big bang theory falsified?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Ok, let's try to be a bit more sceptical:

A person (titled: 'physisist') says: "time began 13.7 billion years ago with a singularity".

A critical thinker (like James Randi f.e.): "What do you mean"

Physistist: "I don't know, I have no clue what I'm talking about".
"I don't know what I'm saying when I say: 'time begins' nor I have no clue at all when I'm communicating a word like 'a singularity' and what it means in reality."

A critical thinker: "and you want us to accept that idea? It's vague language that you don't even understand yourself?"

Physisist: "yes, you must accept it as a dogma, because a mathematical geometry says so".

You see: if we use the standards sceptics use to falsify claims: 'singularity' or 'time begins or ends..." is artfully vague language. There is no way to understand this 'utterly nonsense'.

physistist: A singularity is a very small point."

critical thinker: you can only talk about 'small' in relation to something else. 'small' is a relative word. A point can only 'exist' with respect to a space, surrounding it.

conclusion of a real critical thinker: this singularity-idea is nice in math, but it's utterly nonsense. Even the speaker doesn't know what he is trying to communicate with these sentences (time begins or ends or 'a singularity).

About "rest frame":

postulate: motion is relative
ergo: 'rest frame' is relative.

I'm sorry, but a critical thinker, using the sceptical standards to validate a claim, will not believe in your BB-idea. It's very vague and seems utterly nonsense to such a critical thinker..

Tell us your full theory about the origin of the universe so we can judge it critically. If you image the universe as a movie running backwards then all the galaxies are rushing toward each other. How do you explain that? How do you explain the cosmic background microwave radiation?

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Ok, let's try to be a bit more sceptical:

A person (titled: 'physisist') says: "time began 13.7 billion years ago with a singularity".

A critical thinker (like James Randi f.e.): "What do you mean"

Physistist: "I don't know, I have no clue what I'm talking about".
"I don't know what I'm saying when I say: 'time begins' nor I have no clue at all when I'm communicating a word like 'a singularity' and what it means in reality."

A critical thinker: "and you want us to accept that idea? It's vague language that you don't even understand yourself?"

Physisist: "yes, you must accept it as a dogma, because a mathematical geometry says so".

You see: if we use the standards sceptics use to falsify claims: 'singularity' or 'time begins or ends..." is artfully vague language. There is no way to understand this 'utterly nonsense'.

physistist: A singularity is a very small point."

critical thinker: you can only talk about 'small' in relation to something else. 'small' is a relative word. A point can only 'exist' with respect to a space, surrounding it.

conclusion of a real critical thinker: this singularity-idea is nice in math, but it's utterly nonsense. Even the speaker doesn't know what he is trying to communicate with these sentences (time begins or ends or 'a singularity).

About "rest frame":

postulate: motion is relative
ergo: 'rest frame' is relative.

I'm sorry, but a critical thinker, using the sceptical standards to validate a claim, will not believe in your BB-idea. It's very vague and seems utterly nonsense to such a critical thinker..

ıf nothing else, mathematical descriptions of the universe work. They tell us what we should and should not see on future observations. In this case, the cosmic background radiation was predicted. As with Maxwell's and Dirac's mathematical equations they provide us with predictive utility and if anything says an idea is "true" or not this should at least tell us that we have something close.

Unless you can do the maths, this is not really the kind of game a lay person can play. By all means pose thought experiments ask questions about them, but I would not have the hubris to claim that my dabblings had disproved a major idea in cosmology.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Physistist: "I don't know, I have no clue what I'm talking about".
"I don't know what I'm saying when I say: 'time begins' nor I have no clue at all when I'm communicating a word like 'a singularity' and what it means in reality."

You wish Maartenn100, you may not like the answers, you may not understand the answers but this is ********

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

You wish Maartenn100, you may not like the answers, you may not understand the answers but this is ********

Young earth creationists don't like the answers.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

ıf nothing else, mathematical descriptions of the universe work. They tell us what we should and should not see on future observations. In this case, the cosmic background radiation was predicted. As with Maxwell's and Dirac's mathematical equations they provide us with predictive utility and if anything says an idea is "true" or not this should at least tell us that we have something close.

Unless you can do the maths, this is not really the kind of game a lay person can play. By all means pose thought experiments ask questions about them, but I would not have the hubris to claim that my dabblings had disproved a major idea in cosmology.

Maarten is always overturning major scientific ideas, except that he never has actually done it. Maarten, are you a christian creationist? Where are you coming from on this one?

[Maartenn100]

Dafydd, scepticism is not about the background of a person. It's about arguments on the subject. And no: I'm not a christian creationist. A creationist would accept a BigBang-story, a creation story.
For me it's hard to accept a beginning of time.
Why? Because the physists who are talking about singularities or 'the beginning of time' admit that they do not understand it too.
So a real critical thinker would not accept such vague language or words like 'singularity' or 'time begins at...". If a critical thinker is consequent and uses the same standards as for pseudoscience, he or she will not accept 'singularity' or 'the beginning of time' as truth. Because the people who are talking about it admit that they don't know what they are talking about.

[Maartenn100]

Any normal thinking person would agree that 'a singularity' as a small infinitely dense point in 'nothing' is not thinkable. It's wordsalade. 'time begins..." is wordsalade.
Mathematicians are confusing 'infinitly small, dense' with a corresponding reality outthere. Such things do not exist at all in a real world. It's the mathemacal construction itself.

We can not imagine such things as being part of a real world. So you don't communicate an idea with using a word as singularity or a sentence as 'time begins...".
You give the impression that you do understand it and the person who accept the idea gives the impressions he or she does understand it. But in fact: you haven't communicate a concept at all. Because no one really understands what that means in a real world. No one has a clue what a singularity is in a real world. Because this is what's been left from just the mathematical constructions itself. Math is useful to a certain degree. But from a certain point: t's just construction without any correspondence anymore with reality.

[Fishstick]

So you're agreeing that your argument is from incredulity, then?

[Dancing David]

Maartenn100:

You will find that most scientists will not say that the singularity occurred in 'nothing' that is straw you got from reading pop science. What is your source?

An article written by whom?

You are attacking your misconception of what cosmologists says.

Singularities are a product of the models of the way reality acts, the fact that you don't like them is your issue.

So when you have enough gravity to overcome the repulsive EM force, what happens?

[Maartenn100]

I'm just saying: if physisists admit they don't understand what it means (a singularity or 'time begins'), they aren't communicating an idea at all when they are using these words. A critical thinker, who uses the standards he or she uses to be sceptic, can't accept such vague language.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Dafydd, scepticism is not about the background of a person. It's about arguments on the subject. And no: I'm not a christian creationist. A creationist would accept a BigBang-story, a creation story.
For me it's hard to accept a beginning of time.
Why? Because the physists who are talking about singularities or 'the beginning of time' admit that they do not understand it too.
So a real critical thinker would not accept such vague language or words like 'singularity' or 'time begins at...". If a critical thinker is consequent and uses the same standards as for pseudoscience, he or she will not accept 'singularity' or 'the beginning of time' as truth. Because the people who are talking about it admit that they don't know what they are talking about.

On the contrary, we know exactly what a singularity is, it's a region of space where the density and pressure are so high, and the gravity so strong, that the laws of physics as they apply to most of the rest of the Universe break down.

We know what a singularity is, we just don't quite understand what happens inside one.

As for the Big Bang, we can make dozens of different observations (all of which agree with the theories to an extremely high degree of accuracy) that demonstrate that the Universe was incredibly small, hot and dense about 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Exactly how it got to be in that small, hot, dense state is not known, but it is undeniable fact that it was like that. This state is what is meant by the phrase "Big Bang", a name, by the way, that was given to it by Fred Hoyle in order to make it sound silly because he didn't like the idea. Any hypotheses about how this state came to be that way are speculative and not strictly part of Big Bang cosmology.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I'm just saying: if physisists admit they don't understand what it means (a singularity or 'time begins'), they aren't communicating an idea at all when they are using these words. A critical thinker, who uses the standards he or she uses to be sceptic, can't accept such vague language.

Such ideas when expressed in mathematics make reliable predictions. They work together with other models in physics and often spring from earlier models. It should not be surprising that phenomena outside of our medium sized world of experience cannot adequately be described in everyday language. Mathematics works to describe these things however. If you want to understand such ideas and only then perhaps critique them, you must learn the language of mathematics.

As a sceptic, I understand that much of this is beyond me but I do recognize that the mathematical approach taken in physics works. By examining the history of science I can appreciate how the big bang theory arose and defeated competing ideas like the steady state universe. I understand something of how it explained observations like expansion. I appreciate how it predicted the cosmic background radiation. I appreciate how ideas like a singularity came out of mathematical models of gravity and their predictions of black holes. These things arise out of mathematical models of our universe that work and allow us to develop technological applications.

And young earth creationists, particularly of the U.S. evangelical stripe, do reject the big bang and subsequent formation of stars and planets because none of this can fit in with a 10,000-year-old universe.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Dafydd, scepticism is not about the background of a person. It's about arguments on the subject. And no: I'm not a christian creationist. A creationist would accept a BigBang-story, a creation story.
For me it's hard to accept a beginning of time.
Why? Because the physists who are talking about singularities or 'the beginning of time' admit that they do not understand it too.
So a real critical thinker would not accept such vague language or words like 'singularity' or 'time begins at...". If a critical thinker is consequent and uses the same standards as for pseudoscience, he or she will not accept 'singularity' or 'the beginning of time' as truth. Because the people who are talking about it admit that they don't know what they are talking about.

Tell me your theory of the universe so I can judge it against the Big Bang theory.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I'm just saying: if physisists admit they don't understand what it means (a singularity or 'time begins'), they aren't communicating an idea at all when they are using these words. A critical thinker, who uses the standards he or she uses to be sceptic, can't accept such vague language.

I think the problem is that you don't actually know what cosmologists say do you?

And so you just make up a bunch of crap.

If you actually read cosmology, which you haven't, you would know that the model used is very accurate back to t=10^-36 seconds and that before that point , the cosmologists and people who study this stuff say things like

"We don't know"
"This is speculative"
"This is a model of what might have happened"

So when you say that cosmologists say that there was a singularity at the BBe, that is not actually tue, most of them will tell you that that is in the speculative area.

Which you obviously did not know or you wouldn't make up crap.

Cosmologists do know what a singuularity is, they do not however know if there was one at the BBE, so what and who exactly is your source Maartenn100?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Cosmologists do know what a singuularity is, they do not however know if there was one at the BBE, so what and who exactly is your source Maartenn100?

Maarten.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Maarten.

Maartenn100

is what it says on my screen.

[Toontown]

Rats. Big bang theory falsified again. Happens every day somewere on the internet.

Dammit. How will we ever know anything if everything keeps getting falsified by all these anonymous geniuses?

And to make matters worse, it is near impossible to find anything two of these anonymous internet geniuses agree on. It is as if they are gobbling up all the information and replacing it with...nothing.

[Maartenn100]

No, I really heared physisists saying: "time began... years ago'. but in fact: "we don't know what that means at all." And I agree: we can not understand such sentence. it's a concept that doesn't give us any more information. It's like they are talking about some flying spaghettimonster. So, I'm sorry, but most real critical thinkers would not accept such wordsalade. It's playing with words. We have not any idea what that sentence really means. Who claims that he does understand it, is not an honest thinker to me.
If they are honest thinkers, they must say: I don't know what you are talking about. A singularity should be a very small AND dense point in .... (in nothing). Because it should be all there is at that moment. (moment, you say?). Are there already moments?

An honest critical thinker must say: I'm sorry, but I can't follow you. And with all due respect: I can't follow that you are saying that you have an understanding of what you are talking about.

So, these physicists are talking about 'this singularity' and in fact: they don't really have any idea what it is. This flying spaghettimonster is not been observed yet either.

In fact: they are blabbering about something on paper (math), but they have no idea how it is related to some hard scientific observable evidence.

Some math to like a copy of the world you can make in a game. And you can say: this is like reality. But when you get on the borders of this game, you fall in infinity while playing on your pc. And these physicists do really think that what's on their pc, is also the case in real life.
Don't confuse the math with reality. To a certain degree, yes. But concepts like 'infinity' and 'singularity': don't act like you understand what you are talking about.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

No, I really heared physisists saying: "time begins at....years'.

And yes, it matches the facts the universe appears to be 13.7 BYA, time did not exist before then, your incredulity is not an argument.

Quote:

But in fact: "we don't know what that means at all." And I agree: we can not understand such sentence. it's a concept that doesn't give us any more information.

That is because you are not paying attention, there are processes that occur within time, and so far they look to have been doing so for 13.7 BYA, your lack of understanding is your issue.

Quote:

It's like they are talking about some flying spaghettimonster. So, I'm sorry, but most real critical thinkers would not accept such wordsalade.

You are just making this up because you don't understand it.

That is the first part of critical thinking, to learn and understand.

Quote:

It's playing with words. We have not any idea what that sentence really means. Who claims that he does understand it, is not an honest thinker to me.

So you think that the photons from the CMB are how old exactly?

Quote:

If they are honest thinkers, they must say: I don't know what you are talking about.

Which is why you are dishonest, you do not admit your issues.

Quote:

A singularity should be a very small AND dense point in .... (in nothing).

Should according to who and where did they say it?

The BBE may have occurred in a matrix, we don't know.

Until you provide sources I will assume you are just making it up.

Quote:

Because it should be all there is at that moment. (moment, you say?). Are there already moments?

That is what you said, who else said it.

You just make stuff up and then attack it.

Give your source.

It is just as likely that the universe did not come from nothing.

Your lack of knowledge is another of your issues.

Quote:

An honest critical thinker must say: I'm sorry, but I can't follow you. And I can't follow that you are saying that you have an understanding of what you are talking about.

Which is another reason you are dishonest.

Quote:

So, these physicists are talking about 'this singularity' and in fact: they don't really have any idea what it is. This flying spaghettimonster is not been observed yet either.

Who said, what, where exactly?

Quote:

In fact: they are blabbering about something on paper (math), but they have no idea what they are talking about as something corresponding to some hard scientific observable evidence.

Some math to is like a world you can make in a game. And you can say: this is like reality. But when you get on the borders of this game, you fall in infinity on your pc. And these physicists do really think that what's on their pc, is also the case in real life.
Don't confuse the math with reality

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

No, I really heared physisists saying: "time begins at....years'. But in fact: "we don't know what that means at all." And I agree: we can not understand such sentence. it's a concept that doesn't give us any more information. It's like they are talking about some flying spaghettimonster. So, I'm sorry, but most real critical thinkers would not accept such wordsalade. If they are honest thinkers, they must say: I don't know what you are talking about. A singularity should be a very small AND dense point in .... (in nothing). Because it should be all there is at that moment. (moment, you say?). Are there already moments? So, these physicists are talking about 'this singularity', they don't really have any idea what it is. This flying spaghettimonster is not been observed yet either. In fact: they are blabbering about something on paper (math), but they have no idea what they are talking about. To me
It's like a world you can make in a game. And you can say: this is like reality. But when you get on the borders of this game, you fall in infinity on your pc. And these physicists do really think that what's on their pc, is also the case in real life.
Don't confuse the math with reality

Math is the best way we have of describing the cosmos. The mathematical models constructed by physicists work. They make predictions, often surprising, about the universe. Without these mathematical models there would be no computers to communicate these messages with.

All you are making is an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance. "I can't understand how this complex concept could be right therefore it is wrong and those who profess to understand it are blathering". This is not critical thinking.

And how about you cite some of these physicists so we can examine their statements in context. Excuse me for being sceptical and not taking your word for it.

[Maartenn100]

Ok, let’s make myself more clair:
In our languages we have an agreement about what we understand when we are using the word ‘point’ in our communications. We have the agreement that by its very definition, the word ‘point’ is defined by the space surrounding it. That’s how we use and understand this word.
So, when you, as a physicist comes to me and talks about ‘a singularity’ as a very dense point surrounded by … nothing, I will not understand you, my friend. Because you are in fact giving me a contradictio in terminus. A singularity surrounded by ‘nothing’, because it’s all there is, contradicts itself in its definition.

And the real reason why some physics are telling you that ‘physics’ is only math: because there is no corresponding reality anymore at a certain point. And they can not communicate what it is in the language we use to have an understanding about nature. We can say: it’s abstract. But we can also say: we have no clue what we are dealing with here. We have no way to understand how this works in reality.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Ok, let’s make myself more clair:
In our languages we have an agreement about what we understand when we are using the word ‘point’ in our communications. We have the agreement that by its very definition, the word ‘point’ is defined by the space surrounding it. That’s how we use and understand this word.

Nonsense. It can also mean everywhere in space at one moment in time. The big bang singularity is like that.

Quote:

So, when you, as a physicist comes to me and talks about ‘a singularity’ as a very dense point surrounded by … nothing, I will not understand you, my friend.

Stop making things up and quote an actual physicist, if you can.

[Maartenn100]

I'm sorry Sol invictus, I didn't tape his words. I'm not that disrespectfull. But he actually said that. A very dense point. You must trust me. Infinitly small and infinite dense, he said.

But your 'everywhere in space' doesn't tell us so much more either about your singularity, does it? 'a singularity is everywhere' is also a flying spaghettimonster to me. Its vague language, and you didn't communicate one single idea with it

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I'm sorry Sol invictus, I didn't tape his words. I'm not that disrespectfull. But he actually said that. A very dense point. You must trust me. Infinitly small, he said.

I don't trust you at all - why would I? You're obviously unreasonable and unreliable. But regardless, the big bang is a point (in time) of infinite density, and in a specific technical sense it is also infinitely small.

Quote:

But your 'everywhere in space' doesn't tell us so much more either about your singularity too, does it? 'a singularity is everywhere' is also a flying spaghettimonster to me. Its vague language, and you didn't communicate one single idea with it

That's your problem, not anyone else's.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I'm sorry Sol invictus, I didn't tape his words. I'm not that disrespectfull. But he actually said that. A very dense point. You must trust me. Infinitly small and infinite dense, he said.

But your 'everywhere in space' doesn't tell us so much more either about your singularity, does it? 'a singularity is everywhere' is also a flying spaghettimonster to me. Its vague language, and you didn't communicate one single idea with it

''Everywhere in space'' tells us a lot. Where is the centre of the universe? Hint: It has something to do with the singularity.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

So, when you, as a physicist comes to me and talks about ‘a singularity’ as a very dense point surrounded by … nothing, I will not understand you, my friend. Because you are in fact giving me a contradictio in terminus. A singularity surrounded by ‘nothing’, because it’s all there is, contradicts itself in its definition.

Who said that Maartenn100?

You keep saying it, but where is this physicist who said it, where?

I think you are making it up.

[Maartenn100]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

I don't trust you at all - why would I? You're obviously unreasonable and unreliable. But regardless, the big bang is a point (in time) of infinite density, and in a specific technical sense it is also infinitely small.



That's your problem, not anyone else's.

Maybe it is, but I asked a few people: they don't understand the idea behind it either... They want to accept it, sol invictus, because 'they trust you' as a scientist. They trust scientists. (like some kind of priests).
But don't have the illusion for one minute, sol invictus, that they understand what they are learning about the BB-theory and the singularity that you are talking about. They may be able to describe the math. But do these students really understand the idea? No.
It's as mystifying as the math of astrologists to them. But they accept it, because it's from scientists and the math seems consistent.
But when they are honest, it's as flying spaghettimonster to them too.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I'm sorry Sol invictus, I didn't tape his words. I'm not that disrespectfull. But he actually said that. A very dense point. You must trust me. Infinitly small and infinite dense, he said.

But your 'everywhere in space' doesn't tell us so much more either about your singularity, does it? 'a singularity is everywhere' is also a flying spaghettimonster to me. Its vague language, and you didn't communicate one single idea with it

He, who and in what context?

I think you are making it up. What are there credentials and what kind of conversation was it?

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Maybe it is, but I asked a few people: they don't understand the idea behind it either... They want to accept it, sol invictus, because 'they trust you' as a scientist. They trust scientists. (like some kind of priests).

It's reasonable to trust experts, Maarten. That's rather the point of them.

Quote:

But don't have the illusion for one minute, sol invictus, that they understand what they are learning about the BB-theory and the singularity that you are talking about. They may be able to describe the math. But do these students really understand the idea? No.
It's as mystifying as the math of astrologists to them. But they accept it, because it's from scientists and the math seems consistent.
But when they are honest, it's as flying spaghettimonster to them too.

It's not so black and white. I agree with you that te great majority of people understand little or nothing about big bang singularities.

But a few of the more interested and intelligent ones have read books on the topic, or attended lectures, or watched TV specials, and those know something more. Naturally not everything, but something.

A small fraction of those have studied the topic in greater detail, and those know quite a lot. And a very few have mastered just about all the relevant material and techniques and evidence that is available, and know as much as anyone in the world. Clearly, they cannot communicate all that knowledge in a few sentences - but they can communicate some of it, at least to someone that listens.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Toontown

And to make matters worse, it is near impossible to find anything two of these anonymous internet geniuses agree on. It is as if they are gobbling up all the information and replacing it with...nothing.

If they were all fired towards two slits would they form a diffraction pattern on the wall beyond? I don't know, but someone should find out.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by wollery

On the contrary, we know exactly what a singularity is, it's a region of space where the density and pressure are so high, and the gravity so strong, that the laws of physics as they apply to most of the rest of the Universe break down.

We know what a singularity is, we just don't quite understand what happens inside one.

That's exactly my understanding, and I find it satisfactory. There's plenty to be working on where the laws of physics do apply (and we don't quite understand them).

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

Maybe it is, but I asked a few people: they don't understand the idea behind it either... They want to accept it, sol invictus, because 'they trust you' as a scientist. They trust scientists. (like some kind of priests).
But don't have the illusion for one minute, sol invictus, that they understand what they are learning about the BB-theory and the singularity that you are talking about. They may be able to describe the math. But do these students really understand the idea? No.
It's as mystifying as the math of astrologists to them. But they accept it, because it's from scientists and the math seems consistent.
But when they are honest, it's as flying spaghettimonster to them too.

No. I have read books about the subject, that's why I know you are wrong.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

They trust scientists. (like some kind of priests).

The usual problem is that people expect scientists to be like priests, and really can't be getting on with answers beginning "to the best of our current understanding ...". They expect absolute answers (if not absolution), which is what priests provide. Anglicans may vary, of course.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

For me it's hard to accept a beginning of time.

For me it's impossible to accept no beginning to time. If that were the case an eternity would precede any event, which is an absurdity.

Quote:

Why? Because the physists who are talking about singularities or 'the beginning of time' admit that they do not understand it too.

A non sequitur. Scientists accept it while not fully understanding it, so that lack of understanding is no reason for you not to accept it. And perhaps get over it, like they do.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

I'm sorry Sol invictus, I didn't tape his words. I'm not that disrespectfull. But he actually said that. A very dense point. You must trust me. Infinitly small and infinite dense, he said.

I believe it. That's about how my father explained the start of the universe to me when I was, I dunno, eight or ten years old.

It works because it makes it so elementary even a child can understand it, but of course it's not really accurate. Even though I never went on to study physics, I know it's more complicated than that.

Even in adulthood, our brains (well, my brain anyway) aren't equipped to picture everything in the universe compacted into an infinitely small point, with nothing surrounding it, not even a vacuum. It simply does not compute. The brain insists on seeing the point in the midst of something.

Obviously, picturing the universe at the start of the big bang is not something we need to be able to do to survive, so apparently the ability to picture it hasn't evolved in our species.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not it actually happened. In fact, I think it's pretty amazing that humans have used our abilities to count and think logically--which we evolved because they were useful skills for survival--to come up with math and use it to communicate about things that we can't really grasp otherwise.

[Maartenn100]

so, like I said before: no one has learned anything. No idea is been communicated at all. A goeroe would say that you don't understand ihis mystifying language, because you don't have the brains for it (evolutionary spoken). There is no significant difference with vague language or mystification in pseudoscience. An no one has any idea what you are talking about (because they have not the brains for it, you say (nice excuse)). It's like saying: we are using words, but no one really fully understands the meaning of these words, because no one has the brains for it. It's like communicating no ideas at all.

[dafydd]

[quote=Maartenn100;8180003]so, like I said before: no one has learned anything. No idea is been communicated at all. A goeroe would say that you don't understand ihis mystifying language, because you don't have the brains for it (evolutionary spoken). There is no significant difference with vague language or mystification in pseudoscience. An no one has any idea what you are talking about (because they have not the brains for it, you say (nice excuse)). It's like saying: we are using words, but no one really fully understands the meaning of these words, because no one has the brains for it. It's like communicating no ideas at all.[/QUOTE]

You are very good at that, and at ignoring the evidence put before you. Are you saying that you have the brains for it? I beg to differ. Are you going to answer any of the questions put to you or are you just going to insult us? If the answer is the latter then we may as well stop this thread now.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100

so, like I said before: no one has learned anything. No idea is been communicated at all. A goeroe would say that you don't understand ihis mystifying language, because you don't have the brains for it (evolutionary spoken). There is no significant difference with vague language or mystification in pseudoscience. An no one has any idea what you are talking about (because they have not the brains for it, you say (nice excuse)). It's like saying: we are using words, but no one really fully understands the meaning of these words, because no one has the brains for it. It's like communicating no ideas at all.

And yet, you're the only one saying so. Apparently no ideas are being communicated to you when physicists discuss the big bang - but no one else seems to be having the same problem.

I think you're simply unwilling to listen. Instead of asking questions about the things you don't understand, you make wild (and wildly wrong) assertions. You have arguments with yourself, and you're incredulous of everything to the point that you refuse to accept anything that doesn't fit your intuition. The problem is, your intuition is very limited.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

And yet, you're the only one saying so. Apparently no ideas are being communicated to you when physicists discuss the big bang - but no one else seems to be having the same problem.

I think you're simply unwilling to listen. Instead of asking questions about the things you don't understand, you make wild (and wildly wrong) assertions. You have arguments with yourself, and you're incredulous of everything to the point that you refuse to accept anything that doesn't fit your intuition. The problem is, your intuition is very limited.

If he read some physics books instead of relying on his intuition then the experts here might be able to get through to him. I've read a lot of physics books from Antwerp central library, I understand the ideas behind the Big Bang. Why don't you join the library Maarten and educate yourself? Before I read those books I knew very little about cosmology, just like you.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

And yet, you're the only one saying so. Apparently no ideas are being communicated to you when physicists discuss the big bang - but no one else seems to be having the same problem.

Thanks, that was exactly my point.