Somebody CONDOUNDED ABOUT “ GENESIS “

[Kramer]

 

Somebody CONDOUNDED ABOUT “ GENESIS “

It is sure that people boasting about solving problems post “genesis”, are able to solve the basements of “genesis” mathematically, so speaking. I am “confused” about many beginning things.
It was an explosion? What was exploded?
It was a thermal process during “expansion”? On what, those thermal processes, were applied?
Now I have the right to ask the friends that are appassionato about Math. and which asks lay-mans, with aim to hush them, with problems like this:
Please show in mathematical detail:
a) How your model predicts the temperature and spectrum of the CMB.
Sure the layman isn’t able to answers, it has not a Ph.D. Or not aim to have one. But he have the right to be illuminated about wonders that have been serviced to him:

“Please solve this math: dV = dS / dt when are unknown all? Or let say only one?”

 

[michel123456]

Condounded? does that mean you are wearing a condom? if yes I understand the problem with genesis.

 

----------

edit

Expansion shouldn't be an issue though.

Edited January 4, 2015 by michel123456

[Strange]

Somebody CONDOUNDED ABOUT “ GENESIS “

 

Then you should ask on a forum devoted to religion or theology. (Assuming the "somebody" is you.)

 

It was an explosion? What was exploded?

 

Maybe you are talking about the big bang model? In which case, nothing exploded.

 

It was a thermal process during “expansion”? On what, those thermal processes, were applied?

 

What is a "thermal process"?

 

Now I have the right to ask the friends that are appassionato about Math. and which asks lay-mans, with aim to hush them, with problems like this:

Please show in mathematical detail:

a) How your model predicts the temperature and spectrum of the CMB.

Sure the layman isn’t able to answers, it has not a Ph.D. Or not aim to have one.

 

You claimed to have an alternative model to the big bang. A model means mathematics, and specifically, mathematics that describes what we see around us. If you don't have such a model, then you should stop making outrageous claims.

 

But he have the right to be illuminated about wonders that have been serviced to him

 

Then feel free to ask questions in the appropriate part of the forum. This one, I assume: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/7-astronomy-and-cosmology/

 

“Please solve this math: dV = dS / dt when are unknown all? Or let say only one?”

 

There doesn't appear to be anything to solve there.

[imatfaal]

“Please solve this math: dV = dS / dt when are unknown all? Or let say only one?”

It's wrong. Velocity is the change of displacement over the change in time. But you have the change in velocity dv ie the acceleration - that is equal to dv/dt not ds/dt

[Mordred]

Assuming your talking about the BB you have some misconceptions. These will help

"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies

Edited January 7, 2015 by Phi for All
fixed link

[swansont]

Now I have the right to ask the friends that are appassionato about Math. and which asks lay-mans, with aim to hush them, with problems like this:

Please show in mathematical detail:

a) How your model predicts the temperature and spectrum of the CMB.

Sure the layman isn’t able to answers, it has not a Ph.D. Or not aim to have one.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

That question was asked in a thread where the originator was proposing a theory that contradicted the big bang (the accepted scientific theory). As such, it's a reasonable thing to require of such a theory. It's not required if you are simply asking questions about the big bang. You have to decide which path you are going to follow: asking questions, or proposing an alternative. The latter requires you engage in some science, layman or not. This is a science forum.

 

Those are the rules. Not really open to negotiation, so do not respond to this.

 

[Kramer]

There doesn’t appear to be anything to solve there.

 

Strange

Maybe you are talking about the big bang model? In which case, nothing exploded.
In this meaning I am talking about first version of “ BIG BAAANG”. Something very hot, very noisy, that began from zero to become an universe or multy verse as you like.
As the model it is a “blatant speculation” for me, and if you are willing to rebut my statement as anti scientific explain plainly: the meaning of name, not the history, but the aim used in the so-called theory.

What is a "thermal process"?
Let say the appearance of temperature. Isn’t it a thermal process when thermal energy create a temperature about 10^32K. In this case in what environment was applied this energy, speaking with statement of somebody that can’t be temperature without movement of particles.

You claimed to have an alternative model to the big bang. A model means mathematics, and specifically, mathematics that describes what we see around us. If you don't have such a model, then you should stop making outrageous claims.
---- Have I claimed? In this thread no. In past thread I alluded that there has not been any genesis. Genesis it’s a myth, modern science try to give scientific meaning, as believing in myths is fading.
The rules prohibit me to display any model. The rule says: only one of both - questions about models or your model. Not both! I am obedient on rules. So I prefer only questions. If not you, maybe somebody else will find time to clarify my doubt.

Then feel free to ask questions in the appropriate part of the forum.

----- In the speculation forum I read many threads about cosmos, universe even creationists threads. For this is speculation.

There doesn’t appear to be anything to solve there.

---- Is this a serious statement? Instead of an honest answer: I don’t know how to solve an differential equation in which all are variables and all began from zero.

Imatfaal

It's wrong. Velocity is the change of displacement over the change in time. But you have the change in velocity dv ie the acceleration - that is equal to dv/dt not ds/dt
Right! But here is the obstacle for somebody with little learning to understand, what to do when all components of equation are variable, and all begin from zero? How you people of math have solved the equation of movement, to decide in the end of your solving for explanation of nature of CMB? I mean this is linked with dimension of space, with entropy and so on.

Motdred.
Assuming your talking about the BB you have some misconceptions.
Misconception? I think is a big speculation the creation of something from nothing.

[Strange]

As the model it is a “blatant speculation” for me, and if you are willing to rebut my statement as anti scientific explain plainly: the meaning of name, not the history, but the aim used in the so-called theory.

 

It is not very clear what you are asking. However, it is obviously not “blatant speculation”. It was a model derived from well established theory (general relativity). The model made various predictions. Observations were made that confirmed all those predictions. Therefore the model is, in general, accepted.

 

That is how science works.

 

 

Have I claimed? In this thread no.

 

Fair enough. I didn't realise you were referring to someone else's claims.

 

 

The rules prohibit me to display any model.

 

My understanding is that the rules of the Speculation forum require you to have a model.

 

If you want to ask questions you should not be doing it in the Speculations forum.

 

 

I think is a big speculation the creation of something from nothing.

 

That is speculation.

[Phi for All]

Misconception? I think is a big speculation the creation of something from nothing.

 

The Big Bang was NOT an explosion, so that's one "misconception", and then you offer another misconception to explain your objection. The universe wasn't "nothing" just before the BB.

 

Scientific irony.

[Mordred]

 

The Big Bang was NOT an explosion, so that's one "misconception", and then you offer another misconception to explain your objection. The universe wasn't "nothing" just before the BB.

 

Scientific irony.

Even more ironic since both those misconceptions are covered in the article I posted. Ah well

[michel123456]

Even more ironic since both those misconceptions are covered in the article I posted. Ah well

Maybe that is because your link gives an error "404 Not Found".

[Sensei]

Maybe that is because your link gives an error "404 Not Found".

 

Remove colon character from the end of URL..

 

ps. Mordred, make always space after link, prior writing more text.

[michel123456]

There doesn’t appear to be anything to solve there.[/size]

 

Strange

Maybe you are talking about the big bang model? In which case, nothing exploded.

In this meaning I am talking about first version of “ BIG BAAANG”. Something very hot, very noisy, that began from zero to become an universe or multy verse as you like.

As the model it is a “blatant speculation” for me, and if you are willing to rebut my statement as anti scientific explain plainly: the meaning of name, not the history, but the aim used in the so-called theory.

What is a "thermal process"?

Let say the appearance of temperature. Isn’t it a thermal process when thermal energy create a temperature about 10^32K. In this case in what environment was applied this energy, speaking with statement of somebody that can’t be temperature without movement of particles.

You claimed to have an alternative model to the big bang. A model means mathematics, and specifically, mathematics that describes what we see around us. If you don't have such a model, then you should stop making outrageous claims.

---- Have I claimed? In this thread no. In past thread I alluded that there has not been any genesis. Genesis it’s a myth, modern science try to give scientific meaning, as believing in myths is fading.

The rules prohibit me to display any model. The rule says: only one of both - questions about models or your model. Not both! I am obedient on rules. So I prefer only questions. If not you, maybe somebody else will find time to clarify my doubt.

Then feel free to ask questions in the appropriate part of the forum.

 

----- In the speculation forum I read many threads about cosmos, universe even creationists threads. For this is speculation.

 

There doesn’t appear to be anything to solve there.

 

---- Is this a serious statement? Instead of an honest answer: I don’t know how to solve an differential equation in which all are variables and all began from zero.

 

Imatfaal

It's wrong. Velocity is the change of displacement over the change in time. But you have the change in velocity dv ie the acceleration - that is equal to dv/dt not ds/dt[/size]

Right! But here is the obstacle for somebody with little learning to understand, what to do when all components of equation are variable, and all begin from zero? How you people of math have solved the equation of movement, to decide in the end of your solving for explanation of nature of CMB? I mean this is linked with dimension of space, with entropy and so on.

 

Motdred.

Assuming your talking about the BB you have some misconceptions.

Misconception? I think is a big speculation the creation of something from nothing. [/size]

 

I am a little bit confused.

My apologies Kramer, I misunderstood your Opening Post completely.

I am pretty sure that even after complying with BB misconceptions you will remain with the same interrogations, simply you will be able to put your questions in a more appropriate frame.

Don't expect any answer though.

Even a slight comparison of the BB with "genesis" will not be accepted here.

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

[Strange]

Even a slight comparison of the BB with "genesis" will not be accepted here.

 

For two reasons:

 

1. One is about the creation of the universe and the other isn't.

2. One is science and the other isn't.

 

You might as well compare a car to a banana.

[michel123456]

For two reasons:

 

1. One is about the creation of the universe and the other isn't.

You realize that it is the main misconception of the BBT, do you?*

 

2. One is science and the other isn't.

You realize that the concept was introduce by a priest, do you?

A priest doing science.

Imagine the BBT misconceptions arising today from a creationist site over the Internet. What would you say?

 

----------------

* edit

There are actually scientists that are proposing creation from nothing. Lawrence Krauss is one prominent supporter of the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

 

 

Edited January 6, 2015 by michel123456

[Strange]

You realize that it is the main misconception of the BBT, do you?

 

You mean the fact that many people think it is about the creation of the universe? Sadly, you are right. We often have to correct people about that.

 

You realize that the concept was introduce by a priest, do you?

A priest doing science.

 

 

It doesn't matter if he was a priest, a pastry chef or a fireman. He was, as you say, doing science. So why the ad hominem?

 

Another important figure in the field, Paul Painlevé, was Prime Minister of France. Does that make his mathematics wrong? Of course not.

 

Imagine the BBT misconceptions arising today from a creationist site over the Internet. What would you say?

 

I would try and correct their misunderstandings. Same as here.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Strange

[michel123456]

You might as well compare a car to a banana.

https://www.google.gr/search?q=banana+car&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=o56rVPXdE8n3UqCKhKAL&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=1525&bih=679&dpr=0.9

You mean the fact that many people think it is about the creation of the universe? Sadly, you are right. We often have to correct people about that.

Yes. As a say in my edited post, L.Krauss is a supporter of creation, although being an atheist, as much as I can understand his positions.

 

It doesn't matter if he was a priest, a pastry chef or a fireman. He was, as you say, doing science. So why the ad hominem?

Because I suspect a hidden agenda. The "who is talking" is more important than the things said.

 

Another important figure in the field, Paul Painlevé, was Prime Minister of France. Does that make his mathematics wrong? Of course not.

Fair enough.

 

I would try and correct their misunderstandings. Same as here.

I have no doubt. You are welcome.

[Strange]

Because I suspect a hidden agenda.

 

The idea of the universe being created may well have appealed to him, because of his religion. Although many people seem to criticise the big bang theory (and much other science) as some sort of "atheist conspircay" so who knows.

 

 

The "who is talking" is more important than the things said.

 

Not in science.

[michel123456]

Not in science.

You must be kidding.

[Strange]

You must be kidding.

 

Nope.

 

There are very rare occasions where people have been slower than they might otherwise to accept a new idea because someone powerful or prestigious speaks out against it - Eddington and Chandrasekhar comes to mind (although that dispute is probably exaggereated) - but Einstein's objections to QM did nothing but strengthen the theory. And there are also occasional cases where someone finds it hard to publish a new idea until supported by someone well known.

 

But in the long run, science works.

Just found this (while double-checking the spelling of Chandrasekhar):

 

Chandrasekhar was deeply hurt by Eddington’s reaction, but colleagues can disagree profoundly and still remain friends. Chandrasekhar and Eddington remained friends, went to the Wimbledon tennis tournament together and went for bicycle rides in the English countryside. When Eddington passed away in 1944, Chandrasekhar spoke at his funeral

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/01/the-chandrasekhar-limit-the-threshold-that-makes-life-possible/

 

Reminds me of Lemaître (one of the originators of the FLRW [aka "big bang"] model) and Hoyle (staunch defender of the steady state) who were very good friends. Apparently, one time Lemaître's flight home from the UK was cancelled so Hoyle drove him to Belgium.

[michel123456]

 

Nope.

 

There are very rare occasions where people have been slower than they might otherwise to accept a new idea because someone powerful or prestigious speaks out against it - Eddington and Chandrasekhar comes to mind (although that dispute is probably exaggereated) - but Einstein's objections to QM did nothing but strengthen the theory. And there are also occasional cases where someone finds it hard to publish a new idea until supported by someone well known.

 

But in the long run, science works.

Just found this (while double-checking the spelling of Chandrasekhar):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/01/the-chandrasekhar-limit-the-threshold-that-makes-life-possible/

 

Reminds me of Lemaître (one of the originators of the FLRW [aka "big bang"] model) and Hoyle (staunch defender of the steady state) who were very good friends. Apparently, one time Lemaître's flight home from the UK was cancelled so Hoyle drove him to Belgium.

I don't want to get this thread out of track.

I disagree on your first point.

I agree on your second point. I used to disagree with another member here, named Spyman, and I enjoyed disagreeing politely with him. He was really patient (where is he?)

Now with you, fine.

Disagreement is one of these things that push things forward, not especially backward.

[Strange]

I don't want to get this thread out of track.

I disagree on your first point.

 

How about starting a new thread and providing some evidence/examples of science being consistently slowed down/misled by authority figures (or whatever your point is)?

[michel123456]

 

How about starting a new thread and providing some evidence/examples of science being consistently slowed down/misled by authority figures (or whatever your point is)?

I don't want to go into that.

I started a thread, writing for an hour, then erased everything.

I changed my mind.

Science is beautiful no matter who is talking.

[Kramer]

 

Stranger
It is not very clear what you are asking. However, it is obviously not “blatant speculation”. It was a model derived from well established theory (general relativity). The model made various predictions. Observations were made that confirmed all those predictions. Therefore the model is, in general, accepted.
----- Your tactic Stranger always to dodge right and direct questions.
First, - no you, nobody else solved the simple problem of movement I serviced:
dV = dS / dt or (a*t*dt) / 2 = dS / dt -----if beginning from zero. Is your math.

How are able you to continue further in calculation of so called CMB.
Without basement is only a castle in air.
My understanding is that the rules of the Speculation forum require you to have a model.If you want to ask questions you should not be doing it in the Speculations forum.
---- Read above moderator’s note.
Why are specialists and moderators, if not to elucidate the cooks?
That is speculation.
----Isn’t it?

Phi for all
The Big Bang was NOT an explosion, so that's one "misconception", and then you offer another misconception to explain your objection. The universe wasn't "nothing" just before the BB.
----- Misconception? I say is a speculation based on a myth. Misconceptions flourished after when proponents of so called theory, wiggled to patch the blatant nakedness.

About “ nothing” or from “nothing” is an issue of believers. I believed in an eternal universe, unlimited, always in movement. I make questions only to compare my beliefs with those supported by modern physic, I mean by “ science “ .
I don’t believe that something may created by nothing, as I don’t believe that something becomes nothing.

Mordred
Even more ironic since both those misconceptions are covered in the article I posted. Ah well

----- As for me here are not at all misconceptions, are gross inventions.
Mishel123456
I am a little bit confused.
My apologies Kramer, I misunderstood your Opening Post completely.
---- You should. Not for me, for your presentation as a human being.
I am pretty sure that even after complying with BB misconceptions you will remain with the same interrogations, simply you will be able to put your questions in a more appropriate frame.
---- I don’t understand what is appropriate frame.
Don't expect any answer though.
---- Your wish.
Even a slight comparison of the BB with "genesis" will not be accepted here.
---- Slight comparison? Don’t be hypocrite, like don’t understand where sleep the hare. It is about the source of creation, camouflaged for sell with “ etiquette of evolution”.

Strange
For two reasons:

1. One is about the creation of the universe and the other isn't.
----- What is, what isn’t?

2. One is science and the other isn't.
Are they? Seems both tell-tales.

You might as well compare a car to a banana.
---- Try to sell this to kids.
Mishel123456

Disagreement is one of these things that push things forward, not especially backward.----Agree. Only what to do with requirements of math analyze about disagreements? Any way, I will enjoy as spectator your “fight” with your opponent even I am fool in math..

[Strange]

First, - no you, nobody else solved the simple problem of movement I serviced:

dV = dS / dt or (a*t*dt) / 2 = dS / dt -----if beginning from zero. Is your math.

 

It is not my math. You posted it. As I say, I'm not sure what solution you are looking for. And I don't know why you have posted it in a question about the big bang.

 

How are able you to continue further in calculation of so called CMB.

 

The CMB is calculated from the using the FLRW metric to extrapolate back to the earlu hot dense state of the universe. And applying well-understood physics to those conditions.

 

(I don't know how you can describe something that anyone can measure as "so called".)

 

My understanding is that the rules of the Speculation forum require you to have a model.If you want to ask questions you should not be doing it in the Speculations forum.

---- Read above moderator’s note.

 

My point is, if you have questions then you should ask them in the appropriate section. Many of the people who could give good asnwers regarding cosmology do not visit the Speculations forum. So if you posted questions in the right place, you might get better answers. And you wouldn't have to put up with me.

 

----- Misconception? I say is a speculation based on a myth. Misconceptions flourished after when proponents of so called theory, wiggled to patch the blatant nakedness.

About “ nothing” or from “nothing” is an issue of believers.

 

There is zero evidence that the universe was created from nothing. It isn't science. It is a straw man argument. Stop going on about it.

 

I believed in an eternal universe, unlimited, always in movement. I make questions only to compare my beliefs with those supported by modern physic, I mean by “ science “ .

 

You can, of course, believe whatever you want. I don't care. But you insist the science is wrong because it disagrees with your beliefs (and you don't understand the science). That is irrational.

 

If you had a scientific model of an eternal, unlimited universe then you could compare it against observation and see if it works or not.

 

I don’t believe that something may created by nothing, as I don’t believe that something becomes nothing.

 

Neither do I.

 

1. One is about the creation of the universe and the other isn't.

----- What is, what isn’t?

 

Genesis is a story about the creation of the universe. The big bang theory says nothing about the creation of the universe.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Strange