Holograms

[Itoero]

19 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

There has to be some sort of foundation upon which everything is based, it can't just arbitarily exist, there has to be a logic behind it

And where does this 'foundation' comes from? You can always ask: And where does that comes from?

[Strange]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

This calender will have new names for the days of the week and the months of the year

The French tried this after the Revolution. They introduced a new decimal calendar. It never caught on and they soon abandoned it.

And, as always, xkcd is ahead of you:

 

[beecee]

6 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Look, I am aware of current science, but its story is basically big bang/heat death, and that its, its pretty final. Do you have anything more to say on the matter?

Sure you are aware! In one ear and out the other. Obviously it is you who  is highly opinionated and highly delusional to boot, as evidenced by your following post....

5 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Yes, this is what I have sensed through our conversations, I think you want me to accept that, and that is the key, you want me to believe, that we don't know answers when I do. I think my time on here for the minute is coming to a close, but I want to leave you with this. The consequence of my theory is that the universe is eternal, spatially infinte, immortal, this is the paradigm shift. It is going to have a profound effect on the world because this theory is going to unite people around the world in joy at the simple beauty of the truth of science. And to celebrate this unity I am going to suggest the introduction of a new global calender. This calender will have new names for the days of the week and the months of the year and everyone, regardless of what language they speak will use the same words for the days and months, so in a very small way we are all speaking the same language. And the year, that will go back to year one and instead of saying its 2018 years since the birth of Christ we will say it is 1 year since the dawn of eternity. I have thought about this alot, the world is going to become a profoundly different place, religion I am afraid doesn't have much of a place. Can you imagine that (remembeing that imagination is more important that knowledge), no more Mondays because Monday is now called something else?

 

[PrimalMinister]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Your theory will be judged on how well it explains what we observe, and whether we can make predictions of things not yet observed, and then test that. 

I will probably leave it here for the moment, I know you have already considered me a crackpot or what ever but I am ok with that, if I am honest I think people who believe (because you have to believe) in the big bang are pretty wacky. If you want to solve the theory of everything all our knowledge is very good, but you have to look at what we don't know, those are the questions that need answers. Thats why you are a bit preachy, you are so convinced the big bang happened you are not willing to look at another perspective. All I am trying to do is put forward a straight forward, objective spacetime theory, but you cant even agree with me on the basic facts because you are so opinionated. So I will leave you for now so you can to get back to other posts, its only the same few people answering the threads. What I don't understand is (I do understand this) is that you have absolutly nothing to lose from listening to me, to entertain what I am saying. The big bang is going nowhere, it will still be the same tomorrow and the day after, a week, a month from now. So in the mean time why not look at things from a fresh perspective? What have you got to gain from insisting to me that the universe was created in a big bang?

[John Cuthber]

7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

if I am honest I think people who believe (because you have to believe) in the big bang are pretty wacky.

You think it's "wacky" to follow the evidence?

That explains a lot.

8 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

you cant even agree with me on the basic facts

What facts?

 

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What I don't understand is (I do understand this) is that you have absolutly nothing to lose from listening to me, to entertain what I am saying.

We are listening. You aren’t saying anything.

14 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The big bang is going nowhere, it will still be the same tomorrow and the day after, a week, a month from now

The Big Bang model is constantly changing as we learn more. 

15 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

So in the mean time why not look at things from a fresh perspective?

We might get do if you ever get round to giving us one. 

16 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What have you got to gain from insisting to me that the universe was created in a big bang?

There is no evidence the universe was created in a big bang. That is not what the theory says so why do you keep saying it? 

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I will probably leave it here for the moment, I know you have already considered me a crackpot or what ever but I am ok with that, if I am honest I think people who believe (because you have to believe) in the big bang are pretty wacky.

Your claims are certainly considered crackpot, and what can be gauged by those claims is obvious.

Quote

If you want to solve the theory of everything all our knowledge is very good, but you have to look at what we don't know, those are the questions that need answers. Thats why you are a bit preachy, you are so convinced the big bang happened you are not willing to look at another perspective.

When you decide to listen to people instead of being encapsulated withing your own opinionated cocoon, you will realise that in your many threads, that people have already informed you that science is always looking at and conductiong research into not only what we already know, but what we don't know. Ever heard of a quantum gravity theory?

Quote

  All I am trying to do is put forward a straight forward, objective spacetime theory, but you cant even agree with me on the basic facts because you are so opinionated

No, all you have done is put forward some unsupported rhetorical hypothetical....nothing more, nothing less.

.

Quote

 The big bang is going nowhere, it will still be the same tomorrow and the day after, a week, a month from now. So in the mean time why not look at things from a fresh perspective? What have you got to gain from insisting to me that the universe was created in a big bang?

Instead of carrying on with your rhetorical nonsense, and criticism of the BB, you need to present some observation that invalidates the BB, and/or evidence for whatever it is you are claiming. That's science, that is the scientific method of which you continue to argue around and avoid.

[PrimalMinister]

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

That explains a lot.

I know you consider me a crackpot or whatever, that is fine. I am not arrogant enough to think you are crackpots, I just think you are normal people.

 

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You think it's "wacky" to follow the evidence?

No, I think its wacky the universe comes out of nothing. There is no explaination for how or why the big bang happened, we just have to accept that it did (sciences God did it) because that is what the evidence says, there is no foundation, everything is just magically happening in apparently empty space according to maths with no explaination as to why? Why have we got these sets of laws and not others, there must be a reason for it, a logic behind. I am trying to explain the logic behind it because it is profound and sublime, but its also quite abstract and deep.

 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is not what the theory says

What does it say then?

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

There is no explaination for how or why the big bang happened, we just have to accept that it did

No. We continue to study and try and understand. We don’t just give up because we don’t know, that would be ridiculous. 

8 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What does it say then?

I have told you multiply le times. Why do you not learn? You obsessively cling to your deluded opinions even when it is explained that they are wrong. 

The theory says that the universe is expanding from an early hot dense state. (Of course there is a lot more detail to it because it can make highly detailed predictions that can be tested - as in, you know: science)

[PrimalMinister]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

We continue to study and try and understand

On one hand you are saying we know, on the other you are saying we don't know. Which one is it?

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

On one hand you are saying we know, on the other you are saying we don't know. Which one is it?

For Christ sake, stop being so obtuse...or are you simply trolling?

There are some things science knows or has reasonable explanation of..eg: The evolution of the universe from t+10-43 seconds. There are things we can only speculate on at this time. eg: why did the BB bang, how did it bang? Ws anything in existence before? was there a before?

Really, how many times in how many threads does all this need to be repeated to you?

[PrimalMinister]

How can can you know (have the knowledge) that the universe was created in a big bang when you dont know (dont have the knowledge) how it came to be in a hot dense state. If you could tell me how the universe came to be in hot dense state I might believe you, but you don't so I can't, I am being skeptical.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

How can can you know (have the knowledge) that the universe was created in a big bang when you dont know (dont have the knowledge) how it came to be in a hot dense state. If you could tell me how the universe came to be in hot dense state I might believe you, but you don't so I can't, I am being skeptical.

No, you are being cynical and obtuse and in denial. The evidence for the BB and how it evolved from a hot dense state has been told to you many times now. You don't want answers, that may corrupt whatever agenda it is that you have. Like religious fanatics you ignore that which is in conflict with your beliefs.

Then you smugly stand/sit there, in your delusional persona and tell us all that "you" have the answers. 

Your continuing obtuseness and playing dumb, will I believe see this thread eventually closed as per your others. 

Edited September 25, 2018 by beecee

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

How can can you know (have the knowledge) that the universe was created in a big bang when you dont know (dont have the knowledge) how it came to be in a hot dense state. If you could tell me how the universe came to be in hot dense state I might believe you, but you don't so I can't, I am being skeptical.

The average temperature is decreasing as the universe expands, so, if you reverse the process, it will increase. Does that make sense?

Edited September 25, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ghideon]

5 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

How can can you know (have the knowledge) that the universe was created in a big bang when you dont know (dont have the knowledge) how it came to be in a hot dense state. If you could tell me how the universe came to be in hot dense state I might believe you, but you don't so I can't, I am being skeptical

Is this, according to your point of view, applicable to all scientific theories? Is the statement above equally applicable to, for instance, evolution*? I think scientists lack a complete understanding of how life initially started on earth, does that lack of confirmed scinteific evidence make you skeptical about evolution as well?  

A lot of comments in this, and other threads, seems to focus on varous definitions of opinions, fact, evidence and objectiveness and I'm trying to figure out where possible misscommunication comes from so I can add constructive comments to the discussion.

*)The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection and later enhancements or develpments

 

[Strange]

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

How can can you know (have the knowledge) that the universe was created in a big bang when you dont know (dont have the knowledge) how it came to be in a hot dense state.

We DONT KNOW it was created. Why do you keep saying that?

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

If you could tell me how the universe came to be in hot dense state I might believe you, but you don't so I can't

We don’t know how it came to be in that state. But we have a lot of evidence it was. 

Maybe one day we will know. 

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am being skeptical.

No. You are refusing to listen. 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

 you have to look at what we don't know, those are the questions that need answers.

Well, that's what scientists do. Even if you are not aware of it.

13 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Thats why you are a bit preachy, you are so convinced the big bang happened you are not willing to look at another perspective.

You haven't given anyone a reason to look at alternatives to the model we have and the tremendous amount of evidence which supports it. 

13 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

All I am trying to do is put forward a straight forward, objective spacetime theory, but you cant even agree with me on the basic facts because you are so opinionated.

What basic facts?

13 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

So I will leave you for now so you can to get back to other posts, its only the same few people answering the threads. What I don't understand is (I do understand this) is that you have absolutly nothing to lose from listening to me, to entertain what I am saying.

There's the possibility (with high probability) that it could be a massive waste of time. And you waste more of it with each click-clack of your tap-dancing around it, telling us how great it is.

There will be a point (and it is not far off — one more post) where we won't let you waste any more time on this. As I said, it's put up or shut up time.

13 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

The big bang is going nowhere, it will still be the same tomorrow and the day after, a week, a month from now. So in the mean time why not look at things from a fresh perspective?

On the contrary, we are discovering new things all the time. Cosmology is an active field.

13 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

What have you got to gain from insisting to me that the universe was created in a big bang?

One more person in the world who understands science.

[StringJunky]

17 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

.....I am being skeptical intransigent.

 

[studiot]

 

You are more polite than I am.

+1

Edited September 25, 2018 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

17 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

How can can you know (have the knowledge) that the universe was created in a big bang when you dont know (dont have the knowledge) how it came to be in a hot dense state. If you could tell me how the universe came to be in hot dense state I might believe you, but you don't so I can't, I am being skeptical.

That makes about as much sense as saying "we don't know this is a forest fire- because we don't know what started it".

You are not being "skeptical", you are being illogical.

[Phi for All]

18 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

How can can you know (have the knowledge) that the universe was created in a big bang when you dont know (dont have the knowledge) how it came to be in a hot dense state. If you could tell me how the universe came to be in hot dense state I might believe you, but you don't so I can't, I am being skeptical.

A skeptic wouldn't spend so much time on the fence (it's uncomfortable and unproductive). A skeptic would learn the theory he's skeptical of first, then make the decision whether to trust it or not based on his updated knowledge.

Being better informed is what skepticism is all about. You're supposed to express your skepticism about something ("Hmm, I don't know about THAT!"), then check into it rigorously, don't stop when you think it doesn't make sense, get your hands on as much as we currently know about the subject, working towards understanding. THEN decide if you can trust it, based on the evidence. 

Even if you still don't trust it, you look for the next best supported explanation. You don't start making things up. Removing subjective influence is a core part of scientific processes. It's SO EASY to fool yourself with custom guesswork. Your solutions seem perfect, of course, because you make them up specifically to fill gaps in your own knowledge so things make sense to you. They reflect the parts of science you do know, but they're also formed from your ignorance (sorry, it's an ugly word, but we're all ignorant in some areas). Those parts look just as real and correct to you as the rest because you hand-picked it all from your mind to be a solution that makes sense (but only to you).

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

You are more polite than I am.

+1

I'm in a good mood.  

[Strange]

22 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I think people who believe (because you have to believe) in the big bang are pretty wacky. ... The big bang is going nowhere, it will still be the same tomorrow and the day after, a week, a month from now.

Here is a great article explains why the CMB can only be explained by the big bang model, and how our knowledge has changed over the decades (thus contradicting your claims of "belief" and "going nowhere"): 

This Is How We Know The Cosmic Microwave Background Comes From The Big Bang

 

[PrimalMinister]

Continuing on from universes from nothing. When Laurance Kluass talks about his theory he plays a God type role introducing and enforcing quantum mechanics with his will alone. But I don't believe in God, I think there must be a scientific explanation. So what happens when we put our model in a computer to test? If you look at the source code of the simulation you will see there is more than quantum mechanics, this extra stuff explains how we enforce quantum mechanics in the virtual world. This extra stuff may actually shine some light on how the universe is doing it for real.

[Ghideon]

10 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

When Laurance Kluass talks about his theory he plays a God type role introducing and enforcing quantum mechanics with his will alone

Do you have a reference?