Scientists crushed as ‘Big Bang’ evidence evaporates on further analysis

[Larry1700]

It has already been demonstrated that objects can move backwards and forwards in time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Time_travel_to_the_future_in_physics

I’m currently mid-way through my second viewing of “Einstein’s Relativity and the Quantum Revolution” series, produced by The Great Courses, with Richard Wolfson as lecturer.

I have always enjoyed science, but am not a scientist, so all I know (or think I know) about time travel is based on the aforementioned series. Also, the series is perhaps 10 years old, so maybe there is something new I haven’t heard about.

Anyway, in the series, Wolfson makes it a point to say that while forward time-travel is possible, backwards time-travel is not. Using the time-tested “twin-paradox” story (“time-tested”…a little pun there!), the twin travelling near the speed of light would be experiencing slower biological processes, which allow him to age more slowly than his brother. Thus, when returning to Earth, he would arrive at an Earth which has undergone the more rapid processes (more “time” has elapsed on Earth). Wolfson goes on to say that if the near-light-speed travelling twin didn’t like what he found in Earths’ future, he could go further “forward in time” to a (hopefully) better future–on Earth or elsewhere–, but could not go backwards in time.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Only” a theory?
Like Einstein’s theory of gravity or relativity?

The word “only” seems very out of place here.

There is certainly more evidence and proof for the Big Bang than there is for something like, say…transubstantiation–which one could say is “only a belief” and doesn’t reach the level of a scientific theory.

Interesting how a person chooses to believe what they believe.
It sounds as though you probably believe in something like transubstantiation, which there is no scientific evidence for…but don’t believe in the Big Bang, which there is plenty of scientific evidence for.

If so, that doesn’t seem to make much sense.

.

Good point.

 

[Larry1700]

Not to get off the subject, but I believe the Miracle at Lanciano provides evidence of transubstantiation. I don’t know how to link to other threads, but a short discussion is found in the Apologetics forum under the thread title:
“Evidence of Miracle of Lanciano is a fraud (please read before jumping to conclusions).”

Note that the posts in the threads provide at least some evidence which contests the “is a fraud” part of the title, and it seems that the OP agrees, at least in part, if not entirely.

I’ve read of other supposedly-substantiated Eucharistic miracles, but this is the most famous.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not to get off the subject, but I believe the Miracle at Lanciano provides evidence of transubstantiation. I don’t know how to link to other threads, but a short discussion is found in the Apologetics forum under the thread title:
“Evidence of Miracle of Lanciano is a fraud (please read before jumping to conclusions).”

Note that the posts in the threads provide at least some evidence which contests the “is a fraud” part of the title, and it seems that the OP agrees, at least in part, if not entirely.

I’ve read of other supposedly-substantiated Eucharistic miracles, but this is the most famous.

We just had a conversation on this in the philosophy dept. Her comparison is valid, we have laws and theories which apply to both and to the limits science and math can take us.

The question is one of the same in its finality. Does God exist? Many say yes, many call it an unknown mystery, and many claim the Universe didn’t require a creator. All their theories begin with science and the laws of math. One example of many…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpacetime&ei=_X_gVMHJI4LhggTk6IGgDQ&usg=AFQjCNE248a99kdUrlWdS3C894rWr38w0w

 

[Larry1700]

We just had a conversation on this in the philosophy dept. Her comparison is valid, we have laws and theories which apply to both and to the limits science and math can take us.

The question is one of the same in its finality. Does God exist? Many say yes, many call it an unknown mystery, and many claim the Universe didn’t require a creator. All their theories begin with science and the laws of math. One example of many…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSpacetime&ei=_X_gVMHJI4LhggTk6IGgDQ&usg=AFQjCNE248a99kdUrlWdS3C894rWr38w0w

Well, (again, drawing only from my limited comprehension of the Wolfson lecture series about relativity and quantum mechanics I’m watching), space-time dilation has been empirically proven several times.

The one I remember was something about muon decay performed at the summit and base of a 6000’ mountain (from our perspective). The decay rate showed that the time for the muons was passing much more slowly than for an Earth-based observer, and that the height of the mountain was only 700’ from the muons’ perspective.

I’ve probably butchered the description of the muon experiment, but my point is that it is something that is empirically provable and repeatable.

Here’s a better explanation of the experiment: Muons and Relativity

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, (again, drawing only from my limited comprehension of the Wolfson lecture series about relativity and quantum mechanics I’m watching), space-time dilation has been empirically proven several times.

The one I remember was something about muon decay performed at the summit and base of a 6000’ mountain (from our perspective). The decay rate showed that the time for the muons was passing much more slowly than for an Earth-based observer, and that the height of the mountain was only 700’ from the muons’ perspective.

I’ve probably butchered the description of the muon experiment, but my point is that it is something that is empirically provable and repeatable.

Right, and for example from above …

In general relativity, spacetime is assumed to be smooth and continuous—and not just in the mathematical sense. In the theory of quantum mechanics, there is an inherent discreteness present in physics. In attempting to reconcile these two theories, it is sometimes postulated that spacetime should be quantized at the very smallest scales. Current theory is focused on the nature of spacetime at the Planck scale. Causal sets, loop quantum gravity, string theory, causal dynamical triangulation, and black hole thermodynamics all predict a quantized spacetime with agreement on the order of magnitude. Loop quantum gravity makes precise predictions about the geometry of spacetime at the Planck scale.

My point is this isn’t at odds with the Eucharist, in fact it can be used to explain and support it in “theory” from a point we agree on as scientists.

One is not more right than the other as both are theories and we seek to “prove” as much of our theory as we can. No one has an advantage at the blank board with the math, then the math has to be proven in the lab, again a blank board with a math equation in your hand. In other words your math may or may not fit your theory even if the math is right.

 

[RGCheek]

I’m currently mid-way through my second viewing of “Einstein’s Relativity and the Quantum Revolution” series, produced by The Great Courses, with Richard Wolfson as lecturer.

I have always enjoyed science, but am not a scientist, so all I know (or think I know) about time travel is based on the aforementioned series. Also, the series is perhaps 10 years old, so maybe there is something new I haven’t heard about.

Anyway, in the series, Wolfson makes it a point to say that while forward time-travel is possible, backwards time-travel is not. Using the time-tested “twin-paradox” story (“time-tested”…a little pun there!), the twin travelling near the speed of light would be experiencing slower biological processes, which allow him to age more slowly than his brother. Thus, when returning to Earth, he would arrive at an Earth which has undergone the more rapid processes (more “time” has elapsed on Earth). Wolfson goes on to say that if the near-light-speed travelling twin didn’t like what he found in Earths’ future, he could go further “forward in time” to a (hopefully) better future–on Earth or elsewhere–, but could not go backwards in time.

Not by time dilation, no, but that too is a relative application of perspective. IF A goes faster in time than B and gains say 6 years, when A meets B he has moved into B’s future, and B has moved into A’s past.

But the positron being generated microseconds prior to the event that generates it is an example of moving backwards in time, If I Understand It Right.

Like you I am certainly no scientist, just a bookworm on internet crack.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Science advances one funeral at a time.”
― Max Planck