Is the big bang and evolution sciences theory of everything.

[beecee]

13 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

This is basic logic, if you don't have the facts, your left with opinion.

Modern science doesn't have all the facts, so it fills in it with opinion, hence our theories are a mix of facts and opinion.

The universe is subtle, the evidence once said the earth was flat, the evidence once said the sun moved around the earth, what makes you so sure that the expansion of the universe is not just another illusion? You have to step back and question whether what you are seeing is real or not.

Modern science doesn't drag theories/models out of there rear end as you seem to be doing.

The universe was deemed to be expanding due to the red shifting of light being emitted by distant galaxies. Do you have another explanation for that? So "you" then step back and question whether that is real or not? And what answer do you arrive at? So to do scientists/cosmologists step back every day and question whether it is real or not, and they of course have the necessary learning and expertise to question that observation. One alternative that was raised was the concept of "tired light". But the presence of the CMBR and other factors have ruled that out. Guess what? the answer still is that spacetime is expanding over large scales. You do understand that cosmology in general, and the BB and GR are being put to the test every day, don't you?

Again, it is quiet admirable questioning present incumbent models, if one has the necessary credentials or if short comings are unexplained within said incumbent model. That is done every day. In recent times as an example, GR has been confirmed to even greater certainties within its zone of applicability with the discovery of gravitational waves. And as it happens, GR fits in perfectly with the BB model of space/time/universe.

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

I am willing, just I am not allowed. However, by claiming the universe is pixel/tile/cell based I have magically provided an answer to "how" the laws of the universe are everywhere, its objective fact and its self-evident, its not my opinion. Philosophy becomes science.

Magic plays no part in modelling scientific theories. So not only is it just your opinion, it is a Santa Claus like explanation. Do you still believe in Santa Claus? 

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion"?

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

Here are a couple of more quotes........

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself".

Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). 

Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists: Richard Feynman

Edited September 22, 2018 by beecee

[PrimalMinister]

11 hours ago, studiot said:

 

No one is preventing you answering my question or continuing our conversation.

Look, this is all new to me, the forums, talking to people about my theory. I haven't done that before.

18 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok, interesting! I fail to see why it is self evident but that may be just my lack of understanding so far

Because no of what I have said is opinion, its an objective fact, its self evident, it explains itself.

18 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Can you please describe: what is a pixel in the context of your theory?

It is a simple unit of space, it goes through a fixed cycle of creating the universe then destroying it, very very fast, reality is constantly popping into and out of existance. That is time. So now I have given you the basis of a new spacetime theory to replace Einstiens.

 

18 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Please include a proper mathematic model in your description.

I have already said I am not going to do the big reveal yet, I know this is frustrating but I have thought about this a lot and I am only going to provide some basics for now. For example, if the universe is pixel based then it only sustains and decays things, it doesn't create, so it doesn't explain how stars were created, good luck working that out.

 

18 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Sorry for repeating but I also would like to take part in the discussion about the original topic. If I get your idea correctly there are gaps to be filled but only within these two theories. There is no room anywhere for any kind of new discovery that does not fit within big bang/evolution*? How is that? If possible, I would like some more detail, not an answer similar to "Because it explains everything".

The original conversation was a bit messy, I am going to slow down a bit so things stay more understandable. I dont quite get what you are on about here, sorry.

[studiot]

Quote

PrimalMinister

22 hours ago, studiot said:

 

No one is preventing you answering my question or continuing our conversation.

Look, this is all new to me, the forums, talking to people about my theory. I haven't done that before.

 

So why don't you practice with someone who  makes uncomplicated comments/questions?

Edited September 23, 2018 by studiot

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Because no of what I have said is opinion, its an objective fact, its self evident, it explains itself.

Your opinion is that the universe is pixellated or cellular.

This is an opinion because there is no evidence for it.

Note that the idea has been suggested many times (so this is not some great insight you have come up with). And then people have come up with mathematical models based on the idea (something you have failed to do). They have then used these models to make testable (quantitative) predictions (again something you cannot do). Experiments have then been done to test these predictions. No evidence for the pixellated nature of space has been found so far.

This process is called "science". Asserting that your idea must be right because it seems obvious to you is not called science. This is a science forum. Do you see where the problem is?

By your definition of "objective fact" as in the table example, we should all be able to see and agree that the universe is pixellated, but in fact we can't. So it is not a fact. As you say there are only two choices, it must therefore be opinion.

11 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So now I have given you the basis of a new spacetime theory to replace Einstiens.

And can you use this to calculate the orbital height of a geostationary satellite? That would allow us to check the accuracy of your theory.

11 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I have already said I am not going to do the big reveal yet

Then you are on your way to getting this thread closed and maybe banned from the forum. That seems a very silly attitude.

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Strange

[PrimalMinister]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Then you are on your way to getting this thread closed and maybe banned from the forum. That seems a very silly attitude

Which is why I am talking about problems with the current theories, science doesn't explain how the laws of the universe are somehow everywhere, someone said this is philosophy when actually it turns out its the most important problem with physics. You try explaining how the laws of the universe are everywhere in apparently empty space?

[PrimalMinister]

 

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Magic plays no part in modelling scientific theories

The universe is magical, not in a fantasy way, but in the way a normal magician does, he pulls of an impossible seeming trick (the laws of the universe are everywhere in apparently empty space) but now he is going to show you how the magic is done.

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Which is why I am talking about problems with the current theories, science doesn't explain how the laws of the universe are somehow everywhere, someone said this is philosophy when actually it turns out its the most important problem with physics. You try explaining how the laws of the universe are everywhere in apparently empty space?

1. And yet again, you have changed the subject instead of engaging in discussion. This thread will not remain open long.
2. Why is it the most important problem in physics? I can't see it making a significant difference to anything.
3. We don't even know if it is true. So far the evidence is consistent with physics being the same everywhere but that may be a limitation of our measurements. And things might be different beyond the observable universe. (In which case we will never know.)
4. You are unable to explain why the laws of physics are the same everywhere so there seems little point talking about it.

[PrimalMinister]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are unable to explain why the laws of physics are the same everywhere so there seems little point talking about it

So I am waiting for sciences 'well God made it that way so thats the way it is'.

This is why in my original post I wanted to talk about the problem first, it IS a problem for physics, its not philosophy.

 

[studiot]

I don't see that this discussion about the 'Laws of Physics' is being very fruitful.

PrimalMinister, your point  appears at cross purposes with Strange's interpretation who seems to me to be talking about something different.

PM you seem to be questioning how laws can 'appear or exist or be' in empty space?

This is not quite the same Strange saying the seem to be the same everywhere.

What do you mean by a Law existing in empty space? Do you mean operating or influencing that space or what?

 

In any case it is interesting to note that the Laws we have identified are sufficiently weird that the results of their operation are not necessarily the same, even in adjacent chunks of space, empty or not, let alone widely separated chunks. The Uncertainty Principle guarantees that.

Edited September 23, 2018 by studiot

[PrimalMinister]

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

What do you mean by a Law existing in empty space?

Well where are the laws of the universe exactly?

Edited September 23, 2018 by PrimalMinister

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So I am waiting for sciences 'well God made it that way so thats the way it is'.

Then you will have a long wait. That is not science's answer. Not sure why you think it would be.

18 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

This is why in my original post I wanted to talk about the problem first, it IS a problem for physics, its not philosophy.

Why is it a problem?

5 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Well where are the laws of the universe exactly?

In text books. They are a human invention.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Well where are the laws of the universe exactly?

 

I could say something childish and playground-like such as "I asked you first"

or I could be facetious and say "In my back pocket"

or I could observe that this is a counterproductive smart-alec type response on your part which suggests you don't actually want your thread to progress.

 

Which answer would you prefer, since you know and I know that question of yours is so ill-posed that it is meaningless.

Deliberately or not I can't tell.

Edited September 23, 2018 by studiot

[PrimalMinister]

I am being sincere, honestly, try answering the question. You are the specialists.

It is similar to asking how are the laws of the universe everywhere.

How can laws apparently come out of nowhere, yet be everywhere.

Someone said gravity was the prime mover, its not, gravity is part of reality, its virtual, its not real. The only real thing in the universe is the pixels/tiles/cells, everything else if virtual, a part of reality, a reality which is constantly popping into and out of existance.

I know you want the math, but I can go better than that, I can derive maths itself from a pixel based universe, The pixel is the first 'unit'.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

I have already said I am not going to do the big reveal yet

Ok! But how am I supposed to see the self evident step if you have a complete picture of some new pixel based model while I have only a short description without any details?

 

36 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I know you want the math, but I can go better than that, I can derive maths itself from a pixel based universe, The pixel is the first 'unit'.

Ok! That is interesting, please show how.

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

 

20 hours ago, Ghideon said:

If possible, I would like some more detail, not an answer similar to "Because it explains everything".

The original conversation was a bit messy, I am going to slow down a bit so things stay more understandable. I dont quite get what you are on about here, sorry.

The reason for my statement is that i have tried to ask the same question from various angles and also to figure out the answers to other members posts but all I can find is:

On 2018-09-21 at 11:53 AM, PrimalMinister said:

It looks like it a theory of everything because it explains everything doesn't it?

and

On 2018-09-21 at 12:27 PM, PrimalMinister said:

The big bang/evolution is a theory of everything, it explains everything does it not?

and

On 2018-09-21 at 12:46 PM, PrimalMinister said:

I am just trying to point out the big bang/evolution is obviously a theory of everything, because it explains everything, including what we don't yet

and

On 2018-09-21 at 1:19 PM, PrimalMinister said:

Anyhow, the big bang/evolution theory explains everything, including things we don't understand yet

[PrimalMinister]

OK, lets try a thought experiment, its simple, you are God, you are going to create the universe from a blank sheet. This blank sheet is empty space. You now go ahead and create science, your first step is to create laws. So how do you add laws to empty space?

29 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The reason for my statement is that i have tried to ask the same question from various angles and also to figure out the answers to other members posts but all I can find is:

There was speculation on what exactly a theory of everything is, I suggested big bang/evolution as a theory of everything but I think (the conversation was stopped) we were about to agree that this is the theory of everything - A theory of everything (TOE[1] or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

OK, lets try a thought experiment, its simple, you are God, you are going to create the universe from a blank sheet. This blank sheet is empty space. You now go ahead and create science, your first step is to create laws. So how do you add laws to empty space?

I would turn this around: why wouldn't things behave the same wherever (and whenever) they are?

After all, location (and time) can only be defined relative to something else, so objects don't "know" where they are and wouldn't "know" how to behave if the rules changed in different places and times.

Also, the rules being the same in time and space nicely results in conservation of energy and momentum. 

I'm not sure why you think there is a problem. But perhaps you think there is some sort of "communication" problem: perhaps the rules need to "transmitted" from one place to another so they can be the same everywhere? If so, that is similar to the questions: why is the universe uniformly full of matter and why is everywhere the same temperature (on average)?

The answer to these questions might also answer your question: the universe used to be much smaller. It was always completely full of matter, even when it was tiny. And it was small enough for everything to reach the same temperature. And, I guess, this would allow the rules to "settle down" to be the same everywhere before space expanded and took the rules with it. Does that make sense?

So, rules were never "added" to empty space, in the same way that matter was never added to empty space. There never was any empty space. And all of spaces was once all in one place (or very close together, at least).

(Unfortunately, this explanation depends on the Big Bang model which you don't accept. But as you have no basis for not accepting it, other than your emotional dislike of it, we can ignore that.)

Edited September 23, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

A complete waste of space and time.

[PrimalMinister]

 

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

A complete waste of space and time.

It is a paradigm shift, its just looking at the same things but from a different perspective. As John Wheeler said:

“Some principle uniquely right and compelling must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way that it could not possibly be otherwise.”

Current science (or scientists really, science cant speak) can't explain where things come from.

The explanation is "well God did it", except in scientic language.

[Strange]

29 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The explanation is "well God did it", except in scientic language.

Nonsense.

Do you have any comments on my answer to your question? Or was it too sensible for you? Are you not interested in a serious discussion? Or do you just want to repeat your opinions endlessly, pretending they have some basis? 

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I know you want the math, but I can go better than that, I can derive maths itself from a pixel based universe

No you can't.

Edited September 23, 2018 by Strange

[PrimalMinister]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

No you can't.

Ok, you derive maths from nothing.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, you derive maths from nothing.

You are the one claiming you can do it.

Do you have any comments on my answer to your question?

Was it too long?

Are you only able to respond to single sentences?

[PrimalMinister]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are the one claiming you can do it.

Ok, I will play God and show you how to create a universe from nothing.

First step, empty space. The is no such thing as mathematics, there is nothing to count or measure.

Second step, say "empty space now be composed of pixels" and your will is done. Suddenly, with one simple act, you create mathematics, we now have things to count and measure.

Third step, create time.

From nothing to maths in one simple step.

[Strange]

34 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Suddenly, with one simple act, you create mathematics

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/index.php

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Strange

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

OK, lets try a thought experiment, its simple, you are God, you are going to create the universe from a blank sheet. This blank sheet is empty space. You now go ahead and create science, your first step is to create laws. So how do you add laws to empty space?

Why throw a god into the mix? But it may be OK for a thought experiment.This will me very imprecise; the purpose of my comment is to express an opinion in context of the thought experiment, not present any scientific facts. Since I am a practical guy relying on mainstream science and observations, I would:
1: remove space
2: create a hot dense state and let it evolve as described by the Big Bang model.

24 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

First step, empty space. The is no such thing as mathematics, there is nothing to count or measure.

Second step, say "empty space now be composed of pixels" and your will is done. Suddenly, with one simple act, you create mathematics, we now have things to count and measure.

Third step, create time.

Ok. What scientific experiment do you suggest to tell if one of us is right? Is it possible within the scope of science to test it? Can you provide some evidence for your pixel based universe other than "it is self evident"?

[PrimalMinister]

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

create a hot dense state and let it evolve as described by the Big Bang model.

Are you going to explain how you are enforcing the model? By your will?