position is tentative.

I doubt both of those claims.

Domain: (∞, ∞)
Gee, that wasn't very hard at all.

:roll:

Thank you for the concession. It's rare I see a creationist admit a mistake.

 

[tuxbox]

Your assumptions are based on ignorance. You lack even the rudimentary of time and quantum mechanics that I do and you are still holding on to a Euclidean view of time.

All assumptions are based on ignorance! Congrats, you know more than I do when it comes to time and quantum mechanics, but that does not prove anything here. My position of time is still based on the BB and nothing more. If you can’t grasp that with your superior intellect, then I do not know what else to say.

No, there is only one theory regarding the development of our universe.

I said nothing of the development of the universe. I said there were many competing theories about our universe. Unless of course you do not think these are competing theories: The Big Crunch, The Big Rip and The Big Freeze!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

Yeah, no competing theories here!

You don't know what a theory is!

Whatever you say oh wise one.

The big bang theory has been successfully used to create models of predictive utility that accurately represent reality. That is what a theory is. What happened "before" the big bang is still a new field and while several successful predictions have been made, it still does yet not have all the evidence required for it to be granted the high praise of being called a theory.

You’re still stuck on the BB as if I don’t accept that as a valid theory. A Multi-Verse for example does not represent our reality as we know it. Which is really what this argument was about before you stepped in and made it a quasi-flamewar with your passive aggressive insults.

The problem seems to be that you are only reading the titles of these articles you posted. If you actually read the scientific papers they are quoting, you would find that they don't come close to unseating the big bang theory as the correct history of this phase of our universe. That was not even their intention.

Again, more passive aggressive insults. Show me where I said that these articles unseated the BB?!

None of these articles support your position of a universe of infinite time. If the universe was of infinite time, we would not be here because the universe would be in a state of perfect entropy.

I’m not arguing for a universe of infinite time!! In fact I’m arguing just the opposite. You clearly have not been paying attention.

I have not seen any proof of that.

More insults.

Perhaps I should link you to the actual papers quoted in these articles. Unfortunately, articles like these are designed to be attention grabbing to the laymen. They often portray a discovery as being controversial (especially in the title) even when it is not. That seems to be what has fooled you.

Perhaps you should stop being a fucking douche-bag, but I’m pretty sure you can’t help yourself. The only thing I have been fooled on, is carrying on this conversation with you in the hopes you would stop with the fucking insults. That said, I’m fucking done with you. You bring nothing to the table and you’re fucking boring the living shit out me.