Cosmogenesis .

[Cyclone]

ideas that explain what we observe of the universe are not normally dreamt up without evidence, they are specifically dreamt up to explain the evidence we've got. We then make predictions with them and see if we can then disprove the hypothesis. Falsifiable predictions are a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Random story telling is not.

[unbeliever]

ideas that explain what we observe of the universe are not normally dreamt up without evidence, they are specifically dreamt up to explain the evidence we've got. We then make predictions with them and see if we can then disprove the hypothesis. Falsifiable predictions are a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Random story telling is not.

 

Well said. .

[Brin56]

Hawking radiation probably. This has yet to be confirmed.

How is it relevant?

 

You invoke Hawkins Radiation; which 'apelike' on the thread 'understanding the universe' said was a Hawkins fudge and is not proved. But I suppose it's ok for you to use it because it was Hawkins that spoke. In addition you invoke Wikkipedia, so I suppose now it is a source of scientific reliability. You are not consistent.

[unbeliever]

You invoke Hawkins Radiation; which 'apelike' on the thread 'understanding the universe' said was a Hawkins fudge and is not proved. But I suppose it's ok for you to use it because it was Hawkins that spoke. In addition you invoke Wikkipedia, so I suppose now it is a source of scientific reliability. You are not consistent.

 

I did say it was yet to be confirmed and it's not central to the debate. I was asked a question and I gave an answer.

The wikipedia articles I've linked to have the virtue of being intended for the layman and contain references if you're really interested.

I've been entirely consistent. I'm under no obligation to be consistent with apelike. Although I'm not convinced I've actually been inconsistent.

[sutty27]

Finally.

Which bit is giving you trouble?

Are you concerned about the matter/anti-matter asymmetry, inflation, or the idea that it started with a vacuum fluctuation?

 

Even if you have trouble with the very beginning, i.e. questions of what initiated the process. You surely must see that the evidence that the universe was once at least 1000 times more dense than it is now is extremely compelling.

 

I don't have an issue with the idea that our little bit of the universe was possibly more dense in the past.

 

The problem big bang theory is that it doesn't explain the something from nothing, the maths and physics don't work at the point of infinite density, which is would have been if it started with a black hole in a universe that already existed.

How did nothing, non existence suddenly turn into a point of infinite density and what mechanism caused it to expand, what mechanism keeps it expanding.

 

Writing big doesn't change the fact that despite me asking you many many times you still haven't answered these questions.

[unbeliever]

I don't have an issue with the idea that our little bit of the universe was possibly more dense in the past.

 

The problem big bang theory is that it doesn't explain the something from nothing, the maths and physics don't work at the point of infinite density, which is would have been if it started with a black hole in a universe that already existed.

How did nothing, non existence suddenly turn into a point of infinite density and what mechanism caused it to expand, what mechanism keeps it expanding.

 

Writing big doesn't change the fact that despite me asking you many many times you still haven't answered these questions.

 

I don't have the answers. There are a lot of good ideas, but the experiments to confirm have yet to be completed.

This is a model which is 90% confirmed but with some pieces which are yet to be 100% confirmed.

There are multiple possible explanations for some of the missing bits.

 

They key point I've been trying to get across is that none of these incomplete pieces, which they may run contrary to your intuition or common sense, are in violation of established and confirmed physical laws. Where as all eternal universe models, as much as they may appeal to your intuition or common sense, are in clear violation of multiple established and confirmed physical laws the most blatant of which is the second law of thermodynamics.

 

Your preference for a model which is 100% ruled out over one which is 90% confirmed, on the basis that it offends your intuition, is quite baffling.

I'm sorry if I've seemed harsh from time to time, but your insistence on referring to established physical laws as "assumptions" and the implication you make that all ideas, not matter how many physical laws they violate or how many experimental results they conflict with, are somehow equal is quite infuriating.

Edited May 12, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

I don't have the answers. There are a lot of good ideas, but the experiments to confirm have yet to be completed.

This is a model which is 90% confirmed but with some pieces which are yet to be 100% confirmed.

There are multiple possible explanations for some of the missing bits.

 

No it isn't, it can't even be proven that the universe is expanding, it most definitely can't be proven that it had a beginning or that its finite. It has more holes and unproven assumptions than Swiss cheese.

 

They key point I've been trying to get across is that none of these incomplete pieces, which they may run contrary to your intuition or common sense, are in violation of established and confirmed physical laws.

They do though, they assume its expanding based on light from billions of years ago, that proves it may have been expanding billions of years ago, they can't explain the expansion so they invent dark matter and dark energy neither of which is proven to exist, the maths and physics can't explain how non existence tuned into existence, they cann't even explain how a point of infinite density expanded against gravity.

 

 

Where as all eternal universe models, as much as they may appeal to your intuition or common sense, are in clear violation of multiple established and confirmed physical laws the most blatant of which is the second law of thermodynamics.

We are going round in circles, no it doesn't violate the laws of physics it actually works as a better model because it doesn't start with the problem of nothing turning into something.

[unbeliever]

Oh dear. And I thought we were getting somewhere.

 

No it isn't, it can't even be proven that the universe is expanding, it most definitely can't be proven that it had a beginning or that its finite. It has more holes and unproven assumptions than Swiss cheese.

 

It's the only model which fits the data and is consistent with the known law of physics.

 

They do though, they assume its expanding based on light from billions of years ago, that proves it may have been expanding billions of years ago, they can't explain the expansion so they invent dark matter and dark energy neither of which is proven to exist, the maths and physics can't explain how non existence tuned into existence, they can't even explain how a point of infinite density expanded against gravity.

 

Did you read about "inflation"?

 

We are going round in circles, no it doesn't violate the laws of physics it actually works as a better model because it doesn't start with the problem of nothing turning into something.

 

As much as it may run contrary to your wilfully ignorant perspective. Something appearing out of nothing is perfectly acceptable within the laws of physics provided that certain conditions are met. The most important being that the total energy of the system is exactly or very close to zero. On the other hand, violation of the second law of thermodynamics is emphatically not acceptable.

 

An eternal universe would be in thermal equilibrium.

This is an unavoidable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

It has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

[sutty27]

Oh dear. And I thought we were getting somewhere.

 

 

 

It's the only model which fits the data and is consistent with the known law of physics.

And it doesn't work, it relies on too many unproven assumptions, it works a little better if its applied to an infinite universe that always existed.

 

Did you read about "inflation"?

Yep

[unbeliever]

And it doesn't work, it relies on too many unproven assumptions, it works a little better if its applied to an infinite universe that always existed.

 

It is true that some pieces are as yet unverified experimentally.

It's specifically a model for a finite universe, so if you're thinking of somehow merging it with your unfounded assertion that the universe if infinite, you're out of luck.

It's the only model that fits the data. If you have another model that fits the data, I'm all ears.

Your eternal universe model does not fit the data. Your ideas about how to make it fit the data are nonsense.

 

An eternal universe would be in thermal equilibrium.

This is an unavoidable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

It has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

Edited May 13, 2016 by unbeliever