beecee

Ahhh, OK, thanks. Yeah, OK, I'm a bit slow here.

As a hairy arse school boy in the mid fifities, (ahh memories!) I vividly remember there were three models competing, (if that is the right word) the BB, Steady State, and Oscillating theory. It was the Penzias/Wilson serendipitious discovery that gave the BB the impetus. What year was this radio program?

It's worth noting that the BB terminology being applied to the expanding universe/spacetime model, was a term of derision by Freddy Hoyle, an otherwise great physicist/astronomer, who just happened to be pushing the Steady State model. I have also heard and read that his apparent hatred for the BB was due to the fact that it obviously implied a beginning and subsequently an opening on which IDers and religious folk can hang their hat. It is to the credit of science and the scientific methodology though, that in spite of this, science went the way of empirical observations and evidence and did not shirk away.

That's OK...he had me on ignore anyway...at least that's what he claimed. What amazes me with these characters, is while they are so certain that mainstream is wrong, and that they and they alone have the gifted insight into the "truth", they also seem rather delusional in that claiming what they do on this or any science forum, will change anything. While forums are great for discussing and debating, they are not really a part of any academia or post or scientific methodology where they are professionally able to change the mainstream view and show the vast majority that is the mainstream, the supposed error of their ways. A task they will never and are incapable of achieving via the scientific method.

I fail to see any problem with the good professor's claim. But certainly, if you believe there is, then why not E-mail him and show him the error of his ways? I have understood for a long while that most physicists do not believe any physical singularity exists: at least those pertaining to BHs and I don't see why there would be any different opinion with the BB singularity. In essence singularities need not be infinite, but may lead to infinite quantities. And of course in the instances that I mention, singularities are simply where our models break down or do not apply. Again, as I have mentioned before, I see the problem existing with trying to picture or assign properties to infinity...But then again, I'm only a poor old amateur at this game.

Please provide some evidence that what mainstream science as legitimate science is really pseudoscience. A: You can't other then to make bland religiously ID driven statements. Please provide evidence of what is viewed as pseudoscience is really science> A: You can't. Paranormal and Supernatural claims, beliefs, and myths are just that....There is no real evidence for any of it. But please, do not get confused with what a scientific theory is: ie the best explanation at that time, based on empirical evidence. Obviously, as new evidence may come to light, as new further and clearer observations become evident, theories may be modified, changed or even scrapped. That's science...that's why it is the best explanation and most logical conclusions we can have. That quote above is just more of your unsupported claims, based on your obvious agenda. Let me inform you of a few facts. [1] A scientific theory [as I have already stated] is never really proven. It is an explanation of a particular situation, based on observational and experimental evidence, and may change over time as technology allows us to gain more accurate experiments and make better and further observations. Scientific theories do though grow in certainty over time as they continue to make successful predictions and match new observations...eg: GR. [2] No scientific theory is all encompassing. Even GR has its zones of applicability, outside of which it is fails. eg: The Planck/quantum level. [3] In regards to your nonsensical rantings In the above "quote" (a) The BB in scientific circles is not thought of as an explosion as is normally accepted definition of an explosion...it is quite simply an evolution of space and time from 10-43 seconds after T. (b) We do not as yet no if the universe is infinite or finite. (c) Science in general do not accept the Singularity at either the BB or BHs as a physical entity, rather a mathematical construct at which our models fail, ie the quantum/Planck level. (d) We do not know how or why the BB and the evolution of our universe/spacetime was initiated as yet...a QGT may reveal that in the future.(e) we have absolutely no evidence, zero, zilch of any hint or smell of any ID. Keep in mind that at one time, hindered by mythical ID beliefs, they also believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. You do know that is incorrect, right? In essence it is dumb, I mean really dumb, considering how science has evolved, considering how science has offered empirical evidence to explain the universe, considering how science has pushed any need for any deity into near oblivion, to then automatically and naively invoke any form of ID in place of where science as yet does not have any explanations. This "God of the gaps" strategy has been shown to be invalid time and time again. To now invalidate your "quoted"claims re the BB as pseudoscience: Evidence for the BB: [1]Nucleosynthesis and abundance of the lighter elements (hydrogen and helium) [2] Large scale Galactic structure. [3]Observed expansion of the universe/spacetime. [4] The observed CMBR or relic heat from the BB. In essence then, and to put it quite bluntly, to invoke any pseudscientific and/or religious belief to explain the universe around us, is no more then and indication of some obsessive anti science agenda and/or delusions of grandeur, and then to claim that the experts with their access to 'scopes and a myriad of other state of the art equipment and the data they present, are wrong is plainly just so much hot air. On the religious side of the coin, some people are rather put out by the fact that the universe does not exist for them or indeed cares for them in any way and prefer to stay in their comfort zone, much the same way as a child not wanting to let go of his/her teddy bear.

I'm not knowledgable enough to explain why ecoli are still ecoli, except to say that evolution takes place over a macro scale, and is as certain as any scientific theory can be as to its validity. What I do know is that we do have evidence of certain bacteria becoming resistant to penicillin and other drugs. Also we have so called "superbugs" that seemed to have evolved in hospitals and other clean environments such as Golden Staph. Someone should be along in time to explain more fully.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Talk (and posting mythical claims ideas) is cheap, and actually useless without evidence.

Well since the BB was initially proposed by a Belgian Jesuit, priest, I believe that makes your evangelisitic like rantings rather shallow to say the least.

Certainly are: I'm not sure though which is worse...the nutty crackpot that claims all sorts of unsupported nonsense re the universe, or the fanatical evangelist setting out on a crusade to sink the nasty scientists and science along with them. Worth noting that both only have one outlet: public forums such as this, meaning their inane yapping is simply lost in cyber space over time. Quite a silly all encompassing claim that you certainly cannot support: Obviously many obtained their wealth through honest fair means. Again, another rather silly all encompassing unsupported claim: There certainly have been times when science was suppressed, and just as certain, times when it does and is openly flourishing. Tesla could certainly be classed as eccentric, not that that in itself is a bad thing. Einstein was also eccentric in some ways. Perhaps you need more experience on science forums to realize that controls are certainly necessary, particularly in sorting out the pseudoscience, crackpots and religious evangelists. And obviously, certainly you are not aware of the time, effort taken by reputable moderators in controlling the ratbag element and others that I have mentioned. Or maybe you are in the wrong type of forum?

Bold in your quotes by me: The link you gave yourself, distinctly says " I'm not sure how you can get from that information, that the observable universe is the whole universe which you seem to be saying. Again whether the universe is infinite or finite is still an open question. It is though so big as to defy any attempts we can make to measure it. The finite speed of light assures that. There is no center of the universe from which everything is expanding from: The BB happened everywhere at the same time, remembering that the BB is a model of a universe evolving/expanding from a hotter, denser state, from t+10-43 seconds. That first quantum/Planck instant and the nature of spacetime and/or the mathematical singularity predicted, is beyond the parameters of the BB.

Simply because any inference/belief that the universe was intelligently designed or magically created, means that there was a designer and creator: Then of course if you are courageous enough, you will ask the next obvious question...who designed the designer? And then again, who designed the designer that designed the designer? add infinitum. And of course since we have come a long way since the time we thought the Earth was the center of the universe, to real empirical evidence that we are nothing more then one planet, around an unimportant average star, residing in the outer suburbs of an average galaxy, among countless of other galaxies, and since we have come along way in accepting that Adam and Eve were created by this mythical designer and from there the human race has sprung, to irrefutable proof that life actually evolved from the most insignificant mould to many distinct species including us, and since we have shown that light is not instantaneous but has a finite speed, and consequently space and time are variable quantities, and since we have shown that stellar systems such as our solar system are not magically created, but evolve after gravitational collapse into a star/s and planets, asteroids, comets etc, I therefore contend that science has pushed the ignorantly inspired mythical deity of any persausion, into near oblivion, at least to t+10-43 seconds. Now I also contend that you and your ilk can continue on this ignorant path into myth, for as long as you like, but what I would really like to know, is why you seem obsessed with conducting your obvious evangelistic crusade on a science forum, rather then standing up in the pulpit of your local church. Why annoy us with your mythical nonsense? The simple solution to alleviate your obvious ignorance in being unable to explain the universe any other way then through mythical ID, is to read some reputable material that shows this assumption of yours to be entirely fictitious at best. A basic recommendation is a book released in the eighties by Stephen Hawking, called "Brief History of Time"

Do I believe that the only questions worth asking are scientific ones? Good question. Let me say that the only answers worthy of consideration are scientific answers, either empirical ones, or even strictly hypothetical: as per Krauss's book, "A Universe from Nothing" Certainly, and I believe I have already commented on that, here ... What I believe Krauss and Hawking are trying to say in lay terms,, is that the philosophy that we call the scientific methodology has already been established and settled and agreed to by real scientists, as distinct from the trolls and pseudoscience some like to push as science on forums such as this. The questions that science is attempting to answer now, with regard to where the universe came from, was once in the realms of metaphysics: But now we can at least give some reasonable answer to this even if still hypothetical: It does have some basis. On the why question, again I refer you to the short 7 minute video that i gave earlier...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 I'm not really into being labelled anything, including atheist. I simply find that after reading many reputable books from reputable scientists, (Hawking, Davis, Kaku, Rees, Begalman, Thorne, Carroll, Weinberg) and listened and reviewed many posts from reputable established members on this and other science forums, that in my opinion, scientists today are able to reasonably explain much, at least to t+10-43 sec, based on data from many particle colliders including the LHC, the many space probes we have sent aloft including the HST, COBE, WMAP, Planck, and of course the latest scientific marvel aLIGO and its sister detector. The whys as discussed in the Feynman video may not be answerable, but you can rest assured if they are answerable, then science will find those answers in the course of time. So does that mean I adhere to scientism as you asked? If adhering to empirical science, and reasonable speculative science, rather then worrying about the philosophical why, or the mythical non scientific claims of IDers, is scientism, then perhaps I am guilty.

I agree...and I'm sure Professor Krauss does too. But that isn't actually science.is it? The scientific methodology certainly is philosophy, but philosophy that was set in stone when science started making its presence felt, a long time ago. What Professor Krauss has said, [And Professor Hawking] is that philosophy of science, in that regard has done its job...the scientific methodology, was established as the most logically method of going about science. All true scientists accept that. I would hazzard a guess and say that philosophy is part of the curriculum to becoming a Physicist, and part of that is following the philosophically established scientific method. Again, no one is really disputing the grand job logical philosophical thinking has achieved. We are all philosophers at one time or another...you said that yourself if I am not mistaken. (or words to that effect) I do not agree that a great Physicist maybe a bad philosopher though. Again the philosophical ground work has already been established. My view is that science is what we know, or are trying to know or more extensively, the classification and organizing of knowledge of the world/universe we live in, based on empirical evidence. I have also in my time come across a quote attributed to Bertrand Russell, which goes something along the lines of "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know" That's not meant as a criticism. The first half of what you have said is interesting and I refer you back to the Bertrand Russell quote. Your second part re the relevance of "empirically unjustified answers" is also interesting. Are you referring to Krauss's book "A Universe from Nothing"? or the link I gave re the ultimate free lunch? These are of course hypotheticals and physicists including Krauss recognize this. But by the same token, the thoughts/scenarios presented are based on similar observations and quantum mechanics, and of course as other discussions on this forum has noted...a definition of nothing. PS: As a lay person who is neither a "professional" philosopher nor a scientists/physicist, I have absolutely no liking for any of this simulation hypothetical, nor am I in any way inclined towards solipsism. As a Maintenance person now retired I have always preferred the "hands on" approach which may or may not account for my position at this time on philosophy in todays world, as opposed to the ground work that philosophy helped in establishing. The ultimate free lunch and a Universe from nothing make much more sense to me as a lay person, then other scenarios both scientific and/or mythical and non scientific. The discovery of the Higgs, validates the previous hypothetical of a Higgs field, giving mass to elementary fundamental particles...Practical knowledge that maybe put to good use in the future...eg: (A beecee original ) Perhaps if in the course of time we survive for another millenium or greater, our advanced descendants maybe able to manipulate this field to give a perception of zero mass and so obtain relativistic speeds to explore the galaxy and beyond. Again, practical.

http://newatlas.com/fossil-footprints-human-evolution/51163/?utm_source=Gizmag+Subscribers&utm_campaign=68dc0ecfb0-UA-2235360-4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-68dc0ecfb0-92533145 Mysterious fossil footprints may cast doubt on human evolution timeline: We share plenty of features with apes, but the shape of our feet isn't one of them. So that makes the discovery of human-like footprints dating back 5.7 million years – a time when our ancestors were thought to still be getting around on ape-like feet – a surprising one. Further confounding the mystery is the fact that these prints were found in the Greek islands, implying hominins left Africa much earlier than our current narrative suggests. more at link.....

Seems as though I have created a hornets nest in suggesting and inferring that philosophy and its role in science today is useless. Let me ask our philosophical friends a question: Is philosophy today more concerned with asking questions that obviously we cannot answer, while science concerns itself with what can be answered via empirical evidence ? Science, (cosmology) can now speculatively explain how the universe may have arose from nothing, ( https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ ) a question once traditionally the role of metaphysics to ponder over.......But to ask why? see ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 ) The above is my wording of this particular issue in a debate between Professor Laurence Krauss and a critic named Julian Baggini https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/09/science-philosophy-debate-julian-baggini-lawrence-krauss Let me add another link http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/26/i-can-defend-both-lawrence-krauss-and-philosophy/ In conclusion from that article.... "I think that appreciating the boundaries of both disciplines as well as their strengths is important for getting along. Krauss may not have appreciated what philosophy has to offer, but a substantial reason for the friction is the smugness of philosophers who disrespect the functional constraints required for doing good science. Scientists don’t get to be “bounded only by the finite capacities of human thought”. We also have to honor the physical nature of reality. In my head I have the capacity to flap my arms and fly. In the real working world…not so much. You don’t get to complain because I’m not jumping out of the window".

Agreed: I do though accept the scenario, that humanity, given the time, may well achieve all that the laws of physics and GR allows.

I believe the above from the OP in this thread, says all I need to know about the poster and the futility of replying. have fun beecee

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/what-is-philosophy-of-science-and-should-scientists-care/

I would envisage that this has been taken into account.

Area54 are you saying what Phi for All has said? If so then I'll certainly agree that my definition of faith, trust and belief may need evaluating. Again as per the succulent post by "Phi for All" its also valid in his (Phi) following quote........ Faith and trust are often seen as meaning the same and interchangeable. I accept the subtle differences certainly, as I inferred here "It is faith based on trust and confidence in someone or something in line with accumulated evidence, rather then of course, faith based on spiritual conviction and lacking in any proof or evidence":

The universe has simply been decellerating for around 8.8 billion years and accelerating for the last 5 billion years. It's still 13.8 billion years old. I still can't see any problem.

Of course it is: It is faith based on trust and confidence in someone or something in line with accumulated evidence, rather then of course, faith based on spiritual conviction and lacking in any proof or evidence. You are simply trying to split hairs.

I have faith that if my GP has a problem treating whatever ails me, he'll direct me to a specialist or a hospital for further examination....at least that's how it works in my country. My faith in my GP and whatever specialist or hospital is involved stems from the fact that those are the ones qualified in that particular area of expertise. Yes, sometimes in some cases such faith can be misplaced and proven to be in error: Then of course, I will change my local GP.