The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

DrB0b · 10-04-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driventowin

How about reading the OP first next time instead of half assed guessing at the topic...

I read it, it's the usual pathetic gibberish you come out with when you fail to understand what you've read, a failing in which you are at least consistent. Your eschatological nonsense is just that, nonsense, the vapourings of a barstool philosopher who believes that his pre-teen thought processes are somehow profound but can be summed as "y'know, when you come down to it, wassit all about then, it's a funny old world, innit?". There are no new theological implications that would arise from the discovery of the Higgs Boson and only somebody who knew nothing about either physics or theology would would think so. Norton made by far the most sensible comment on this thread, evn though it's not particularly related to the topic it would make an interesting thread in its own right.

Begbie · 10-04-2008, 01:34 PM

However the non discovery of the Higgs boson would put the current cosmological model in doubt.

Nortons wishful thinking I'm afraid. Humans or at least this human are too thick to understand this type of science.

Driventowin · 10-04-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driventowin

How about reading the OP first next time instead of half assed guessing at the topic...

I read it, it's the usual pathetic gibberish you come out with when you fail to understand what you've read, a failing in which you are at least consistent. Your eschatological nonsense is just that, nonsense, the vapourings of a barstool philosopher who believes that his pre-teen thought processes are somehow profound but can be summed as "y'know, when you come down to it, wassit all about then, it's a funny old world, innit?". There are no new theological implications that would arise from the discovery of the Higgs Boson and only somebody who knew nothing about either physics or theology would would think so. Norton made by far the most sensible comment on this thread, evn though it's not particularly related to the topic it would make an interesting thread in its own right.

Then arsehole if you read it? Why does the OP quoted from Dr. Higgs bring up theology in it and mentions the conflict of why he opposes it being referred to as the God particle? Especially since it also prominently mentions his being atheist...

Bottom line if you don't like anything I post then step off and put me on ignore you have nothing of interest or content to contribute anyway except the drunken ramblings of witless troll. Your "barstool" analogy is a perfect fit for you since you obviously have far more experience with such drunken ramblings than I do..

The Basket Weaver · 10-04-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stroller

Quote:

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Belief in God(s) is based on fear.

How's this work then, and fear of what?

i'm guessing he meant hell

DrB0b · 10-04-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driventowin

How about reading the OP first next time instead of half assed guessing at the topic...

I read it, it's the usual pathetic gibberish you come out with when you fail to understand what you've read, a failing in which you are at least consistent. Your eschatological nonsense is just that, nonsense, the vapourings of a barstool philosopher who believes that his pre-teen thought processes are somehow profound but can be summed as "y'know, when you come down to it, wassit all about then, it's a funny old world, innit?". There are no new theological implications that would arise from the discovery of the Higgs Boson and only somebody who knew nothing about either physics or theology would would think so. Norton made by far the most sensible comment on this thread, evn though it's not particularly related to the topic it would make an interesting thread in its own right.

Then arsehole if you read it? Why does the OP quoted from Dr. Higgs bring up theology in it and mentions the conflict of why he opposes it being referred to as the God particle? Especially since it also prominently mentions his being atheist...

Bottom line if you don't like anything I post then step off and put me on ignore you have nothing of interest or content to contribute anyway except the drunken ramblings of witless troll. Your "barstool" analogy is a perfect fit for you since you obviously have far more experience with such drunken ramblings than I do..

Hm, I think the village idiot is on his period again. Your inability to understand anything is astonishing. How, considering that you're almost entirely lacking in reasoning, understanding, and basic analytical skills do you manage to operate a computer? Does your keeper do it for you?

Driventowin · 10-04-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driventowin

How about reading the OP first next time instead of half assed guessing at the topic...

I read it, it's the usual pathetic gibberish you come out with when you fail to understand what you've read, a failing in which you are at least consistent. Your eschatological nonsense is just that, nonsense, the vapourings of a barstool philosopher who believes that his pre-teen thought processes are somehow profound but can be summed as "y'know, when you come down to it, wassit all about then, it's a funny old world, innit?". There are no new theological implications that would arise from the discovery of the Higgs Boson and only somebody who knew nothing about either physics or theology would would think so. Norton made by far the most sensible comment on this thread, evn though it's not particularly related to the topic it would make an interesting thread in its own right.

Then arsehole if you read it? Why does the OP quoted from Dr. Higgs bring up theology in it and mentions the conflict of why he opposes it being referred to as the God particle? Especially since it also prominently mentions his being atheist...

Bottom line if you don't like anything I post then step off and put me on ignore you have nothing of interest or content to contribute anyway except the drunken ramblings of witless troll. Your "barstool" analogy is a perfect fit for you since you obviously have far more experience with such drunken ramblings than I do..

Hm, I think the village idiot is on his period again. Your inability to understand anything is astonishing. How, considering that you're almost entirely lacking in reasoning, understanding, and basic analytical skills do you manage to operate a computer? Does your keeper do it for you?

STOP TROLLLING MY THREAD ARSEHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Big enough for you to read?? You ignorant, blind mother focker...

DrB0b · 10-04-2008, 02:05 PM

^sad little man!

Norton · 10-04-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Begbie

Nortons wishful thinking I'm afraid.

Which bit is wishful thinking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Begbie

Humans or at least this human are too thick to understand this type of science.

This human too. I certainly don't understand the physics behind the movement of planets but accept it most likely the earth orbits the sun rather than the once common knowledge the earth was the center of the universe.

Pretty ignorant regarding the science of evolution as well but unlike the creationist that stick with the idea man was created in a day and woman with one of his ribs, somehow the idea humans evolved over millions of years seems more plausible.

Driventowin · 10-04-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norton

Quote:

Originally Posted by Begbie

Nortons wishful thinking I'm afraid.

Which bit is wishful thinking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Begbie

Humans or at least this human are too thick to understand this type of science.

This human too. I certainly don't understand the physics behind the movement of planets but accept it most likely the earth orbits the sun rather than the once common knowledge the earth was the center of the universe.

Pretty ignorant regarding the science of evolution as well but unlike the creationist that stick with the idea man was created in a day and woman with one of his ribs, somehow the idea humans evolved over millions of years seems more plausible.

Agreed but then there is still that little 'chicken versus the egg' conundrum.. There still had to be some 'creative power' at work that first sparked the entire process yes? I don't know? I'm not particularly religious but these are questions that are inexplicable at the moment and I'm not willing just to take them on faith..

Especially given that as we evolve so does our education and understanding of our universe and how it evolved and I think these are the points that are going to be the most contentious for the more extreme followers of all religions to accept..Just as more people swing towards evolutionary theory and away from creationism..

DrB0b · 10-04-2008, 02:53 PM

Beginner:

Intermediate:

Advanced:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/acosmbb.html

Norton · 10-04-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Agreed but then there is still that little 'chicken versus the egg' conundrum.. There still had to be some 'creative power' at work that first sparked the entire process yes?

And this is the crux of the argument for the "faithful". No matter how great the collective knowledge, the believers always have the option of stating the "effect" was "caused" by god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driventowin

most contentious for the more extreme followers of all religions to accept

The extremist have always existed even in the face of all logical knowledge. Extremists even today represent a small minority of mainstream religious believers and other than their ability to garner a lot of media attention, their beliefs are rejected by the vast majority of adherents to a particular religion. Hence they a labeled cults or sects by the mainstream.

DrB0b · 10-04-2008, 02:57 PM

What Happened Before the Big Bang?
Paul Davies

Well, what did happen before the big bang?
Few schoolchildren have failed to frustrate their parents with questions of this sort. It often starts with puzzlement over whether space "goes on forever," or where humans came from, or how the planet Earth formed. In the end, the line of questioning always seems to get back to the ultimate origin of things: the big bang. "But what caused that?"

Children grow up with an intuitive sense of cause and effect. Events in the physical world aren't supposed to "just happen." Something makes them happen. Even when the rabbit appears convincingly from the hat, trickery is suspected. So could the entire universe simply pop into existence, magically, for no actual reason at all?

This simple, schoolchild query has exercised the intellects of generations of philosophers, scientists, and theologians. Many have avoided it as an impenetrable mystery. Others have tried to define it away. Most have got themselves into an awful tangle just thinking about it.
The problem, at rock bottom, is this: If nothing happens without a cause, then something must have caused the universe to appear. But then we are faced with the inevitable question of what caused that something. And so on in an infinite regress. Some people simply proclaim that God created the universe, but children always want to know who created God, and that line of questioning gets uncomfortably difficult.

One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was. just copied from earlier versions. Quite apart from all this, there is very good evidence that the universe did come into existence in a big bang, about fifteen billion years ago. The effects of that primeval explosion are clearly detectable today-in the fact that the universe is still expanding, and is filled with an afterglow of radiant heat.

So we are faced with the problem of what happened beforehand to trigger the big bang. Journalists love to taunt scientists with this question when they complain about the money being spent on science. Actually, the answer (in my opinion) was spotted a long time ago, by one Augustine of Hippo, a Christian saint who lived in the fifth century. In those days before science, cosmology was a branch of theology, and the taunt came not from journalists, but from pagans: "What was God doing before he made the universe?" they asked. "Busy creating Hell for the likes of you!" was the standard reply.

But Augustine was more subtle. The world, he claimed, was made "not in time, but simultaneously with time." In other words, the origin of the universe-what we now call the big bang-was not simply the sudden appearance of matter in an eternally preexisting void, but the coming into being of time itself. Time began with the cosmic origin. There was no "before," no endless ocean of time for a god, or a physical process, to wear itself out in infinite preparation.

Remarkably, modern science has arrived at more or less the same conclusion as Augustine, based on what we now know about the nature of space, time, and gravitation. It was Albert Einstein who taught us that time and space are not merely an immutable arena in which the great cosmic drama is acted out, but are part of the cast-part of the physical universe. As physical entities, time and space can change- suffer distortions-as a result of gravitational processes. Gravitational theory predicts that under the extreme conditions that prevailed in the early universe, space and time may have been so distorted that there existed a boundary, or "singularity," at which the distortion of space-time was infinite, and therefore through which space and time cannot have continued. Thus, physics predicts that time was indeed bounded in the past as Augustine claimed. It did not stretch back for all eternity.

If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless. Unfortunately, many children, and adults, too, regard this answer as disingenuous. There must be more to it than that, they object.

Indeed there is. After all, why should time suddenly "switch on"? What explanation can be given for such a singular event? Until recently, it seemed that any explanation of the initial "singularity" that marked the origin of time would have to lie beyond the scope of science. However, it all depends on what is meant by "explanation." As I remarked, all children have a good idea of the notion of cause and effect, and usually an explanation of an event entails finding something that caused it. It turns out, however, that there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to a weird branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics.

Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.

The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.

Inevitably, scientists will not be content to leave it at that. We would like to flesh out the details of this profound concept. There is even a subject devoted to it, called quantum cosmology. Two famous quantum cosmologists, James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, came up with a clever idea that goes back to Einstein. Einstein not only found that space and time are part of the physical universe; he also found that they are linked in a very intimate way. In fact, space on its own and time on its own are no longer properly valid concepts. Instead, we must deal with a unified "space-time" continuum. Space has three dimensions, and time has one, so space-time is a four-dimensional continuum.

In spite of the space-time linkage, however, space is space and time is time under almost all circumstances. Whatever space-time distortions gravitation may produce, they never turn space into time or time into space. An exception arises, though, when quantum effects are taken into account. That all-important intrinsic uncertainty that afflicts quantum systems can be applied to space-time, too. In this case, the uncertainty can, under special circumstances, affect the identities of space and time. For a very, very brief duration, it is possible for time and space to merge in identity, for time to become, so to speak, spacelike-just another dimension of space.

The spatialization of time is not something abrupt; it is a continuous process. Viewed in reverse as the temporalization of (one dimension of) space, it implies that time can emerge out of space in a continuous process. (By continuous, I mean that the timelike quality of a dimension, as opposed to its spacelike quality, is not an all-or-nothing affair; there are shades in between. This vague statement can be made quite precise mathematically.)

The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultrarapid but nevertheless continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudde

10-04-2008, 02:53 PM	#30 (permalink)
DrB0b Burning in Hell Last Online: Today 12:27 PM Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb Posts: 4,365	Beginner: What is the universe made of? Where in the universe did the Big Bang happen? In your list of 10 things supporting Big Bang theory, why do they not also support other ideas too? Is there an easy way to describe Big Bang cosmology? What are the simplest things we know about the Big Bang? If every star had 9 planets like Jupiter, would this account for the missing mass in the universe? What is the relationship between the terms 'universe', 'knowable universe' and 'visible universe'? If we looked far enough out in space, could we actually see the Big Bang itself? How many atoms are there in our universe? Can you name 10 things that contradict Big Bang theory? What is the history of a single proton from the Big Bang to the present? Do you believe in the Big Bang theory, or Creation? How far back in time can you see with a telescope? If I tell you how the universe works, how can I be sure I get credit for my theory? What fraction of the universe is made up of anti-matter? Have other Big Bangs happened before? What ever happened to the rival theories to Big Bang cosmology? Do people send you their ideas for new theories about the universe? Do you believe in Big Bang theory? Are there any places in the universe where the temperature is lower than 2.7 K? How probable is the Genesis theory of Creation? What is your personal opinion about big bang cosmology? If the Big Bang theory is such a good theory, why doesn't it explain the orgin of life? What facts disprove the Big Bang Theory? How could there not have been something before the Big Bang? Will our understanding of the universe change as much in the next 100 years as it has in the last 100? Intermediate: What kind of shape does a 10-dimensional universe have? How many dimensions does our universe have? Could the Big Bang have been the beginning of a black hole in an external universe? How many fundamental particles are in the universe? What alternate theories of the universe are being actively tested today? What are the three most recent theories about 'missing mass'? Was there really no time at all before the Big Bang? If the Big Bang singularity dwarfed a black hole singularity, why did anything ever escape? What is nothingness? Did the Big Bang happen in a medium, or in a vacuum? What is the real evidence that there was a beginning of time? Could another Big Bang ever happen inside our own universe, thereby destroying it? Why can't a universe with more than 4 dimensions have life? Why is there no anti-matter in the universe in equal amounts to matter? What do you mean by 'multiple universes' given the definition of the word universe? How can we still see the cosmic background radiation when its source has vanished, and all radiation has to have a source? What were the key observations that eliminated previous theories of the universe? Have scientists proven that other universes exist? How could the universe have been spatially infinite even at the Big Bang? If space has a boundary, then how could a 'void' have existed before the Big Bang when there was no universe? Does space have a boundary because it has a finite age since the Big Bang? What do you think of plasma cosmology? What is the compelling evidence that demands that the universe was smaller than an atom when the Big Bang happened? What is the status of theories that propose that the Big Bang never happened? Why don't the temperatures of all the stars in the Milky Way affect the temperature of the cosmic background radiation at 2.7 K? Isn't the real question all advocates of Big Bang theory should answer is what caused the Big Bang? What did the dense matter soon after the Big Bang look like? How far back in time can you see with a telescope? If the cosmic background is so smooth, why is matter in galaxies so clumpy? Why wasn't the Big Bang a black hole? What is a space time continuum? What is the latest on the nature and existence of 'dark matter'? If the pre-Big Bang state was timeless, what is the best guess as to what it was like? What modifications to Big Bang cosmology have ben made to account for all its problems? If space and gas started everything going, where did these things come from? Will modern cosmology survive into the future? What is it that keeps the universe 'going'? Is the universe really a 'multiverse'? Could the first generations of stars have been pure hydrogen so that all of the helium in the universe came from stars and not the big bang? Are there any other explanations for the cosmic background radiation? Could the big bang have been a white hole? What is the stuff that caused the Big Bang? How large was the universe about 10^-34 seconds after the Big Bang? Does it make sense to speak of a temperature at the Big Bang? Was the destiny of the universe determined at the Big Bang? Where did the dense mass come from that started the Big Bang? If equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created in the Big bang, why is there only matter now? Where did the heat from the Big Bang go? When did the elements for forming planets first form after the Big Bang? What happened to all the antimatter created in the Big Bang? If there are other universes, would they be detectable from within ours? Are there any other theories for the origin of the universe other than God and Big Bang Theory? Is Big Bang Theory true like 1+1=2 is? Advanced: Is there any connection between the Higgs field and dark matter? If quantum fluctuations happen 'in time' how could they have existed before the Big Bang when time was first created? Are universes with more than 3+1 dimensions unstable, theoretically? How were the physical constants fine tuned to make our kind of universe possible? Did the laws that govern quantum fluctuations exist prior to the Big Bang? Could virtual particles make up dark matter? When was matter created after the Inflationary Epoch? Where did the initial momentum come from that caused the universe to expand? Why does the rest mass of a neutrino make any difference to cosmology? Do you see any relationship between the subatomic microcosm and the macroscopic universe? How could a quantum vacuum state have produced our universe when the universe has such regular physical laws rather than random things just happening? Is there really any order in the universe, or is it all the result of random patterns that happen from time to time? What is quantum cosmology? What will happen to cosmology when physicists discover the Theory of Everything? How does superstring theory affect our understanding of the cosmos? Is it really true that the laws of physics are randomly selected at the Big Bang? What is the relationship between the energy of the vacuum and the Cosmological Constant? Why did nature produce a Big Bang at all? Since the universe must have been inside its own Schwarschild radius after the Big Bang, how did it get out? What is the contribution of virtual particles to the mass of the universe? Did the birth of the Universe violate the Conservation of Energy? What are cosmic strings and superstrings? Did physical laws exist before the Big Bang? Why was there a slight imbalance between matter and antimatter just after the Big Bang? What is the mass equivalent of all forms of energy in the universe? Can virtual particles still be created in a vacuum where the temperature is absolute zero? How can an infinite universe have a beginning in time? How can 'nothing' do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe? What is a 'cosmic string'? Did the Big Bang singularity happen in everywhere in the space that now exists today? Can energy exist without matter as in before the big bang? Was energy conserved in the big bang? How could laws have been created AFTER the big bang if the universe started out as a 'fluctuation' of some kind? Where does space come from? Is vacuum genesis compatible with observation? How can the expansion of the universe violate relativity and the speed of light limit? What are some of the most bizarre cosmological theories you know about that have no chance in hell of being correct? At what rate were stars formed in the Big Bang? What is the difference between Alex Vilenkin's tunneling out of 'nothingness' and Hawking's idea? If the Big Bang happened in a vacuum, what was it that was fluctuation without time present? What sort of quantum field could possibly have triggered the Big Bang outof nothingness? If matter cannot be created or destroyed, where did the universe come from? How is the fact that 3 types of neutrinos exists, predicted by Big Bang Theory? http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/acosmbb.html

10-04-2008, 01:34 PM	#22 (permalink)
Begbie Senior Member Last Online: Yesterday 07:59 PM Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Lagrangian Point Posts: 5,555	However the non discovery of the Higgs boson would put the current cosmological model in doubt. Nortons wishful thinking I'm afraid. Humans or at least this human are too thick to understand this type of science.

10-04-2008, 02:05 PM	#27 (permalink)
DrB0b Burning in Hell Last Online: Today 12:27 PM Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb Posts: 4,365	^sad little man!