Forum menu
Nobody would recognise it even if there was as we've all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing.
You don't seem to have? Are you unique?
Nobody would recognise it even if there was as [b]we've all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing[/b].
Now that's just simply a lie.
If you posit the Big Bang, you also have to explain what came before the Bang . Something you and your fellow reductionists have consistently failed to do.The thing is, we're working on it.
He's right, "conformal cyclic cosmology" (CCC) is a possibility being studied.
Although, that's kind a like saying the Bang wasn't so Big after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11837869
GrahamS - Member"You can't yet explain what happened before the beginning of the universe and time. Ha! Clearly it must be God." 🙄
yeah, roll your squitty little eyes man, it really helps your rationalist case 😆
Fact is, neither physicologists nor religionists can come up with an explanation that boils down to any more than "trust me, I believe I'm right"
So, listen to an establishment authority figure whose polemic can't actually be backed up in "everyday language" it's all pretty much down to personal choice whether you follow the one with the white coat or the pointy hat .....
who'd a thunk higgs boson would get the religionists so worked up?
Fact is, neither physicologists nor religionists can come up with an explanation that boils down to any more than "trust me, I believe I'm right"
What's wrong with 'We're not sure'? I hear that one a lot. Mainly from 'Physicologists' mind you, not so much from 'religionists'.
Edit: It's really more like "We're not sure, but these are our best guesses, based on experiments and logic you can perform yourself, if you want to"
That's the best thing; if you build your own LHC and repeat the experiments, you'll come to the same conclusion.
That you believe in an unmanifest "designer" despite the absence of any sign of such, is strange, but not very interesting.
Like designer stubble.
I want a teleport so make that happens otherwise it makes no sense to me ... 🙄
Fact is, neither physicologists nor religionists can come up with an explanation that boils down to any more than "trust me, I believe I'm right"
Well except the "physicologists" generally come up with theories then design experiments which test those theories, and make predictions based on theoretical models then conduct projects like the LHC to test the actual outcomes. And then revise those theories based on observable evidence.
Whereas most religionists just sort of shrug after they get to the theory stage.
scuzz - Member
What's wrong with 'We're not sure'? I hear that one a lot
And there was me thinking Science was a fact based objective study of observed &/or recorded phenomena - must have being doing it wrong these last 25 years !!
Must try this "We're not sure" (but give me more cash anyhow) line at my next project review meeting 😆
So how do science-ists know they're not barking up the wrong tree by assuming there's no "designer" just because it doesn't look like there was?
If there was a designer then they must've been designed by a super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must've been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, ...
And there was me thinking Science was a fact based objective study of observed &/or recorded phenomena - must have being doing it wrong these last 25 years !!
That's exactly the point! Do you have any idea how we can objectively study what was going on 'before' the Big Bang? Me neither. What would we even be looking for? Until someone figures it out, it's a 'we're not sure'. And after we figure it out and run experiments, it'll be 'we're still not sure, but it's tried and tested to be accurate within [i]this[/i] margin of error', because that's how accurate we can measure it with our measuring stick.
Must try this "We're not sure" (but give me more cash anyhow) line at my next project review meeting
Would it be research if the answers were already known and proven?
Nobody would recognise it even if there was as we've all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing.
Lolz.
Well, proper scientists (ie not these twerps) are fully aware that there might be a god causing it all. And that there's no way to refute or confirm that. In fact, some of them are actually believers themselves.
It's fairly easy to make a good argument that the bible is not correct in terms of the origin of the earth. However the existence or otherwise of a god in any form is moot because it's absolutely unproveable.
Even if the clouds rolled back and a white haired old bloke introduced himself, we would not know if he was God or just some aliens.
scuzz - Member
That's exactly the point! Do you have any idea how we can objectively study what was going on 'before' the Big Bang? Me neither. Until someone figures it out, it's a 'we're not sure'
When it does become an objective evidential study it will be Science, until then it's Speculation.
It's typical of the current Scientific Arrogance that presumes every aspect of our existence is explainable by reductionist analysis.
Does there ever become a point where the physicologists just say "We really don't know beyond a certain 'timepoint' what the nature of physical existence was, so let's just leave it as a known unknown"
you talking about us or the LHC squad? if it's the former fair enough 🙂(ie not these twerps)
why?...so let's just leave it as a known unknown
And there was me thinking Science was a fact based objective study of observed &/or recorded phenomena - must have being doing it wrong these last 25 years !!
Oooh.. can I use it again? 🙄
we would not know if he was God or just some aliens.
Surely God [i]is[/i] an alien, since by definition she is an extraterrestrial?
Does there ever become a point where the physicologists just say "We really don't know beyond a certain 'timepoint' what the nature of physical existence was, so let's just leave it as a known unknown"
That sounds like an excellent approach to furthering our knowledge.
The "Here be dragons" approach.
who'd a thunk higgs boson would get the religionists so worked up?
THIS
FWIW - graham link up the dara clip again
Why are you feeding the troll folks?
dara clip? please share
Apparently Big Bang theory boils down to six fundamental numbers. If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.
Its not so much life not existing as basic chemistry not being possible. But then if there wasn't basic chemistry we wouldn't be around to question it all. This is the Anthropic Principle others have mentioned
As we gain a deeper understanding of the how it all fits together we may find that these "constants" of nature are actually derived from each other such that it would be impossible for the universe to exist in another way.
We don't know yet though.
The important thing to remember is science is built upon models and theories. These theories are contstantly tested and improved upon or discarded.
Newtons celestial mechanics is an acceptable model of how large objects such as planets interact under the influence of gravity. Its good enough to put men on the moon and send probes to other planets. But its not correct, it can't account for fluctuations in the orbit of Mercury for instance, however a better theory of gravity - Relativity - can.
The standard model will probably prove the same. At the moment it is a very good model for predicting the behaviour of sub atomic particles but its not the end. Science isn't finished with the discovery of the Higgs.
I'm not sure given this approach that not knowing something can be seen as a failure if this leads to better understanding in the future. Surely its a better approach than just to call all the gaps "God" and leave it there.
Edit: richmtb puts it far better than I can 🙂
This one?
(Relevant quote from 1:48)
[i]"Get in the 'kin sack!"[/i] 😆
🙂
get in the sack
joao3v16 - Member
Apparently Big Bang theory boils down to six fundamental numbers. If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.
So to my mind, the universe consists of millions of factors that need to coincide in very specific quantities/ways/etc, and I've yet to be covinced by any theory as to how this occurred without intervention.
Nobody would recognise it (a designer) even if there was as we've all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing.
I'm not really sure why Big Bang theory has come up on a quantum theory thread, but I find the attitude to it above slightly confusing when it's a theory that was first proposed by a priest. I'd guess that he'd have said his mind was open to that possibility.
Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble[1][2]. He was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[3][4][5][6] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.[7][8] As he was a secular priest, he was called Abbé, then, after being made a canon, Monseigneur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
But getting back to the Higgs boson- wasn't Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory, a Lutheran minister?
I don't really understand why a successful day in scientific research causes this religious argument against science.
It's typical of the current Scientific Arrogance that presumes every aspect of our existence is explainable by reductionist analysis.
Lol.. this scientific arrogance is entirely made up by anti-scientists. No real scientists think like that, the idea is laughable. Science is entirely concerned with answering unknown questions, so the fact that it is still going on means that scientists acknowledge that there is a lot they don't know!
He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble
On what reasoning though? A lot of people back then just made stuff up based on whimsy and some were just lucky. Hubble actually observed red shift and deduced from that. I don't think a lucky guesser should get credited, tbh - if that's what that guy was.
Surely the main difference is..........
Scientists can believe in god (but regulalry chose not to)
Godists can believe in science (but regulalry chose not to)
The difference is the Scientists can prove the existance of stuff, godists point to a book written at varying times over the past 2000 years of which most of it has been shown to be wrong and/or made up, if a Scientist submited the bible (say genesis to a physics jopurnal, or the story of the Ark to a meterological journal) as a paper for peer review, what tdo you think the reaction would be? acceptance or Rejection?
molgrips,
Check your facts please, Lemaitre published his theory (which was pretty much the same as Hubble's) in 1927. Hubble published his in 1929.
They were working from a lot of the same data, but that's what happens if you publish in Belgiam. 😉
Google Hubble's law if you like.
Fact is, neither physicologists nor religionists can come up with an explanation that boils down to any more than "trust me, I believe I'm right"
You have just revealed your position on the nutter scale.
[b]Rational[/b]
^
| "There is stuff we don't know, but thats OK becuase we can use science to find it, until then we don't
| know but we can have a good guess"
|
|
| "There is stuff we don't know, so god must have done that stuff"
|
|
| "That stuff that you "know", thats wrong because it says so in my big book. God did all that stuff"
v
[b]Nutter[/b]
I don't really understand why a successful day in scientific research causes this religious argument against science.
Because someone intimated that the Higgs boson was proof of Intelligent Design, and the wheels came off.
Did bosan -hagan win today's stage?
We ll
Did he??
molgrips - Member
this scientific arrogance is entirely made up by anti-scientists. No real scientists think like that, the idea is laughable.
Thing is mol, many of the people I've worked with have had exactly that attitude to their work.
I've always applied a pretty simple rule to the science I've practiced, if I can't explain roughly what I do, why I'm doing it and what it's potential consequences are to the "average person" then I'm failing as a scientist.
Just done a "back of an envelope" calculation and I reckon I've personally 'spent' over £5 million of public funding, if the "man in the street" is paying, then they should be able to understand what they're paying for, and why......
....Blue Sky stuff is all well and good, but if more of the resources put into it were used to apply the knowledge already obtained, I think the world could be a "better place" - that's all
as someone I can't be bothered to Google once said "information is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom" 🙂
when i get asked this by people I explain simply
Scientia potentia est
works every time
HTH
PS Frank Zappa said it - if you wish to take life lessons from him then who am I to argue
jfletch - Member
You have just revealed your position on the nutter scale.
why thank you 😀
"There is stuff we don't know, but thats OK becuase we can use science to find it, until then we don't know but we can have a good guess"
Science is only one of many thought constructs by which "the world we live in" can be analysed....
if the "man in the street" is paying, then they should be able to understand what they're paying for, and why
Blimey, if that's your criteria then good luck getting funding for anything other than better fake boobs and hangover cures. 😀
Science is only one of many thought constructs by which "the world we live in" can be analysed....
That doesn't even mean anything.
GrahamS - Member
.... then good luck getting funding
hilldodger - Member
I reckon I've personally 'spent' over £5 million of public funding
Worked so far 😀
Junkyard - Member
PS Frank Zappa said it - if you wish to take life lessons from him then who am I to argue
😀
I don't really understand why a successful day in scientific research causes this religious argument against science.
Science used to deal with explaining things that could easily be experienced by everyday folk. The earth being round, the earth orbiting the sun, gravity etc are all fairly simple and impossible to refute on any level becuase they are easily observed.
But things like the big bang and the higgs aren't the same, they can't be simply observed (although they can be observed), and to add fuel to the fire they directly contradict the religious doctrine upon which people have based their entire belief systems. So when someone shows them evidence that they are wrong they get all het up and start flame wars.
Science is only one of many thought constructs by which "the world we live in" can be analysed....
That doesn't even mean anything
Worked so far
MMMM what does the evidence say 😉
More importantly what are your kids names 😀
molgrips,
Check your facts please
I wasn't accusing, just asking a question. Thanks for clearing it up 🙂
... Back on the "Do you know anyone famous?" thread...
Tom Kibble was my PhD supervisor 8) . Very humble gentleman. The Nobel committee have their work cut out.
A good day for science that is beginning to signal the end for experimental Particle Physics.
EDIT: and to bring in some gratuitous cycling content, Tom is a keen cyclist and always used to ride into Imperial. Funny thing was, I never saw him on my commute, and when I asked him what time he got in of a morning, I realized why 😳 .
Particle Physics gives me a hadron
Now [i]that[/i] I want on a tee shirt! 😆
Do any of you lot get how un freaking interesting the whole freaking religion debate actually is.
It makes my brain turn to grey jelly and dribble out of my ear.
This started off as a thread about the incredible effort of science to understand the world we live in and all you've done is reduce it to a great big pile of steaming shite.
Please, do us a favour and **** off onto another thread. Leave those of us with an ounce of intellect to enjoy this discovery.