beecee

Actually, both the singularities in BH's and from whence the BB evolved, are simply regions where our laws of physics and GR fail us....that being at the quantum/Planck level, at t+10-43 seconds. In the case of the BB then space and time, "as we know them" started to evolve/ In fact physicists today reject mostly the notion of a dimensionless point singularity.

I'm essentially saying that perhaps we need to define nothing, and perhaps the quantum foam is as nothing as we can ever get, if it has existed for eternity as is often speculated.. The quantum foam possibly maybe the most fundamental of all fundamentals. Stringy though has answered it pretty well.

Perhaps as I have suggested previously, we need to define what nothing is. Perhaps the quantum foam, from whence the BB evolved, [is as close to nothing as most of us perceive nothing] as we can get...

No scientific evidence points to any creator. That claim is totally unscientific and ignorant to make. We do though have plenty of evidence to show that spacetime/universe evolved from t+10-43 seconds up to the present time, plus the fact that the only scientific answer to life is Abiogenesis, either Earth based or via Panspermia.

Simply put, we lack the technological skills to observe at the quantum/Planck level.

Define nothing. The only scientific answer is that the quantum foam [possibly the closest to nothingness that is ever able to exist] has existed for an infinite amount of time.

Happy St Patrick's Day, begosh and begorra!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY6N2vEA6pI

The evidence for the BB tells us that the universe evolved from a hotter, denser state at t=10-43 seconds to what we see today, 13.83 billion years later. Science/cosmology explains the formation of matter, the elements, stars, planets, galaxies etc with reasonable competency. Before that, at this time we can only make an educated hypothesis. This is one that I believe holds promise. https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ Why is there something rather then nothing? That's just the way the cookie crumbles. What really needs to be defined, is what is nothing imo.

Both on Netflix I recall, although Pine Gap was also on the ABC, [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] which is distinct from the other free to air TV stations and the "reality tv show" plague. Pine Gap was excellent, although I have not seen the other one. I recently saw a doco entitled "Love and Bananas; An Elephant Story" It is on Stan and have been told also Netflix as well of course on dvd. Incredible story but please keep a box of tissues handy! Another excellent movie length doco is "Blackfish"also on Stan, and about Orcas in captivity. Both excellent.

TV at this time, at least in my country has gone totally bonkers with the screens flooded with so called nonsensical "reality TV", from cooking shows, to getting married to others you have just met. I have a great collection of movies though and Netflix and Stan to escape such nonsensical falsities as these so called reality shows.

The job of science is to model the universe as we observe it, and extrapolate as far back as is necessary, to be able to describe the evolution of the universe. So far we are able to reasonably go back to t+10-43 seconds. Any form of ID or any seemingly magical creator is an unscientific concept. Any religious answer or ID is mythical without any evidence to support it.

I couldn't agree more! Whether left, right, or centre of the political spectrum, this matter is too important to indulge purely on a political basis, but so many do apply that standard. In Australia at this time, we are having devastating bush fires in three states, once in a 500 years flood in Queensland, and record temperatures, approaching and exceeding 40C even on the coast.

I'm just as sexy for an old fart..... Ahh, yes the Crystals.......

A 1953 classic by Vaughn Monroe: I remember marching around the Living room when this ever played, with a broom stick over my shoulder! Vaughn again...Ghost Riders in the Sky.....................

Such feelings, such beauty, I believe in Angels!!

Anyone into yodeling? Listen to this Ukrainian youngster........... And a famous Aussie yodeler.......

Best book I have ever read??? "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes: Much more then a history of the Manhatten project and the bomb, and a pretty solid history of late 19th century, 20th century physics, from the likes of Bequeral, Rhotegen, Curie, and Rutherford, and to Meitner, Bohr, Szillard, Einstein, and Bethe, through to Feynman Oppenheimer and company. Great read and recommend it to all.

A delightful Italian number as played by Andre Rieu and the Johann Strauss orchestra in Melbourne 2008 at a concert I attended along with 38,000 others.

Like this bloke? and another..... Yeah yeah OK, I go back before the seventies!

Love the incredible photography particularly at near the beginning....the music I refuse to comment on,

Just went back in Reg Prescott's history as far back as 2015 where apparently then under the name SillyBilly, he was making exactly the same apparently rehearsed claims including the scientific method, his crazy take on the orbits of the planets in the solar system and Newtonian mechanics among his usual unmistakable attempt at humour when cornered or shown to be in error. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91338-scientific-testing-split-from-goal-of-science/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-886741 Just thought at this stage of this continued circular argument it might be an interesting observation.

Your opinion is just that...an opinion, but you actually need to reflect seriously about those opinions and their justifications based on agenda, when it is you who has had threads closed because of preaching/ranting/obfuscation. Again your bias and agenda reflects in misinterpretations.....It is not I, nor any lone scientist that judges what is obviously falsification or otherwise...it is the overwhelming scientific discipline and the scientists that make up that discipline, and of course the success of those incumbent theories, that you seem so fanatical about putting down. .More unsupported if rehearsed rhetoric and nonsense. Science, the scientific method and all it entails, is in perpetual progress and advancement. But it now appears that rehearsed unsupported rhetoric is all you seem to have. As before and again, science and scientific models and theories are continually running the gauntlet....The scientific methodology of course is unchallenged as it is the best we have and the best there is. So to put the onus where it belongs, on yourself, please tell me a better process along with some empirical evidence that supports whatever methodology you have and have been careful as yet not to divulge to the forum....Although I believe it is painfully obvious. The theory of the evolution of life is unchallenged at this time....Nothing is available to falsify it, and nothing explains what we have observed better. Any one who claims to have questioned it, including the process of "natural selection" have I suggest already been researched, reviewed and failed in over turning that aspect. Evolution due to the preponderance of evidence is just about certain...are you questioning that? Is this the agenda? On the other hand, we have no evidence for abiogenesis...but there really is no other scientific alternative, do you agree?

Object all you like....What I highlighted thus, "that falsifies the incumbent model, or explains beyond the applicable zone of the incumbent model?" The over-arching theoretical framework or paradigm is the best we have and no better method is forthcoming, so we have no need at this time to over ride it with hypothetical questioning or challenging, that do not improve it...It's that simple. The scientific method works, despite your continuing online claims. No, again you are being rather obtuse in claiming philosophical comments, isolated quotes that "seem" add some semblance of respect to your claim but ignore actual evidence that has been supplied to you.

Wow! You don't have a chip on your shoulder, its a damn whole tree! Now a couple of simple direct questions....I can show you plenty of scientific models that are being tested, researched, further tested, sometimes modified and challenging incumbent models every day. Do you deny these tests and research efforts are being undertaken? In turn please give me some scientific aspect/discipline etc that has been totally recalcitrant and obstinate by the refusal of mainstream scientists to accept newly found experimental and/or observational evidence that falsifies the incumbent model, or explains beyond the applicable zone of the incumbent model? Please answer these two questions without any of your continuing philosophical jargon and flimsy hairy fairy claims. quotes, misinterpreting data etc That is all my bone of contention is with your nonsensical claims...nothing else.