Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
No, it's not our senses that suggest that. Our senses have never experienced that. If they did, they'd agree with Einstein. It's not our senses, but our expectations and intuitions, based on wild extrapolation from our limited sensory experience to matters far beyond it, that are surprised by Einstein's relativity.
No, the Big Bang theory is that all matter, all space, and also time itself had a beginning. It was a long time ago, but not forever ago. The theory is closely based on an enormous amount of evidence, and it is framed in terms of Einstein's general theory of relativity. If curved space-time is simplistic to you, I'm frightened to think about what you consider sophisticated.
The Big Bang theory says nothing whatever about why the universe began. In fact it explicitly confesses that current theory cannot address this, because our current concepts of causality fail at the Big Bang singularity. It is neither theistic nor atheistic; it is certainly not an alternative to the theory that the universe was created by God, but neither is it any kind of scientific proof that God exists. It is a theory of how the universe began, not a theory of why it began.
As a physicist, I am always baffled when I hear non-scientists claim that science teaches that things happen by 'random chance'. Current science assumes that the universe is strictly deterministic. Absolutely everything happens for a reason, except perhaps for the very beginning of everything (back to the Big Bang again). 'Chance' is merely what we call it when the reasons make no particular sense to human imagination.
Things happen by chance only in the way that, to an ignorant kibitzer, high level chess games seem to be decided by chance. The ignorant kibitzer can't follow the moves or discern the patterns, can't tell who is going to win until the last move, and thinks that the victory happened only in that last move itself, by chance. But in reality the whole pattern was set from the earliest stage of the game. For the chess game of reality, played out by the laws of nature, we humans are all ignorant kibitzers. We say that things happen by chance, whenever the pattern is too complex for us to follow. That doesn't mean that 'chance' is accounted as any kind of causal agent in science.
#1 -
No, it's not our senses that suggest that. Our senses have never experienced that. If they did, they'd agree with Einstein. It's not our senses, but our expectations and intuitions, based on wild extrapolation from our limited sensory experience to matters far beyond it, that are surprised by Einstein's relativity.
Our expectations and intuitions
derive from what our senses have experienced at the ranges of speed in which we are conversant with. Extrapolation does occur; I would call it extrapolation of the most logical type possible based on our limited sensory perceptions. TAJ has built no case to call it "wild". Newtonian physics was based on that extrapolation. It described our universe well for hundreds of years. As science pushed it's boundaries further out and those extrapolations continued to be used, they finally started to break down. Einstein was able reformulate physics to explain and correct the shortcomings of Newtonian physics. I see nothing wild there.
The Big Bang theory was developed after scientists discovered that our universe was expanding, every galaxy was moving away from every other galaxy and the rate of separation was proportional to the distance between galaxies, the further apart the galaxies were, the more rapid their separation.
I believe that the concept of curved space came into existence as part of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity of 1916 (11 years after his Special Theory of Relativity). This portion of his theory deals a lot with gravity and introduces the concept of curved space.
The tie in to Einstein's theories and curved space is because the speed with which the galaxies separate increases the further apart the galaxies are. It this went unchecked, the velocity of light would have to be exceeded. To keep this from happening, science has to postulate curved space.
It would be possible to have a Big Bang theory in linear space but only if the idea that material objects can not equal or exceed the velocity of light with respect to one another is given up. Thus curved space sort of comes in the back door to shore up the Big Bang Theory.
WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE BIGGEST FALLACY IN THE MODEL PRESENTED HERE
Current science denies the existence of God but more importantly it denies the existence of "intelligent design". This denial is so strong in the practical world that adherents of science will fight very hard to keep "intelligent design" from being taught in any public school. They discourage it from being taught anywhere but if it has to be taught, they want it restricted to being taught only in religious schools.
In the face of this FACT, TAJ interjects this paragraph:
"Current science assumes that the universe is strictly deterministic. Absolutely everything happens for a reason, except perhaps for the very beginning of everything (back to the Big Bang again). 'Chance' is merely what we call it when the reasons make no particular sense to human imagination."
Now, "if everything happens for a reason, except perhaps for the very beginning..",
that leaves two huge wholes in TAJ's argument.
#1 If the very first rung in a construct or argument is doubtful, the entire edifice crashes down. What good is a well engineered building if its foundation is weak?
#2 If everything is strictly deterministic and happens for a reason, then TAJ is tacitly admitting the existence of "intelligent design"
TAJ, You can't have your cake and eat it too. For something to happen for a reason, there has to be some sort of intelligence directing things otherwise, who or what is to say what is reasonable? Who or what determines every thing that happens?
TAJ then closes with,
"'Chance' is merely what we call it when the reasons make no particular sense to human imagination."
Look, if there is something much greater than the human imagination which determines what happens in the universe and there is a reason behind everything which happens, well, okay, that is grounds for a sound theory. But if this is the grounds for a sound theory then human beings have the right to refer to this something that is much greater than human imagination as "Intelligent Design"
For some odd reason, this we are not allowed to do. Why not, why aren't we allowed to refer to this unknown source of reason which determines everything in the universe as "Intelligence"? Also, keep in mind that the first premise upon which the theory is based may not be in alignment with the rest of the theory.
The way out to explain away this mish-mash is to belittle human beings and claim that what is going on is way beyond our abilities to understand.
This is going to be my last post on this for awhile. I'll give TAJ the last word. I really have no more to say on the subject. I liked all his posts on this topic up until this last one. This last post of his really lost me, I am not at all impressed with the concepts he put forth. I'm not an authority in this field, it is just a hobby for me. On something like this, I go a lot by a gut feeling and my gut feeling is very negative about some of the points he is making. Maybe it's over my head, I don't know but my gut feeling tells to call it quits and hold strong to my own beliefs.
Lakey
