Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

[Further]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/

A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and no end....

Interesting. Beyond my abilities to assess which theory is more likely. Big Bang makes a lot of sense to me, certainly more than absence of beginning or end, but that could also just be familiarity.

 

[magnifier661]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/



Interesting. Beyond my abilities to assess which theory is more likely. Big Bang makes a lot of sense to me, certainly more than absence of beginning or end, but that could also just be familiarity.

Interesting... This model is a better argument for those that don't believe in God. If there truly is no beginning; then the universe always existed. The expansion and contraction is infinite. Could it be that the universe has always existed and isn't 13.8 billions of years old? That could explain alien life being more complex too. Also, if the infinite number of possibilities; life will eventually begin without direction.

Although I don't know if I completely agree; this model could be an ace in the hole for naturalists.

 

[Further]

Pretty funky to think about how this would impact everything we think we know, but I think the theory is still way too young to hold much weight. If they can show the theory can work with the microwave background, and match other phenomenon, then it will be taken more seriously.

But Mags, I don't know if this is compatible or not for atheists or theists. With the Big Bang, I can easily say we just can't know what came before. If there is no before, and that concept is just so hard to wrap my mind around, There still exists the question of how we are here, and there is no simple out saying we just can't know what came before us. This is just weird to contemplate.

 

[MarAzul]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/



Interesting. Beyond my abilities to assess which theory is more likely. Big Bang makes a lot of sense to me, certainly more than absence of beginning or end, but that could also just be familiarity.

Oh! He only left out the part about the total cosmic background buzz.

Well as the years pass, new theories come and go. Perhaps one day some bright young fella will discover that a really smart being put the whole system in motion. Sort of like building a big
multi system machine and then installing the final component, the sentient presents and then and there you have it! Creation!

Sort of funny really, the Big Bang is sort of cool. Bang! The original singularity!
Of course a shorter phrase is Creation.

But I do love science, I made a living working in the leading edge for many years.
But theories do keep coming forth.

 

[MarAzul]

Oh! He only left out the part about the total cosmic background buzz.

Well as the years pass, new theories come and go. Perhaps one day some bright young fella will discover that a really smart being put the whole system in motion. Sort of like building a big
multi system machine and then installing the final component, the sentient presents and then and there you have it! Creation!

Sort of funny really, the Big Bang is sort of cool. Bang! The original singularity!
Of course a shorter phrase is Creation.

But I do love science, I made a living working in the leading edge for many years.
But theories do keep coming forth.

Or it could be a young lady that makes the break through. Probably not an LG though.

 

[Further]

The fun of science to me is that it's dynamic. I had a geology professor who told a story about when he was in grad school, he wrote a paper backing the theory of plate tectonics. He got an F from his professor who said any paper supporting absolute garbage is also absolute garbage. Well, a few years later the theory started proving out to the point that now it's basically a given. It's the scientific method, it's damn cool. I would have no problem at all, and would in fact embrace the notion of God starting it all if we get information that demonstrates it is likely.

 

[crandc]

Agree, Further. Interesting read but we'll have to see where the chips (evidence) falls. Big bang is pretty established as far as evidence so any new hypothesis has to account for expansion, dark matter, cosmic background radiation, temperature of interstellar space and a lot of other data that are explained by big bang.

Hmmm... some teacher ... I once got a low grade on a high school paper about endangered species because my teacher thought wildlife conservation was communistic. Something about saying all species share the planet. Then there was the time they got a gym teacher to teach biology (not kidding) and she gave me a B on my term paper after admitting she hadn't read it since it was over her head. On the other hand, in college my Genetics prof gave me full credit on an exam for an explanation of data that was not what he had in mind when he wrote the exam but fit both the facts and genetic theory.

 

[MarAzul]

The fun of science to me is that it's dynamic. I had a geology professor who told a story about when he was in grad school, he wrote a paper backing the theory of plate tectonics. He got an F from his professor who said any paper supporting absolute garbage is also absolute garbage. Well, a few years later the theory started proving out to the point that now it's basically a given. It's the scientific method, it's damn cool. I would have no problem at all, and would in fact embrace the notion of God starting it all if we get information that demonstrates it is likely.

What exactly do you think began the original singularity when there was nothing?

 

[BlazerWookee]

<snicker>

 

[Eastoff]

I didn't post htis article, because I thought it was too vague and unproven. It's a cool concept though.

 

[MarAzul]

The fun of science to me is that it's dynamic. I had a geology professor who told a story about when he was in grad school, he wrote a paper backing the theory of plate tectonics. He got an F from his professor who said any paper supporting absolute garbage is also absolute garbage. Well, a few years later the theory started proving out to the point that now it's basically a given. It's the scientific method, it's damn cool. I would have no problem at all, and would in fact embrace the notion of God starting it all if we get information that demonstrates it is likely.

Another question for you Further. Humans can construct the most complex of multi system machines these days, but no man can construct a person, or any other form of life.

Two people though, male and female can get the job done without knowing a hell of a lot about the task. As this person grows to become a being, where and when in the process
does the essence of a human, the sentient presents get added to the mass of protein brew that was the building material? Where does this sentient presents come from?

 

[jlprk]

What exactly do you think began the original singularity when there was nothing?

If randomness rules, random change could cause it. Or, maybe there was nothing in the bottom 3 dimensions, but something in the higher dimensions, which exploded into the bottom ones to start the physical world.

The fun of science to me is that it's dynamic. I had a geology professor who told a story about when he was in grad school, he wrote a paper backing the theory of plate tectonics. He got an F from his professor who said any paper supporting absolute garbage is also absolute garbage. Well, a few years later the theory started proving out to the point that now it's basically a given.

I remember looking at a globe, noticing that South America fits Africa like a glove, then reading that the old theory of continental drift was considered lunacy by science. A few years later, new technology allowed the discovery of plate tectonics, reversing everything.

I also remember when conventional wisdom was 50-50 between Fred Hoyle (Steady State theory) and the religious mass media (Big Bang theory). Discovering the cosmic ray background tipped it to Big Bang.

 

[Further]

What exactly do you think began the original singularity when there was nothing?

I don't know. I have no idea at all, a total mystery. But it's also so far outside of my understanding, or at least with our current information it's completely outside my understanding, that I don't really think about it. I am well aware that some people put God in here, but I see zero evidence for that either. I hope some day I can learn something that would allow me to formulate a hypothesis, but I'm just not there yet.

 

[MarAzul]

Random nothing is still nothing.

 

[jlprk]

Republicans block approval of having a national Scientist Laureate

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2013/09/u.s.-science-laureate-bill-hits-roadblock

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says slowing the pace won’t change his organization’s stance on the bill. “There’s no way to make it work,” Ebell says. “It would still give scientists an opportunity to pontificate, and we’re opposed to it.”

 

[MarAzul]

Republicans block approval of having a national Scientist Laureate

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2013/09/u.s.-science-laureate-bill-hits-roadblock

ummm, maybe you should try fucking up a donut, you have done enough threads.

 

[jlprk]

In one mathematical model the universe is shaped like a giant doughnut and closes in on itself. Thus the infinite is actually finite.

But, you'd probably prefer a hamburger.

 

[Further]

Another question for you Further. Humans can construct the most complex of multi system machines these days, but no man can construct a person, or any other form of life.

Two people though, male and female can get the job done without knowing a hell of a lot about the task. As this person grows to become a being, where and when in the process
does the essence of a human, the sentient presents get added to the mass of protein brew that was the building material? Where does this sentient presents come from?

I don't believe there is an "essence" that enters at any point. I think there is a being who gains awareness of both self and life as time marches on. A fetus might not have any formed thoughts, but can feel and and react to stimuli, at some point between fetus and baby, they thinking process improves till they can eventually act in a more directed manner, want milk then cry. At some point comes self awareness, that you are not the only thing and the only one thinking. A baby plays peekaboo and when they shield their eyes, the world stops existing. At a certain point the kid realizes that they have simply shielded their sight and that everything else is still there.

As far as there being something more than normal biology at work, neurons firing and all, I don't think there is anything exceptional outside of that. Humans are a pretty damn cool animal, but to lesser degrees certain other animals have demonstrated similar self awareness. For example in one study with dolphins, they familiarized the dolphins with mirrors. Then dots were painted on the foreheads of the dolphins. When the dolphins would next swim by the mirrors, they would try and scrape the dot off of them, rubbing up against the mirrors and the sides of the pools, the dolphins were well aware that they were the dolphin being reflected in the mirror and that the dot was out of place. The dolphins have a very complex language, structured societies, personal names, many of the same things people might consider uniquely human. I just think we are at one end of the spectrum.

 

[Eastoff]

As this person grows to become a being, where and when in the process
does the essence of a human, the sentient presents get added to the mass of protein brew that was the building material?

If there is an "essence" for a human being before birth (and not an individual that gains consciousness slowly), why can't we remember things before the age of 2 or 3 when we are at the age of 25 or even 15?

 

[Further]

If there is an "essence" for a human being before birth (and not an individual that gains consciousness slowly), why can't we remember things before the age of 2 or 3 when we are at the age of 25 or even 15?

Imma gonna sit onn backa, enjoy mee sum shoew

 

[MarAzul]

I don't believe there is an "essence" that enters at any point. I think there is a being who gains awareness of both self and life as time marches on. A fetus might not have any formed thoughts, but can feel and and react to stimuli, at some point between fetus and baby, they thinking process improves till they can eventually act in a more directed manner, want milk then cry. At some point comes self awareness, that you are not the only thing and the only one thinking. A baby plays peekaboo and when they shield their eyes, the world stops existing. At a certain point the kid realizes that they have simply shielded their sight and that everything else is still there.

As far as there being something more than normal biology at work, neurons firing and all, I don't think there is anything exceptional outside of that. Humans are a pretty damn cool animal, but to lesser degrees certain other animals have demonstrated similar self awareness. For example in one study with dolphins, they familiarized the dolphins with mirrors. Then dots were painted on the foreheads of the dolphins. When the dolphins would next swim by the mirrors, they would try and scrape the dot off of them, rubbing up against the mirrors and the sides of the pools, the dolphins were well aware that they were the dolphin being reflected in the mirror and that the dot was out of place. The dolphins have a very complex language, structured societies, personal names, many of the same things people might consider uniquely human. I just think we are at one end of the spectrum.

Well I think that even you have to admit that the human being is greater than the sum of it's parts. Parts being proteins, bone, and DNA. The thing that sets all this apart from what no man can build is the sentient presents. Now I think you must know it is there, or am I completely in error, only conservative T type beings have it, the F type Progressive do not need this essence. That would be strange to be that far off, heck I thought perhaps even a chimpanzee has this essence.

 

[Further]

Well I think that even you have to admit that the human being is greater than the sum of it's parts. Parts being proteins, bone, and DNA. The thing that sets all this apart from what no man can build is the sentient presents. Now I think you must know it is there, or am I completely in error, only conservative T type beings have it, the F type Progressive do not need this essence. That would be strange to be that far off, heck I thought perhaps even a chimpanzee has this essence.

Evolution is an amazing thing. But just because we can't build it doesn't mean much. We can't build a fly, a snake or a human. Do I find humans amazing? Most certainly. Do I think this is a result of anything other than evolution? No.


Side note.
I think you'd be best served to forget that t vs f crap, or at least assign it far less meaning.

 

[MarAzul]

Evolution is an amazing thing. But just because we can't build it doesn't mean much. We can't build a fly, a snake or a human. Do I find humans amazing? Most certainly. Do I think this is a result of anything other than evolution? No.


Side note.
I think you'd be best served to forget that t vs f crap, or at least assign it far less meaning.

Look for the simple. We can't, I mean no man can even build the simplest of creatures.
Can't even build an Amoeba even though they know all of the components.
Just one more little thing needed.

 

[Further]

...
Mistaken post, was trying to google and pressed the wrong thing

 

[MarAzul]

Evolution is an amazing thing. But just because we can't build it doesn't mean much. We can't build a fly, a snake or a human. Do I find humans amazing? Most certainly. Do I think this is a result of anything other than evolution? No.


Side note.
I think you'd be best served to forget that t vs f crap, or at least assign it far less meaning.

Oh it has way more control than you can imagine, Read some about it then come enlighten me.

 

[Further]

Look for the simple. We can't, I mean no man can even build the simplest of creatures.
Can't even build an Amoeba even though they know all of the components.
Just one more little thing needed.

Why should we be able to build something so complex. Technology is just getting to the point where we an observe. Should we be born with this knowledge? You are trying to get at something but I think you are stumbling. Instead of trying to ask me gotcha questions, have a discussion like an adult. Tell me what you believe. Provide logic for your beliefs. Explain why my ideas are flawed.

 

[PapaG]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/



Interesting. Beyond my abilities to assess which theory is more likely. Big Bang makes a lot of sense to me, certainly more than absence of beginning or end, but that could also just be familiarity.

HAHAHAHAHA! I know so many idiots who have taken Big Bang as "fact", based on the scientific "consensus", yet when you get to the origin of the "Bang" there is no way to prove it in a lab.

The skeptic always looks smart. :MARIS61:

 

[PapaG]

Why should we be able to build something so complex. Technology is just getting to the point where we an observe. Should we be born with this knowledge? You are trying to get at something but I think you are stumbling. Instead of trying to ask me gotcha questions, have a discussion like an adult. Tell me what you believe. Provide logic for your beliefs. Explain why my ideas are flawed.

So who could build something so complex? Was the beginning of the universe just a random event that led us to right now based on luck?

 

[PapaG]

Agree, Further. Interesting read but we'll have to see where the chips (evidence) falls. Big bang is pretty established as far as evidence so any new hypothesis has to account for expansion, dark matter, cosmic background radiation, temperature of interstellar space and a lot of other data that are explained by big bang.

Hmmm... some teacher ... I once got a low grade on a high school paper about endangered species because my teacher thought wildlife conservation was communistic. Something about saying all species share the planet. Then there was the time they got a gym teacher to teach biology (not kidding) and she gave me a B on my term paper after admitting she hadn't read it since it was over her head. On the other hand, in college my Genetics prof gave me full credit on an exam for an explanation of data that was not what he had in mind when he wrote the exam but fit both the facts and genetic theory.

Great stories. Thanks for sharing them.

 

[Further]

Oh sweet papag, can't handle Julius beating you like a rented mule so you come here to lash out. Sorry bubs, I'm not playing your game. But damn, Julius might as well have been jackhammering your ass with his cock. He fucked you that hard.