Atheism is proven irrational by science and mathematics

[Nepenthe]

You do realize you are essentially asking people in this thread to write you entire volumes, and possibly theses, of math and physics, and then when we don’t feel like it, or know we are not well-trained enough for such an endeavor, certainly not on an internet board, you are then essentially saying “Hah, I knew you were wrong and I was right all along!” or similar?

That said, rossum’s handing you helpings of derriere en croute pretty easily. Enjoy!

 

[rossum]

none of our debate so far has addressed the cosmological implications of the the accepted model of the big bang

This may be one of the issues in this discussion. There is more than one theory of the Big Bang. We have evidence that the Big Bang happened. Since then all cosmological theories have had to include the Big Bang. There are still a number of those theories which have not yet been disproved. For example, different BB theories predict different amounts of dark matter in the universe. Once we have accurately measured the amount of dark matter there is we will be able to eliminate those theories that predicted it incorrectly.

how can there be an extremely small volume, that is smaller than a single point?

You are correct of course. I also suspect that you misread what I posted: “Using the equations from a different theory we get explansion from an extremely small volume which is larger that a single point” (Emphasis added).

but no matter, the accepted big bang theory is the only one the OP seeks to use, all others are yet to be accepted for their flaws.

Again, there is no single accepted BB theory, there are a number of different theories all of which include the BB.

gravity equations aside, the big bang theory postulates an actual physical, monobloc, or singularity whose mass equals all the material in the universe. not simply a mathematical point.

My example used Newton’s equations to show how a mathematical singularity (division by zero in that case) can arise from the equations of a given theory. Using a different theory, with different equations, such a mathematical singularity can disappear. Indeed the appearance of a mathematical singularity in the equations is usually a sign that the theory does not correspond to reality. For example, the renormalization problem of the Grand Unified Theory is an attempt to avoid singularities that currently appear in the GUT equations.

yes the light speed horizon is 13.8 billion light years across as measured by but it doesn’t show anything pre-big bang.

The universe shows some effects that may well originate from before the Big Bang.

you seem to be under the impression that we have some solid, empirical data about any pre-big bang environment. i dont know of any that is more than conjecture, if you have some, let me know.

We have something: Hints of ‘time before Big Bang’.

i assume you are talking about the various competing inflationary models that look to differentiate the pattern of energy and matter in the environment from t=0 to t=1(-35) seconds. if not let me know what theories you are referring to.

The different versions of inflation, the different versions of string theory, M-theory and others. There are a number of possible cosmological theories around, all of which include the Big Bang. Steady state theories died a long time ago.

the math never shows a monobloc or physical singularity in the standard model.

The “standard model” usually refers to quantum mechanics. The monobloc is shown in all BB models, since it is a name for the extremely small, extremely hot and extremely massive initial object at the start of the bang. It is not a singularity (zero size point) merely extremely small, on a quantum scale of the order of Planck units.

as to a beginning the question is only open in models outside the standard big bang theory

There is no “standard” BB theory. There are a number of competing BB theories, some of which extend back before the BB.

quite sorry about the inference, ive met some who just cut and past other peoples arguments

That is fine. I also have seen people do that.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You do realize you are essentially asking people in this thread to write you entire volumes, and possibly theses, of math and physics, and then when we don’t feel like it, or know we are not well-trained enough for such an endeavor, certainly not on an internet board, you are then essentially saying “Hah, I knew you were wrong and I was right all along!” or similar?

That said, rossum’s handing you helpings of derriere en croute pretty easily. Enjoy!

i am happy to discuss any argument you may have, based on the commonly accepted standard big bang theory, that may refute my assertions in the OP.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This may be one of the issues in this discussion. There is more than one theory of the Big Bang. We have evidence that the Big Bang happened. Since then all cosmological theories have had to include the Big Bang.

bingo! now we have a common starting point

There are still a number of those theories which have not yet been disproved.

i dont know of any commonly accepted theories that refute the OP, if you have some in mind, name them. mind that ‘commonly’ accepted is the idea, i cant put much faith in theories that dont have a very solid support among respected communities of physicists, mathematicians, or cosmologists.

the liquidity of previous versions of string theory, supergravity et al., have left me with little faith in likelihood of their being even close to the last word. thats why i am pushing on the standard model taught in school, as that has survived because of the empirical proof.

the assertion of the OP is about a physical singularity, which the standard model posits, i know that some models do not posit this, yet they are fatally flawed as far as i know.

that aside, if there is a specific theory that you have in mind let me know and we can consider it, as no one else seems inclined to belabor the point solely on the standardly taught theory alone.

For example, different BB theories predict different amounts of dark matter in the universe.

Once we have accurately measured the amount of dark matter there is we will be able to eliminate those theories that predicted it incorrectly.

no problem here in general, but dark matter is not entirely out of the cellar, so to speak

Again, there is no single accepted BB theory, there are a number of different theories all of which include the BB.

yup, but for the OP, the assertion is the existence of the monobloc is never part of the equations. all these other theories, as far as i know, start at t=1s(-35) far too late too affect the existence of the monobloc. though if you have a specific theory ion mind that refutes the OP let me know and we can discuss it.

The universe shows some effects that may well originate from before the Big Bang.

We have something: Hints of ‘time before Big Bang’.

unfortunately the variation in the cmbr can be explained by any number of phenomenon, a previous universe is only one possibility. one that depends on postulates of a pre big bang environment. not very satisfying…

The “standard model” usually refers to quantum mechanics. The monobloc is shown in all BB models, since it is a name for the extremely small, extremely hot and extremely massive initial object at the start of the bang. It is not a singularity (zero size point) merely extremely small, on a quantum scale of the order of Planck units.

yet even very tiny, it is still a physical object, with a finite mass, in a finite area, that the math never actually reaches, which is why i assert that it did not exist.

if you care to discuss specific theories that indicate the existence of a monobloc then we can discuss those, though there relative acceptance will have a large impact on my view of it.

but at least now we have a common page to work from, that is some progress.

 

[hecd2]

we have yet to discuss pre-big bang information at all, it does not exist outside of conjecture. none is based on the currently accepted science

I think you have a very imperfect grasp of what the currently accepted science is. You seem to think that the only cosmology acceptable in this debate is a universe smoothly expanding from a Big Bang singularity. But the evidence that we have gathered since the Big Bang was postulated specifically *excludes *such a cosmology. The current standard cosmological model of the universe includes the effect of quantum fluctuations in the early universe, inflation, dark matter and dark energy, and does not exclude the possibility of obtaining pre-Big Bang information.That is the concordance model - what you are talking about is an old precursor to it that no longer fits the evidence.

none of our debate so far has addressed the cosmological implications of the the accepted model of the big bang

Which, just to reinforce the point, includes inflation, dark matter, dark energy, and does not preclude a non-singular starting point.

but no matter, the accepted big bang theory is the only one the OP seeks to use, all others are yet to be accepted for their flaws.

But, as Rossum says, you need to decide which Big Bang model you mean. If you mean a model that has the universe expanding smoothly from a singularity, well, it’s out of date and doesn’t fit the evidence, because, amongst other things it leads inexorably to the Horizon and Flatness problems. In the case of inflation, the Bang is not uncaused or caused by the miraculous intervention of an external being, but by the existence of an inflaton field, such as a Higgs field, which reached the right value to initiate inflation, and by definition is caused by prior conditions.

gravity equations aside, the big bang theory postulates an actual physical, monobloc, or singularity whose mass equals all the material in the universe. not simply a mathematical point.

Not necessarily. In inflationary cosmology, the matter/radiation is released from the energy of the inflaton field as it rolled down the potential well during inflation. In other words matter/radiation in the universe, in this well accepted model, is created during inflation, not at the Big Bang.

the big bang theory postulates a physical monobloc, that the math never actually reaches

Not necessarily so - see above.

yes the light speed horizon is 13.8 billion light years across as measured by but it doesn’t show anything pre-big bang.

Again, not necessarily true - the CMB anisotropy includes an imprint of primordial quantum fluctuations. It carries information about the structure and history of the Universe post-Big Bang. It is also possible that it carries pre-Big Bang information.

if so, then first let me say that those models only address what the composition, or distribution of matter or energy of the alleged monobloc might have been, since i am denying the existence of the monobloc, or singularity that is all beside the point. the math never shows a monobloc or physical singularity in the standard model.

What do you mean you are denying the existence of a singularity or monobloc (monobloc is not a word I would use - I assume you mean a very small but finite volume)? All Big Bang cosmologies begin with one or the other. And what maths are you referring to?

second all these competing inflationary models are no better accepted than the various permutations of string theory. all of them have various fatal flaws.

That might or might not be true, but a period of inflation IS part of the current concordance model of cosmology.

dark matter is another unproven idea, something that most physicists take as a necessity, rather than an actual item. much like the monobloc, or singularity it is a variable that makes the math make sense, it has yet to be proven to exist.

Perhaps you would explain the following phenomena without dark matter:

• Rubin’s flat rotation curves in spiral galaxies
• Zwicky’s observations of missing mass in galaxy clusters
• The amplitude of gravitational lensing
• The binding of hot X-ray emitting gas in galaxies
• The observed CMB anisotropy spectrum
  Not merely a variable that makes the maths make sense, but an observed phenomenon, you see.

i find theoretical cosmology fascinating, however i must insist that further argumentation on this thread, only use the standard model, as that is the gist of the OP.

The current standard of cosmology is not the universe smoothly expanding from a singularity containing all the mass of the universe. If you want to base theological conclusions on an outmoded physical model, be my guest, but the conclusions will only be as good as the premise.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

 

[hecd2]

the universe has scientifically verified limits in mass, dimesion, and mathematically in age. thats how i know

the question becomes why didn’t you?

Really? What is the limit on the mass and dimensions of the universe, and how do you know? You might find it’s not entirely sensible to patronise someone unless you are standing on solid ground.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

yet even very tiny, it is still a physical object, with a finite mass, in a finite area, that the math never actually reaches, which is why i assert that it did not exist.

What particular maths are you talking about? The problem with understanding pre-inflation conditions isn’t a mathematical but a physical one - our existing physical theories break down under the conditions that are thought to exist at that time (actually, they cannot be entirely correct for conditions now, but the approximation is better). But it is not inconceivable that testable theories of pre-inflationary physics will be found. As I said, if you want to base your theological argument on an outmoded model, and one, moreover, that relies on a God-of-the Gaps argument, be my guest.

if you care to discuss specific theories that indicate the existence of a monobloc then we can discuss those, though there relative acceptance will have a large impact on my view of it.

Currently respectable cosmological models do not have the entire mass/radiation of the universe compressed into a mathematical point, nor does the entire mass/radiation in the universe instantaneously appear.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Fran65]

I’d like to summarise, check out and offer my understanding of the underlying theological argument with all this.

WSP is arguing that because science ‘has proved’ that the universe has a beginning then this supports the first cause argument.

rossum, nepenthe and hecd2 are arguing that science has not proved this and there are many other theories regarding the origin of the universe.

My own take on this is that * if * the universe is shown to not have had a beginning, then whilst this weakens the first argument (as proposed by Aquinas) it does not demonstrate that God does not exist.

In my opinion, we should use our increased understanding of the universe to understand God. Knowing more about the origin(s?) of the universe will bring us to a deeper understanding of our creator. As God created the universe, then any accurate understanding we have of it will inevitably tell us more about Him; even if it challenges or disproves previous understandings. In other words, other than our belief in God (as Catholics), other knowledge and understanding is provisional. Copernicus anyone?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What particular maths are you talking about? The problem with understanding pre-inflation conditions isn’t a mathematical but a physical one - our existing physical theories break down under the conditions that are thought to exist at that time (actually, they cannot be entirely correct for conditions now, but the approximation is better). But it is not inconceivable that testable theories of pre-inflationary physics will be found. As I said, if you want to base your theological argument on an outmoded model, and one, moreover, that relies on a God-of-the Gaps argument, be my guest.
Currently respectable cosmological models do not have the entire mass/radiation of the universe compressed into a mathematical point, nor does the entire mass/radiation in the universe instantaneously appear.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

the point, nicely expressed by rossum , is that the standard cosmological model is the big bang.

all other theories, connected to this observed phenomenon compete with eachother or have obvious fatal flaws.

as only one theory can be right, i would therefore suggest the obvious, that all others must be wrong, therefore they are all suspect. only the actual BB is at question in the OP

as to the variability observed in the cmbr, so what? it says nothing about any pre-big bang environment, it only says at the light speed horizon the microwave radiation was not uniformly distributed. from this it is inferred that there ‘must’ have been some cause of that variability as though the natural state of the expansion should have been smooth, admittedly that is my opinion of the interpretation of the data.

as to dark matter, it is a nice idea, they believe that they have found the proof of the phenomena, good for them, yet i have heard these stories before. and still there are some who doubt it, specifically those who still like MOND. i dont really care either way about who is right. the matter is not settled, nor may it ever be.

why?

because there is no proof in the accepted standard model of a monobloc, the math runs out in an infinite ‘moment’ for a better word. it only proves an expansion from a single point. which i interpret as explained in the OP

wait, you say, some theories dont require a monobloc or any physical singularity (of any volume). true, some dont. but they do require postulations concerning the nature of any possible pre-big bang environment that cannot reasonably be construed from the observable data.

you ask why not?

specifically because the math doesnt show a starting point, it only shows an expansion from that point, it doesnt matter if its rough or smooth, because it only says that the expansion was rough or smooth, it doesnt give any reasonable answer as to why.

so the only proven idea in this thread seems to be the BB, and the OP asserts that no monobloc is supported by the standard cosmological model.

so to be clear,

only the BB is proven

everything else is up in the air, and has been for some time.

all theories that claim some knowledge of any pre BB environment are based on ‘best guesses’ of those conditions. hardly a basis of cosmological research, especially considering the rapid rate of change in the last few decades in those theories.

now, i am not saying that other theories do not exist, or may never find traction, rather that they are unacceptable as relates to the OP in that they make unsupported assumptions. they are full of fatal flaws and only one can be right.

as to the rest of your post, i will assume that you meant to be charitable and just became a little excited

have a happy thanksgiving, dont eat too much

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’d like to summarise, check out and offer my understanding of the underlying theological argument with all this.

WSP is arguing that because science ‘has proved’ that the universe has a beginning then this supports the first cause argument.

rossum, nepenthe and hecd2 are arguing that science has not proved this and there are many other theories regarding the origin of the universe.

My own take on this is that * if * the universe is shown to not have had a beginning, then whilst this weakens the first argument (as proposed by Aquinas) it does not demonstrate that God does not exist.

In my opinion, we should use our increased understanding of the universe to understand God. Knowing more about the origin(s?) of the universe will bring us to a deeper understanding of our creator. As God created the universe, then any accurate understanding we have of it will inevitably tell us more about Him; even if it challenges or disproves previous understandings. In other words, other than our belief in God (as Catholics), other knowledge and understanding is provisional. Copernicus anyone?

you are correct that none of this will ultimately relate to the existense of G-d as we understand the arguments for Him.

i am trying to formulate an argument based on the observed big bang, and its cosmological implications. specificall as to the lack of proof of an actual monobloc, or physical singularity.

their position is that other theories exist therefore one cannot draw conclusions only from the BB, or the standard theory.

my position is that those theories have a lot of fatal flaws. chief being that they do not refute the OP assertion that the monobloc does not exist.

the main difference seems to be the quality of evidence we are willing to accept for our various opinions.

i bleive that rossum and hecd2 have very much hardcore science educations, my education is interdisciplinary in nature giving me a different viewpoint from theirs.

but we are making progress, people get a little excited but i expect that the thread will be quite useful in formulating better arguments.

at least its not a ‘you know who’ situation. i saw she nor her avatar have posted in a week, i wonder if she is looking for new arguments to cut and paste? or if this last beating with the lifeless body of MOQ drove her to easier pickings? i hope she doesn’t reemerge with a new theory, darn near drove me nuts last time

p.s. i know you dont celebrate thanksgiving on that side of the pond but, happy thanksgiving any way. have a properly poured pint for me!

 

[rossum]

i dont know of any commonly accepted theories that refute the OP, if you have some in mind, name them. mind that ‘commonly’ accepted is the idea, i cant put much faith in theories that dont have a very solid support among respected communities of physicists, mathematicians, or cosmologists.

The OP asserted that there was a “mathematical proof of an infinity prior to and outside of the observable universe”. If there is then that proof cannot be based on physics. Physics is science and in science there are no proofs. Mathematical proofs are based on axioms and those axioms may or may not reflect the actual state of the universe.

In mathematics we start with a set of axioms, and our mathematical universe is defined by those axioms; we start with complete knowledge of the universe. Given a set of axioms we can deduce various theorems - mathematics is deductive. A correctly deduced theorem is proved.

In science we start with the real universe. The real universe is not defined by a set of axioms and we have incomplete knowledge of the universe. Hence science cannot use the deductive logic of mathematics and cannot use “proof” in the mathematical sense. Science uses an inductive logic: “we have seen event X happen in situation Y before, the chances are that if we see situation Y again then we would normally expect X to happen”. That is a more probabilistic way of looking at the universe.

The mathematics used in science is just a tool to help us define event X and situation Y better. We hope that the axioms used by the mathematics are a reasonable model of the actual situation. However, we always need to bear in mind that we may need to change our model, and hence the axioms underlying the mathematics, at any time in order to incorporate new discoveries about the universe.

It seems to me that you are trying to import the deductive mode of reasoning from mathematics into the scientific problem of the origin of the universe. We do not have enough knowledge of the conditions before, during and just after the Big Bang to be able to make secure logical inferences. We can talk about probabilities and likelihoods, but I do not think that is where your argument is leading. You are looking in the wrong place for an argument for God and against atheism: “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved” - Bonhoeffer.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The OP asserted that there was a “mathematical proof of an infinity prior to and outside of the observable universe”. If there is then that proof cannot be based on physics. Physics is science and in science there are no proofs. Mathematical proofs are based on axioms and those axioms may or may not reflect the actual state of the universe.

“with no singularity the theory reduces to a mathematical proof of an infinity prior to and outside of the observable universe” is the qoute. which yes, may be better expressed.

the math hits infinite values at an ‘infinite moment’, for lack of a better word, just prior to the beginning of an expansion.

starting with the observed conditions (axioms, that best fit our observations) and regressing from there the math hits that wall, prior to showing the existence of a monobloc.

so i do not understand how this is not a mathematical proof of the assertion, that there was an infinity prior to, and separate from the expansion. it would seem to me at least, that it fits that exact definition.

though yes our measurements may be wrong, we use them to great effect in any number of other endeavors, i dont see that as an obstacle to using them in cosmological research

We do not have enough knowledge of the conditions before, during and just after the Big Bang to be able to make secure logical inferences.

we have no knowledge of conditions prior to or during the big bang at all, the math runs into infinite values before the the existence of the monobloc.

we only have what ,seems to me, is a mathematical proof of infinite mathematical values from which an expansion occurred.

from the rest of your post i take it to be that your primary objection seems to be that i cannot interpret that ‘infinite moment’ as G-d.

indeed i do not make that direct interpretation, i am saying that those are the qaulities that we have always claimed G-d to have.

so i come back to a ‘mathematical proof’ of a self existent, infinite ‘first cause’ of the universe

so my language is less than optimal but it doesn’t change what the math shows, or that those infinite values coincide very elegantly with our understanding of ‘First Cause’

now if the real problem is the language used in the OP, that can be remedied with a change in language, but that would not change the reasoning, or the math it is based on.

 

[rossum]

the math hits infinite values at an ‘infinite moment’, for lack of a better word, just prior to the beginning of an expansion.

No. Only some of the possible versions of the maths hit infinities. Both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity operate in a mathematically smooth space, so a mathematical singularity is possible. Other theories operate in a quantised (non-smooth) space so a mathematical singularity is not possible. Indeed the existence of the singularity in Einsteinian gravity is one of the indicators that it needs to be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity.

Again you seem to be assuming that there is just one theory - “the math” rather that “some possible maths”. There is more than one theory possible to explain what we currently observe, and we do not yet have enough data to decide between them.

starting with the observed conditions (axioms, that best fit our observations) and regressing from there the math hits that wall, prior to showing the existence of a monobloc.

Observed conditions are not mathematical axioms. An observed condition is something like “last Thursday I observed the CMBR in this direction to have that value plus or minus this error”. That is not a mathematical axiom. The mathematical axioms are picked so that the mathematical theory that results gives a figure in the range stated for the CMBR in the direction stated at the time stated.

we only have what ,seems to me, is a mathematical proof of infinite mathematical values from which an expansion occurred.

We have no “mathematical proof”. We have some mathematics which is based on unproved physics and cosmology. That does not constitute any sort of mathematical proof.

from the rest of your post i take it to be that your primary objection seems to be that i cannot interpret that ‘infinite moment’ as G-d.

You are free to interpret it as you wish. However, I am free to reject your interpretation because it misunderstands the science and the relationship between the science and mathematics.

rossum

 

[jfhh]

it has come to my attention in various conversations that the accepted big bang theory proves the existence of an infinity prior to the expansion.

here is why.

the mathematical regression from the observable universe back to the big bang posits a ‘moment’ (for lack of a better word) when no physical laws and no time existed. it also posits a singularity from which the universe expanded.

that singularity is an assumption that explains from ‘what’ the universe expanded, it is not actually mathematically possible to show that the singularity existed, the math does not extend past the ‘moment’ in which no time or physical laws existed

with no singularity the theory reduces to a mathematical proof of an infinity prior to and outside of the observable universe

further that infinity in which no time or space exists is, by the nature of an infinity, self existent, as bacon said, should one infinity exist it would preclude all others.

proof, i believe, of an existent First Cause that is infinite in its nature.

just as we have always claimed G-d to be.

anybody got a decent counter argument?

I think you are confusing mathematical infinity (which philosophers sometimes distinguish from true infinity with the term “transfinite”) with true, philosophical or absolute infinity. Here’s a place to get started

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_infinite

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No. Only some of the possible versions of the maths hit infinities. Both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity operate in a mathematically smooth space, so a mathematical singularity is possible. Other theories operate in a quantised (non-smooth) space so a mathematical singularity is not possible. Indeed the existence of the singularity in Einsteinian gravity is one of the indicators that it needs to be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity.

yet, those are not the standard cosmological model. i dont intend to endlessly argue unproven, non-standard theories, yes they exist but they are fatally flawed and they do not address the assertion of the OP, that the math never reaches a monobloc.

Again you seem to be assuming that there is just one theory - “the math” rather that “some possible maths”. There is more than one theory possible to explain what we currently observe, and we do not yet have enough data to decide between them.

there are many theories, only one is the standard cosmological theory

Observed conditions are not mathematical axioms. An observed condition is something like “last Thursday I observed the CMBR in this direction to have that value plus or minus this error”. That is not a mathematical axiom. The mathematical axioms are picked so that the mathematical theory that results gives a figure in the range stated for the CMBR in the direction stated at the time stated.

one cannot pick the postulates of ones theory and then expect a non biased result. there are finite measurements of these phenomenon. those measurements dont change. if on tuesday some part of the sky radiated at X amount of energy, then on thursday the same amount of energy should be observed under the same conditions.

We have no “mathematical proof”. We have some mathematics which is based on unproved physics and cosmology. That does not constitute any sort of mathematical proof.

as you say there is never proof, but as the standard model of the BB has been upheld since the 1930’s i give it much more weight than theories half as old that have yet to even be solidified into a standard cosmological model. in fact they change every few years. they are much less than reliable as their history shows

You are free to interpret it as you wish. However, I am free to reject your interpretation because it misunderstands the science and the relationship between the science and mathematics.

you are, of course welcome to disagree, other interpretations of the ‘infinite moment’ are possible. yet as the old saying goes “if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck” still hold true.

the only argument that you seem to offer is based on my language, which can be changed to meet more professional standards, yet i do not misunderstand the science, nor does my disagreement, constitute a misunderstanding. nor do i misunderstand some difference between mathematics and science, it is quite clear, yet not germane to the issue, the existence of the ‘monobloc’ in the standard theory.

while the existence of the philosophy of science does in fact support your position of multiple possibilities. it doesnt answer to the assertion of the OP, that the monobloc, is not shown to exist by the math.

we have yet to address what to me is the prime issue, to wit. in the standard theory does the math actually show a monobloc or not? i assert that it does not, it only shows a mathematical infinity.

we can dance around that issue all day, you can say i misunderstand commonly published material, taught in many university courses, pick the flaws on my language, yet there is not an offer of a refutation of my assertion. the math shows no actual monobloc in the standard cosmological theory. that is all that really matters in relation to the OP.

do you have such an argument?

 

[Dameedna]

You do realize you are essentially asking people in this thread to write you entire volumes, and possibly theses, of math and physics, and then when we don’t feel like it, or know we are not well-trained enough for such an endeavor, certainly not on an internet board, you are then essentially saying “Hah, I knew you were wrong and I was right all along!” or similar?

That said, rossum’s handing you helpings of derriere en croute pretty easily. Enjoy!

LOL, I agree. The mathematics behind some of the current theories is so complex that no-one has yet been able to solve some of the problems. How this could equate to “athiesm is proven irrational” I do not know.

 

[rossum]

yet, those are not the standard cosmological model.

Currently there is no ‘standard cosmological model’. There are a number of possible theories, all of which describe events around the Big Bang with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Until we have gathered more data we are not able to tell which of these theories is the least incorrect.

the assertion of the OP, that the math never reaches a monobloc.

Your assertion in the OP fails when you talk about “the math”. There is no “the” math, there are a number of different possible maths, each different math linked to a different possible theory of the BB.

one cannot pick the postulates of ones theory and then expect a non biased result. there are finite measurements of these phenomenon. those measurements dont change. if on tuesday some part of the sky radiated at X amount of energy, then on thursday the same amount of energy should be observed under the same conditions.

Why? We know that the CMBR is cooling so on Thursday we should observe that it is marginally colder than it was on Tuesday. Your lack of understanding of science is showing here. Measurements do change, which is why scientists repeat them endlessley and why theories are adjusted to take account of the measured changes. Any theory which fails to explain the cooling of the CMBR will be rejected.

as you say there is never proof, but as the standard model of the BB has been upheld since the 1930’s i give it much more weight than theories half as old that have yet to even be solidified into a standard cosmological model.

There is no ‘standard model of the BB’. Scientific theories have developed a great deal since the 1930s. There are a number of different possible models of the BB.

in fact they change every few years. they are much less than reliable as their history shows

Newton’s theory did not change for hundreds of years, yet it was wrong. How long a theory has been around does not impact on whether or not it is correct.

yet i do not misunderstand the science,

I am afraid that you do. Please look up the Dunniing-Kruger effect. As has been pointed out by others, you are out of your depth here.

Go and study cosmology at a university first; if you want to use cosmological theories then you will need to know a lot more than just the pop-science of the Big Bang. You might want to go to your local university library and have a look at a copy of “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time” by Hawking and Ellis. This is the book that Hawking referred to in his introduction to “A Brief History of Time” as being ‘unreadable’. Have a look through it, or just go to Amazon and have a look at the Table of Contents. The easiest part to read is the essay by Laplace in Appendix A which deals with Black Holes in classical physics.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Currently there is no ‘standard cosmological model’. There are a number of possible theories, all of which describe events around the Big Bang with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Until we have gathered more data we are not able to tell which of these theories is the least incorrect.

cfa.harvard.edu/research/cos.html
osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6139356
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cosmo.html
nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peebles1/frames.html
pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Cosmo.html
plato.tp.ph.ic.ac.uk/conferences/cosmology/
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=34186
74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=standard+cosmological+model&y=Search&xa=NL48lwOL7_48x9mZCmFNWg–%2C1227976616&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.astro.umd.edu/%257Eimmler/Lecture_16.pdf&w=standard+standards+cosmological+model+models&d=EtQ2gEfiR2eK&icp=1&.intl=us
74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=standard+cosmological+model&y=Search&xa=i7V0Yff3EHfBJ5bzmu1tMg–%2C1227977254&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/24/1/011/jpconf5_24_011.pdf&w=standard+standards+cosmological+model+models&d=Lwj_c0fiR19I&icp=1&.intl=us
citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0509800

here are just 10 refutations of the idea that ‘no standard cosmological model exists’

you will notice such imminent entities as The Department of Energy and Harvard University on this list.

they feel so strongly as to have published material concerning the standard cosmological model.

Your assertion in the OP fails when you talk about “the math”. There is no “the” math, there are a number of different possible maths, each different math linked to a different possible theory of the BB.

one may well regress using different values, but as long as we use the standard cosmological model, as proven to exist above
one will always arrive at the same conclusion in regard to the beginning of the expansion.

this only changes if we use a different model of cosmology, models which are not widely accepted.

Why? We know that the CMBR is cooling so on Thursday we should observe that it is marginally colder than it was on Tuesday. Your lack of understanding of science is showing here. Measurements do change, which is why scientists repeat them endlessley and why theories are adjusted to take account of the measured changes. Any theory which fails to explain the cooling of the CMBR will be rejected.

you are correct. but i would think that such an explanation would be unnecessary, to an initiate. i.e. as far as we know all other conditions holding steady the cooling of the cmbr will continue at the same rate from day to day, year to year, etc.

to be more clear, i assumed that this is common knowledge.

yet it is not important to the assertion of the OP

There is no ‘standard model of the BB’. Scientific theories have developed a great deal since the 1930s. There are a number of different possible models of the BB.

as above this statement is refuted by the 10 sources cited above. i assume that is sufficient evidence

Newton’s theory did not change for hundreds of years, yet it was wrong. How long a theory has been around does not impact on whether or not it is correct.

true

I am afraid that you do. Please look up the Dunniing-Kruger effect. As has been pointed out by others, you are out of your depth here.

Go and study cosmology at a university first; if you want to use cosmological theories then you will need to know a lot more than just the pop-science of the Big Bang. You might want to go to your local university library and have a look at a copy of

you can intimate my unfitness to discuss these issues, yet you have not had an argument that refutes the assertion of the OP

to wit, the standard cosmological model, (as its existence is proven above) does not actually show the existence of a monobloc.

please provide arguments in refutation of this assertion, not intimations or insinuations of a lack of understanding on my part

The easiest part to read is the essay by Laplace in Appendix A which deals with Black Holes in classical physics.

thank you for pointing out the easiest thing to read

 

[warpspeedpetey]

LOL, I agree. The mathematics behind some of the current theories is so complex that no-one has yet been able to solve some of the problems. How this could equate to “athiesm is proven irrational” I do not know.

its a very simple assertion, if there are no arguments in refutation of the assertion, that leaves a huge hole in the idea of infinite regression. the title may be a bit inflammatory, but i was unable to engage anyone using more benign language in attempts to find people with which to seriously discuss the issue online.

as chesterton says, atheists are really only interested in arguments against atheism.

this threads title is the practical application of that sentiment.

 

[rossum]

cfa.harvard.edu/research/cos.html

Go to the first link on that page, Fundamental Symmetries:AMP research on atomic clocks and quantum optics includes precise tests of fundamental symmetries of physics (Lorentz invariance) linked to questions about the origin and fate of the universe. In particular, these measurements can be used to test the standard models of physics, with profound implications for cosmology. [Emphasis added]
Did you bother to read this site before posting it as a reference? The models of the Big Bang are still uncertain.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cosmo.html

To quote:As with most models of nature, it has seen successive refinements and has presented significant difficulties which fuel further investigation.
The different versions of the BB theory that I talk about are there as ways to resolve those “significant difficulties”: the expansion of the universe, the 3K background radiation and the hydrogen-helium abundance, quantum gravity and others.

nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peebles1/frames.html

Again, I have to ask if you read any of this before posting it?ABSTRACT. We have a well-established standard model for cosmology and prospects for considerable additions from work in progress. I offer a list of elements of the standard model, comments on controversies in the interpretation of the evidence in support of this model, and assessments of the directions extensions of the standard model seem to be taking.
The “standard model” you are so keen on is incomplete with “prospects for considerable additions”, has “controversies” and has “extensions”. That is not a static object, but a changing series of objects. That is typical for a scientific theory in an area where there is still a lot more to discover and where we are discovering stuff quickly.

here are just 10 refutations of the idea that ‘no standard cosmological model exists’

You need to read your own references more carefully.

you will notice such imminent entities as The Department of Energy and Harvard University on this list.

You will notice that such eminent entities as Harvard University are doing experiments that may have “profound implications for cosmology”.

one may well regress using different values, but as long as we use the standard cosmological model, as proven to exist above one will always arrive at the same conclusion in regard to the beginning of the expansion.

There is more than one “math”, and even if there was just one math you cannot be sure you will get the same answers because the values that go into the equations change as astronomers and particle physicists discover new things.

this only changes if we use a different model of cosmology, models which are not widely accepted.

This also changes if we use different models of the Big Bang. Your own references show that there are different models of the BB and the different models give different results. That is how the scientists decide which models are the better ones - those whose calculations give accurate predictions for what we see now.

as above this statement is refuted by the 10 sources cited above. i assume that is sufficient evidence

I disagree, as I have shown by using your own sources.

Cosmologists are agreed on the existence of the Big Bang. They disagree on the details, especially on the times immediately before and immediately after, when the information we have is very patchy. You are more correct about the theory at later times, after inflation for example, where there is a lot more information available and so less room for alternative theories. Your OP relied on events very close to the ‘B’ of the Bang. That close to the ‘B’ there is not the degree of certainty that such an argument would require.

rossum