little bang

[Tristen]

 

 

 

 

 

========================================================================================================================

 

“The Laws of Thermodynamics, and Information only coming from "a Mind", are Absolutes!  If you disagree, please provide ONE anomaly....?”

 

This is a specious argument. The absence of an observed exception does not negate the logical possibility that an exception exists.

 

 

You categorize this as a "Specious Argument" via logic by postulating an Argument from Ignorance (Logical Fallacy)    ---- Your argument is based on the veracity of an Unknown Unobserved Cause/Exception to the Rule.

 

However, as I mention below... each postulate and process has to be evaluated based on it's Inherent Tenets.  Postulates/Hypotheses/Experiments/Conclusions are not built the same.

 

Arguably, historical claims can be “TESTED” – indirectly (via a model of the claim); by a method that is less logically robust than is the case for claims which are currently available for direct (and repeated) experimentation.

 

 

If they could, then there would be No Argument   .

 

"Models" aren't TESTS !!!

 

To be "TESTED" (Experiment) You Need:  Dependent, Independent, and Control Variables.  Please Provide an Independent Variable of any "PAST" event you wish to TEST?    You can't; Ergo...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy), IN TOTO.

 

 

I would say that reproducibility and repeatability would be better standards for your position.

 

 

They are Inherently already apart of my position.  Reproducibility and Repeatability of what?  .....of results from.....Experiments.  When I say Experiments and VALIDATED Hypotheses.... I don't mean just one TEST. 

 

 

 

Experiment can ‘settle’ the matter of competing hypotheses. However, experiment is a subsequent stage of the process. Therefore, at this stage of hypothesis formation, (i.e. prior to experimentation) debate is permitted.

 

 

Yes, that's the Stage we are talking about Hypothesis Formation.   I suppose "a Debate" about alternating hypotheses (Different "Plausible" explanations accounting for all of the Observations) is more than reasonable, so as to form a rational coherent Hypothesis/Hypotheses so it/they can be Tested.

 

 

There are also times when experiment doesn’t 'settle the matter' – i.e. when the results can be interpreted to support both hypotheses.

 

 

Perhaps...but it's telling me that the Original competing Hypotheses needed some work i.e., they were too generalized to begin with.  Each situation would have to evaluated specifically.

 

 

The scientific method also assumes a rationally ordered universe.

 

 

Well Yea.  Without that "assumption" there would be no "Science".

 

 

Even if experiment 1 better supports hypothesis A over hypothesis B, it doesn’t necessarily mean that hypothesis A is ‘settled’. The experimental design could be unknowingly testing an exception to hypothesis B. It could just mean that hypothesis B is incomplete – i.e. not that Hypothesis A is correct. Subsequent experiments could better support Hypothesis B. Both hypotheses could be wrong; based on incorrect assumptions – regardless of how well one experiment supports an existing hypothesis.

 

 

I suppose; however, as I said above.... each Hypothesis and subsequent Experiment(s) would have to be scrutinized on their tenets and elucidation of any limitations of the explanatory power of the results documented.  The Process of reproducability and repeatability will further clarify. 

 

 

The scientific method is logically obligated to make allowances for the possibility of exceptions to our current knowledge. Therefore, all ideas (including scientific laws) remain subject to rational scrutiny and debate.

 

 

Generally, I agree in Principle.  There have been Scientific Laws that have been Falsified (Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission comes to mind).....BUT, that was due to: shoddy "assumptions", lack of experiments et al; that should have been Ruled Out in the first place.  Goes back to EACH postulate has to be scrutinized based on it's inherent tenets.

 

 

 

Hey Enoch

 

“You categorize this as a "Specious Argument" via logic by postulating an Argument from Ignorance (Logical Fallacy)   ---- Your argument is based on the veracity of an Unknown Unobserved Cause/Exception to the Rule”

 

No it isn’t. I have not attempted to undermine confidence in a claim based on the possibility of incomplete knowledge. I have not addressed any specific scientific claim. I am addressing the logic upon which the scientific method stands. Since the possibility of incomplete knowledge exists for every claim, the scientific method is rendered logically incapable of providing certainty. High confidence – yes; even very high confidence. But it cannot render any claim to be beyond question or scrutiny. That degree of absolute confidence cannot be logically justified through application of the scientific method. Only faith makes a logical provision for certainty.

 

 

 

“"Models" aren't TESTS !!! To be "TESTED" (Experiment) You Need:  Dependent, Independent, and Control Variables.  Please Provide an Independent Variable of any "PAST" event you wish to TEST?    You can't; Ergo...it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy), IN TOTO.”

 

I suppose the point is, since you can’t test the claim itself, you model the claim (i.e. ask what we would expect to find now if the claim were true), then compare the model to the observations.  We are both aware of the logical weaknesses associated with this method – but it’s the only way to investigate the past (or anything that is not currently available for natural scrutiny).

 

The problem (as I’m sure you know) is in attempting to equate the results of this method with the results of the operational method. Proponents fail to consider the underlying logic of their position and assume higher levels of confidence in historical claims than can be rationally justified.

 

I pretty much agree with the rest of your comments. You use “evaluate” and “scrutinised” where I have used discuss and debate. But I think we’re basically on the same page (or at least in the same chapter).

[standing_alone]

I thought about what I said yesterday, and I think the position of any Christian who claims we can understand the universe is actually much worse. For example, even if we would have complete access to the actual secrets of the universe that we observe, we could still say absolutely nothing about how it was created. For at least 2 reasons: the first is that we can never ever fully understand anything (we are created, while God is the Creator), and the second is that the universe that we observe is the fallen creation. It would be like analyzing the dusty remains of a dead fellow and giving expert opinion of how the living fellow actually was, and what exactly was he doing while living.

Edited February 9, 2015 by standing_alone

[standing_alone]

FresnoJoe, indeed. In other words, for decades the paradigm has been (and for many it is so even today, since the majority of big bang supporters still hold to Doppler interpretation) that the universe is geocentric, and nobody seemed to notice. For me, that’s first class entertainment, since they have claimed for centuries that the universe isn’t geocentric…

 

As for the Coma Cluster, that’s where a major formal problem had started (Zwicky, dark matter). The (rest of the) article is mostly dealing with old things. Post-them, mainstream has a whole new set of problems. Not that they really solved their previous problems…

[standing_alone]

Enoch2021, please let’s not scrutinize every word, otherwise, if we must define each word we use, we can’t really communicate. So by religion I meant your Christian faith.

 

And yes, I think you are wrong by considering that the so-called laws of nature (what we observe on Earth or very nearby) are truly the laws of nature (i.e. universal). However, even if you right, that is pretty much forever unprovable, so it’s not science.

 

And no, I’m not saying at all that big bang is possibly true. It’s certainly strange to accuse me of saying that, since I’m the fellow who started this thread against big bang.

 

I welcome your support for the scientific method. Indeed, before even debating if big bang is true or not, people should know that it’s not even science. It’s simply faith that the universe did this, and it did that, so that it eventually would align itself with current observations. Only that the universe must have done a lot of things to eventually align with observations, and that’s one of the most severe problems of the paradigm. Not only its supporters have to take things on faith, but they have to take a lot of things on faith.

 

As for my “Argument from Ignorance”, OK I will accept that if you accept that you make your arguments from the position of all-knowing. Is it God you’re proclaiming here, or is it yourself? So yes, I stand behind my (and apparently Tristen’s) position that (obviously!) we don’t know what we don’t know. Feel free to show me how you do know what you don’t know.

 

If you believe there are no different laws in other parts of the universe, feel free to prove it. I'm very skeptic about that. You have to take it on faith, one way or the other (actually, in one case not so much on faith, since for example they can’t seem able to find other Earths out there).

 

As for “Argument to the Future”, oh boy. Again, you seem to believe yourself to be all-knowing. My friend, even when you make an experiment, and then you repeat it, and then again, this doesn’t exclude alternative explanations – current or future or even past, since for example I believe aether was banished prematurely.

 

As for proving things to other people, if you think you can prove anything (other than their core beliefs) to people that believe that Moon, or anything, isn’t there when they’re not looking, then please do so.

 

As for “alternative explanations within current physics”, if you would have been patient to read the example that followed you wouldn’t put that question.

 

I agree with you on Genesis. Although, where exactly did your all-knowing physics go?

 

Please don’t see a dispute between us, because there isn’t - other than you claiming to have access to cosmic understanding. Forgive my battle stance, but it’s you who actually brought it out, with your sharp questions and arguments.

Edited February 9, 2015 by standing_alone

[standing_alone]

Joshua260:

 

 

1. Actually, you should agree with Doppler effect, since no one (literally) can observe space, or what space is doing.

 

 

2. There were no “Einstein solar eclipse experiments”. There were observations. And they were not Einstein’s, they were Eddington’s. And it wasn’t that the result compelled him, it was that Eddington wanted so much Einstein’s theory to be true, for several reasons, none of them scientific (including peace between scientists, post-war).

 

Also, there was no “Einstein miscalculation”. It all started from the initial assumptions. His calculations were correct, in both cases.

 

As for the light being bent nevertheless, that was proposed by Newton, long before Einstein.

 

 

3. I wasn’t saying at all that “gravity could be related to electromagnetism”. I was only suggesting to you to always look for alternative explanations. In this case, the one proposed by supporters of the plasma universe seems reasonable to me. Although, given my philosophy, I will never step up to support their universe (which, regardless, has its own problems).

 

See for example, Dowdye. You can find out a few things about him in this article:

 

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/739183-former-nasa-physicist-disputes-einsteins-relativity-theory/

 

You can find a list of his papers and presentations here:

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Scientists&tab2=Display&id=435

 

You certainly can’t find his papers on arxiv (but you could try NPA) - and by the way, why exactly is that? How can supporters of Einstein explain this censorship? In so many cases? Is it about science, or is it not? Apparently, it’s not.

 

 

4. It’s also factual that Einstein's last value was given a century before him…

 

 

(5.) And I still think you don’t understand me. It’s not certain at all that gravity bends light, regardless who said it first. Dowdye couldn’t find light bending at several distances (radii) from the sun (as shown in several of his papers). Plasma cosmology supporters are basically saying that it’s the plasma (the solar plasma atmosphere) responsible for the bending. Some even have maths, leading to the same result as Einstein. Now you have one result, in agreement with observations, but 3 very different theories. So, again, which criterion we use to differentiate which is true, if there is even one true amongst them?

 

 

(6.) To whom does the relationship energy-mass, and even the equation “E=MC2” belong? You’ll probably answer Einstein, but… are you sure? So here’s me, repeating myself: make sure you check the actual truth behind what you learned in school, because most of the things you learned there are false. Certainly all the things that are 100% theoretical.

Edited February 9, 2015 by standing_alone

[Bonky]

I thought about what I said yesterday, and I think the position of any Christian who claims we can understand the universe is actually much worse. For example, even if we would have complete access to the actual secrets of the universe that we observe, we could still say absolutely nothing about how it was created. For at least 2 reasons: the first is that we can never ever fully understand anything (we are created, while God is the Creator), and the second is that the universe that we observe is the fallen creation. It would be like analyzing the dusty remains of a dead fellow and giving expert opinion of how the living fellow actually was, and what exactly was he doing while living.

If the Universe is beyond our grasp to comprehend, how much more so would the creator be?

Edited February 9, 2015 by Bonky

[Guest Teditis]

Well the Universe didn't inspire a Book, so the Creator has a leg up on the discussion.

[Bonky]

So the creator is way beyond our understanding but we'd know it if it inspired a series of books? That doesn't seem rational to me.

[Guest Teditis]

Research the Bible for yourself... how it was put together and edited,

as well as reading what itself has to say about it's nature and being.

 

If for no other reason, It is one of the quintessential "proof-texts" that

Christians refer to in discussions like these.

[Bonky]

Research the Bible for yourself... how it was put together and edited,

as well as reading what itself has to say about it's nature and being.

 

If for no other reason, It is one of the quintessential "proof-texts" that

Christians refer to in discussions like these.

Yes it claims a lot of things. Even if the prophecies were true, even if Jesus was born of a virgin, it says zero about whether the creator of our Universe was involved at all. It's a terrible leap of logic.