No..... The speed of light is constant. Just wondering why it has to be squared. The answer .... to show the energy value.
I read a book on brane theory. It suggest bumping into other membranes causing the big bang. If it "bumps" more than once bang bang.
One of the "proofs" they were looking for was gravity waves. Haven't thought about it much since I read the book.
We can't go back in time to see what actually happened. No one was present to see what actually happened. We can only speculate about what actually happened. Speculation requires faith, dude... Big Bang is a religion, plain and simple.
1) Yes, that's what a circular argument does. A circular argument is a perfectly valid argument (so long as one doesn't attempt to use it as a proof). 2) Argument of the Stone Fallacy. No counterargumentation presented. 3) Religious belief, not science. 4) Forces are not theories. 5) I am not talking to Wittgenstein. I am talking to you. There are no proofs in philosophy. Philosophy is an open functional system, dude. Only closed functional systems (such as logic and mathematics) make use of proofs. Proofs are simply extensions of foundational axioms. No, it makes much more sense than yours, which conflates science with religion. I largely agree with the philosophy of Karl Popper regarding what science is and how it works.
A human being does NOT have to be there. There is NOTHING about science that would suggest that is a requirement. And, what science is producing is not anywhere close to being limited to "speculation". Speculation CAN help with creating ideas concerning where or how to look, but science claims nothing until there is actual evidence, including indpenedent confirmation, review, etc. As for the big bang in particular, ther eare multiple lines of evidence of the big bang. And, let's remember that we can directly observe objects 13 billion years in the past - simply because that's how long it took the spectrum to arrive here.
It looks to me like you are taking a limited understanding of Popper to a ridiculous extreme. Popper's direction didn't have to do with whether humans are there. Humans could be there and that wouldn't change his view. I don't believe Popper would distinguish between theory of gravity (which is right here) and theory of the big bang which evidence suggests happened billions of years ago. It's not whether humans are close by. It's a matter of how we go about deciding whether a specific mechanism is how things really do work - how it is more likely that they work. Science has long since abandoned the idea that a theory can be verified by producing multiple confirmations. But, that's not exactly what is happening with the big bang. For example, big bang theory makes numerous strong predictions about what would be found were it to be true. The fact that many of these predictions have proven out is significant. There were multiple opportunities for valsification. There is no other theory that is remotely competitive. And, that's the best state of all science - not just the big bang. It's no more reasonable to DQ the big bang on those grounds than it is to DQ all of science on those same grounds.
Yeah, I figured it was something like that. A lot has happened in the half century since, I linked to my fave phil of sci, but you aren't doing philosophy.
When we look at the multiple speculative work toward building explanatory models of the universe’f Formative event, whether triggered from a specific origin from which quantum field fluctuations triggered a cascading inflation, or a cyclical process, or an expiation waiting in the developing theoretical framework of String Theory, Quantum Gravity Loop Theory, the Unified Geometric Theory, or another yet formulated model, they, and the unification of Quantum Mechanics with their model, thus far, as much as I can discern from my knowing enough to be less than dangerous studies, it appears to me to have a common key mystery; definitively solving the nature of gravity. It is a force we can accurately measure and observe It’s effects, yet, it’s exact nature still eludes and it appears to have enormous influence over the universe as we know it, but I am not sure anyone is closer to the answers to that mystery than was Einstein and he didn’t sort it. Part of that mystery is whether it is fundamental force of a quantum nature, a large scale accumulative product of the mass in this universe, a multidimensional force product, or, as suggested of time, an emergent property of this universe’s creation? To me, it is one of the two most interesting mysteries in physics.
I like this theory. I had a discussion with a friend at the last Bear Valley High Sierra Music Festival about it, although it wasn't exactly about it. That was July 4th weekend 1999 and Dr. Didg closed the opening night show. Dr. Didg, just now learned he passed in 2016. Great Jams. https://jambands.com/features/2010/12/09/the-return-of-dr-didg/?1 Was it just coincidence that Cathy and I agreed that the universe obviously has to be cyclical while listening to the Oxford Physicist spin music from a didgeridoo under the milky way in the high sierras?
Once again, being there does NOT mean we don't have evidence. There are lots of things we know with a great degree of confidence, based on evidence, and without being there.
What's the other? I am fascinated by so many things that I've just abandoned them all for the most part. e, for example and its indestructible derivative function e to the x is a world of knowledge of itself. It is the essential component of all time response functions. On the imaginary plane, only functions with zeros and poles in the left half plane are stable in time. Any function with a root or a pole in the right half plane is unstable and will typically oscillate to an unstable infinity. I'm fascinated by Maxwell's abilities. Both his electromagnetic field equations and his amazing summary of the interrelations of thermodynamic properties. I'm eagerly awaiting a synthesis between fractal mathematics and a significant number of potential engineering applications. Hell, I'm fascinated to this day by the rules of multiplication that led us to the concept of i. Unit conversions are amazing. I reckon there is no equivalent training that leads to an ability to construct valid ratios and comparisons than physical unit conversions. I think the social and economic sciences would do well to include them as a tenant in their elementary education subjects. Earlier in this thread there arose a bit off topic discussion that included a unit of energy called the British Thermal Unit, or Btu. It is defined as the amount of energy required to change the temperature of a pound of water by 1°F. It is equal to about 1055 Joules. 1 J is more or less the fundamental unit of energy. It is defined as the amount of energy required to displace a kilogram over the distance of one meter at the rate of acceleration of one meter per second per second. So energy of itself can be quite fascinating simply from unit conversions. Suppose you find yourself lucky enough to be walking through a small valley a bit after dusk as it starts to fill with a subtle evening mist of saturated water from the brook that is flowing through it. With the heat of the day having vanished, this little creek and its surroundings will seek a new dynamic equilibrium until dawn, when it all starts again. All of the water in the valley will seek to establish vapor liquid equilibrium according to the temperature and pressure of the valley. It will become colder toward the creek as the evaporating water pulls heat from the earth, the air and even itself saturating the valley in 100% RH mist. One gallon of liquid water changed to vapor, putting aside its partially re-condensing into mist as the dynamic equilibrium plays out extracts 988*8.3=8200 Btu from the surrounding environment. This is equal to 8,651,880 Joules. Which is equal to about 10 tons (US 2000lb) falling 100m through Earth's gravitational field. Imagine that - is it not a bit of a mind ****?
Sure. And, that's a key topic of theoretical physics. But, the big bang comes from experimental physics and is limited to that for which we have evidence. We DON'T have evidence for loop quantum gravity, string theory, the nature of whatever the universe might have been at t=0 or what might have been around "before" t=0. Those are mathmatical models. And, not even THOSE are "beliefs" such as GFM wants to claim. Theoretical physics is a constant work in progress that may, sometime in the future, produce ideas that become susceptible to testing - and until then may give some ideas on where those in search of evidence might look. That's a major divide. One can not cross from big bang to t=0 without moving from science to theoretical physics - which is no longer based on evidence.
All you continue to do is document your ignorance of what science is and how it works vs what religion is and how it works.
Yes one does. To falsify the theory of the big bang, one would have to go back in time to see what actually happened. We can't do that, therefore the theory is unfalsifiable and remains a religious theory. The Big Bang Theory is speculation. What is "actual" evidence as opposed to "fake" evidence? Is evidence that supports the BBT religion "actual" evidence and evidence that contradicts the BBT religion "fake" evidence? C'mon, man... This is just religious talk, not science. ... which does not bless, sanctify, or otherwise make holy any theory. Yes, there's supporting evidence for it. That's all. Supporting evidence is not proof. Supporting evidence doesn't make the theory into a theory of science. It is RELIGION that makes use of supporting evidence. BBT remains a religion as I have already described. Even Christianity has supporting evidence, dude... So does Atheism... No we can't.
I'm not interested in what you believe Popper would or wouldn't do. Popper is not available for cross-examination.
Hold up. I never claimed this. I never said that we didn't have evidence that supports the BBT. In fact, I've said that we DO have supporting evidence. However, there's also evidence supporting OTHER competing theories... In the end, they are all religious theories that one either accepts or rejects on a faith basis, no matter how much you wish to pretend that science is involved here... You are describing RELIGION, dude... You are not describing science. Science does not require a "great degree of confidence"... it does not require supporting evidence... A theory of science stands on its own (and is usually formalized into mathematics, such as E=MC2). It continues to survive as a theory of science so long as it isn't falsified.
Gotta love the irony of science deniers accusing others of being ignorant when it comes to science knowledge!
I tool Phil 101 And a 200 level course, great philosophers or something like that. A year long history of ideas class. Another one, I forget the name, but I remember buying Ronald N Giere's Explaining Science and doing the big paper on it. It was way off topic. It was phil of sci, and like most people in philosophy, he didn't like phil of sci. Still, he gave me a B. Since, I have a read a little, Teilhard de Chardin, who has the prettiest writing in phil, he has a Catholic perspective, you might like him. Anyway... I strongly suspect you are projecting there.
The big bang makes strong statements concerning what this universe is like. If our universe is not found to conform to those conditions, it would falsify the big bang. It may have bee speculation at one time, but today there is clear evidence in support of this theory, and (as especially concerned Popper) there isn't evidence against it. And, again, the big bang makes strong predictions which give ample opportunity for falsification. Science does not include the metaphysical, the spirit world, etc. It includes that which may be observed. Yes, religion isn't constrained by this foundational principle of science. That is one of the fundamentals that divides religion and science. I have not been insulting of what religion may want to see as its fundamentals - such as the fundamenatal assertion that a god of a certain type exists or that evidence may include stuff we have no way of observint in the sense of observation in science. So, you should stop with that kind of BS. Notice that I did not claim that the evidence that supports the big bang is the basis for accepting it as a theory. Obviously it is important - as Popper would agree. But, it isn't sufficient. As Popper suggested, the rest of the story is that there has been serious work to falsify the big bang - which is definitely not out of reach to be falsified. The cosmic microwave background radiation is a case it point. It was predicted as a necessary outcome of big bang cosmology. If it could be shown not to exist it would seriously impact big bang cosmology.
