User Tag List

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 71 to 80 of 80

Thread: ROGER PENROSE: What was ther before the Big Bang

  1. #71
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Overall activity: 52.0%

    UKSmartypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    6,625
    Thanks
    875
    Thanked: 7,793
    Rep Power
    10260883
    Quote Originally Posted by Physics Hunter View Post
    You are not old enough to be sure of that.

    No but im smart enough, hence why im not called Oldypants
    I declare that the entire content and attachments of any and all of my posts are for the purposes of personal entertainment, and that I do not vouch for the veracity of the content. Neither do I care if you doubt my sources. That's your prerogative, but not my concern.


    DO NOT POST COVID,VACCINE, or 5G BOLLOX IN MY THREADS. TAKE IT TO THE COVID FORUM. -----------------------------------------------------------
    REMEMBER: Xenophobia Can Save Lives!

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKSmartypants For This Useful Post:

    nonsqtr (11-24-2021),Oceander (11-24-2021)

  3. #72
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,282
    Thanks
    413
    Thanked: 1,136
    Rep Power
    9373346
    The apparent reason that scientific atheism continues searching for a theory to account for existence is not predicated on discovering something new, but to avoid accepting what is obvious. And this rejection of the obvious leads to fantastic and incoherent theories such as String Theory, multi-universe Landscape assumptions. Hawking, for instance, conjectured that the initial singularity in big bang cosmology was not a point, but rather it was like an egg in a sack of some sort. Where it originated was simply a mystery, just like the singularity was, because if there was nothing then where it comes from hardly matters.

    The Landscape theory is an assumption, not a fact. But science would have you believe it is so. Many scientists cling together in their assumptions. This is not to say science is bad, it is not, but to deny the obvious and replace it with fantasy is not science either.

    That is the problem. Denial, and justification attempts to support it.
    Last edited by CWF; 11-24-2021 at 06:06 AM.

  4. #73
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Overall activity: 52.0%

    UKSmartypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    6,625
    Thanks
    875
    Thanked: 7,793
    Rep Power
    10260883
    Quote Originally Posted by CWF View Post
    The apparent reason that scientific atheism continues searching for a theory to account for existence is not predicated on discovering something new, but to avoid accepting what is obvious. And this rejection of the obvious leads to fantastic and incoherent theories such as String Theory, multi-universe Landscape assumptions. Hawking, for instance, conjectured that the initial singularity in big bang cosmology was not a point, but rather it was like an egg in a sack of some sort. Where it originated was simply a mystery, just like the singularity was, because if there was nothing then where it comes from hardly matters.

    The Landscape theory is an assumption, not a fact. But science would have you believe it is so. Many scientists cling together in their assumptions. This is not to say science is bad, it is not, but to deny the obvious and replace it with fantasy is not science either.

    That is the problem. Denial, and justification attempts to support it.

    1. have you got a better science theory?

    2. take the god stuff elsewhere, it officially banned from the science forum.
    I declare that the entire content and attachments of any and all of my posts are for the purposes of personal entertainment, and that I do not vouch for the veracity of the content. Neither do I care if you doubt my sources. That's your prerogative, but not my concern.


    DO NOT POST COVID,VACCINE, or 5G BOLLOX IN MY THREADS. TAKE IT TO THE COVID FORUM. -----------------------------------------------------------
    REMEMBER: Xenophobia Can Save Lives!

  5. #74
    Alumni Member & VIP Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 94.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    38,139
    Thanks
    16,458
    Thanked: 41,921
    Rep Power
    21369660
    Quote Originally Posted by CWF View Post
    The apparent reason that scientific atheism continues searching for a theory to account for existence is not predicated on discovering something new, but to avoid accepting what is obvious. And this rejection of the obvious leads to fantastic and incoherent theories such as String Theory, multi-universe Landscape assumptions. Hawking, for instance, conjectured that the initial singularity in big bang cosmology was not a point, but rather it was like an egg in a sack of some sort. Where it originated was simply a mystery, just like the singularity was, because if there was nothing then where it comes from hardly matters.

    The Landscape theory is an assumption, not a fact. But science would have you believe it is so. Many scientists cling together in their assumptions. This is not to say science is bad, it is not, but to deny the obvious and replace it with fantasy is not science either.

    That is the problem. Denial, and justification attempts to support it.
    No. The problem is quite a bit easier, and vastly more fundamental.

    Note the word I've bolded, in your post.

    YOU can not define that word.

    You may "think" you can, but whatever definition you come up with, will be scientifically inadequate.

    The physicists, they're not so hifalutin as to go making assumptions about God - they just want to know what that word means.

  6. #75
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Overall activity: 52.0%

    UKSmartypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    6,625
    Thanks
    875
    Thanked: 7,793
    Rep Power
    10260883
    I repeat, take the God stuff out of here, its oficially banned from the science forum. Ask Trinnity
    I declare that the entire content and attachments of any and all of my posts are for the purposes of personal entertainment, and that I do not vouch for the veracity of the content. Neither do I care if you doubt my sources. That's your prerogative, but not my concern.


    DO NOT POST COVID,VACCINE, or 5G BOLLOX IN MY THREADS. TAKE IT TO THE COVID FORUM. -----------------------------------------------------------
    REMEMBER: Xenophobia Can Save Lives!

  7. #76
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,282
    Thanks
    413
    Thanked: 1,136
    Rep Power
    9373346
    I understand that you do have limited reading skills, but if you notice carefully, I did not mention one single word about a Deity. You did.

    One other point. To omit the truth in order to advance a theory is NOT scientific.

  8. #77
    Alumni Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsOverdriveTagger First ClassSocial1 year registered
    Overall activity: 35.0%

    Oceander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    LIRR
    Posts
    10,578
    Thanks
    17,836
    Thanked: 16,434
    Rep Power
    19930729
    Quote Originally Posted by CWF View Post
    The apparent reason that scientific atheism continues searching for a theory to account for existence is not predicated on discovering something new, but to avoid accepting what is obvious. And this rejection of the obvious leads to fantastic and incoherent theories such as String Theory, multi-universe Landscape assumptions. Hawking, for instance, conjectured that the initial singularity in big bang cosmology was not a point, but rather it was like an egg in a sack of some sort. Where it originated was simply a mystery, just like the singularity was, because if there was nothing then where it comes from hardly matters.

    The Landscape theory is an assumption, not a fact. But science would have you believe it is so. Many scientists cling together in their assumptions. This is not to say science is bad, it is not, but to deny the obvious and replace it with fantasy is not science either.

    That is the problem. Denial, and justification attempts to support it.



    Can't accept that certain things have always been in existence, so has to posit some white-bearded old guy to say magic words and -* Hey Presto *- it all into existence.

    Because the uncreated existence of some white-bearded old guy is easier to justify than the uncreated existence of the material universe.
    Last edited by Oceander; 11-24-2021 at 08:46 AM.
    So let us stop talkin' falsely now
    The hour's getting late -- Jimi Hendrix

    #RESISTBidet

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Oceander For This Useful Post:

    nonsqtr (11-24-2021)

  10. #78
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Overall activity: 52.0%

    UKSmartypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    6,625
    Thanks
    875
    Thanked: 7,793
    Rep Power
    10260883
    Quote Originally Posted by CWF View Post
    I understand that you do have limited reading skills, but if you notice carefully, I did not mention one single word about a Deity. You did.

    One other point. To omit the truth in order to advance a theory is NOT scientific.

    oh dont be childish. It perfectly clear its an attempt to get god into the conversation. I repeat, GTFO, god is officially banned from the science forum, many moons ago due to the uproar Usfan created trying to do the same thing. Now for the last time, GTFO with the God stuff, take it to Humanities or post a credible scientific theory from a reputable science source.
    Last edited by UKSmartypants; 11-24-2021 at 10:56 AM.
    I declare that the entire content and attachments of any and all of my posts are for the purposes of personal entertainment, and that I do not vouch for the veracity of the content. Neither do I care if you doubt my sources. That's your prerogative, but not my concern.


    DO NOT POST COVID,VACCINE, or 5G BOLLOX IN MY THREADS. TAKE IT TO THE COVID FORUM. -----------------------------------------------------------
    REMEMBER: Xenophobia Can Save Lives!

  11. #79
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    CWF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    1,282
    Thanks
    413
    Thanked: 1,136
    Rep Power
    9373346
    My understanding is that the science forum was created (oops, nasty me for using that term) for real science to have an opportunity to be presented and discussed and not discouraged.

    I think the intent was for real science, not imaginary fables pretending to be science. Arguments generally arise from false information and it is easier to just let one side have their way without opposition to avoid argument.

    It is oddly interesting that Religion doesn't warrant the same advantage, and notable that the science club is not prohibited from sounding off on the subject. After all, religion is cloaked away in "Humanities" along with several other topics, while science so-called merits its own forum. Nevertheless, that is a decision made, and I do try to abide by it.

    However, I too am interested in science. I am not one who makes a living from science, just one who enjoys reading, and particularly reading about what is taught and what people believe as a result.

    I have noticed that if happenstance ever did create anything, it was a messed up screwed up disorganized tragedy like a head on collusion on the interstate. Just the opposite of intricate, complex, laws of life and the universe we all inhabit and are part of.

    But, opinions vary.

  12. #80
    Alumni Member & VIP Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 94.0%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    38,139
    Thanks
    16,458
    Thanked: 41,921
    Rep Power
    21369660
    We "discover" things.

    The vernacular says when we do that, we are being "creative".

    Our knowledge evolves, as do all things in the universe, including the universe itself.

    But the jury is very much out on this "creation" business. We cant define that word, any more than we can define existence.

    Right now, the physicists are saying there are things smaller than atoms, and "fields" that don't resemble the ordinary geometry of spacetime, yet cause it in some way.

    But this is not "truth". Truth evolves, just like everything else in the universe.

    The science of Dynamics is only 200 years old. Our Founding Fathers were the first ones to understand it, in a lay sense.

    Modern physics is only 100 years old. Bohr, Dirac and them, they were 1920's. Then it was another 50 years before Rene Thom and Ilya Prigogine and nonlinear non-equilibrium dynamics, leading to an understanding of things like cusps and saddle points. All of which is newly relevant (again) with orbifolds, and will become even more relevant with stochastic orbifolds.

    Right now though, we can't see any smaller, and we can't get higher energies. We're at the limits of our technology, and all these hifalutin theories and models are only as good as what we can actually DO with them.

    That's the proof of the pudding, what we can DO.

    Y'know... some people turn water into wine and others smash atoms.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •