I hate it when otherwise sane-seeming physicists start spouting trash about the Big Bang. You can tell they're doing it by rote, that they're parroting some propaganda they've been indoctrinated with. Something they've never examined to see whether it makes a lick of sense.
NO EVIDENCE
First of all, there is no evidence for a Big Bang. There cannot ever be any evidence for it since the whole point of inventing Inflation Theory was to erase every last trace of the big bang to remedy the defects of the theory. The reason the Ekpyrotic model is viable at all is because of this total erasure of all traces of any big bang. But inflation? Oh you can't erase that! Even the Ekpyrotic model generally tries to replicate it. So what is today called "evidence for" the big bang is invariably evidence for hot inflation. Cosmic microwave background? Hot inflation. Expansion of the universe? Inflation.
MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Secondly, you have to realize that there can be no distinction between inflation and eternal chaotic inflation. If inflation happens then eternal chaotic inflation is the best possible model for it. You get eternity for free. Read my lips, no extra charges! Add quantum mechanics to inflation theory and you get chaotic inflation. And with chaotic inflation you have eternal inflation. It's FREE!
Worse than that, our living in a finite universe is mathematically impossible. If the probability of a universe arising out of nothing (assuming the whole notion isn't absurd which it is, more on that later) is finite then the probability of our living in an infinite universe is infinite. Infinity trumps finity!
If there were only one single eternal universe, and a billion billion billion finite universes, we could never tell the difference between them from any scientific experiments, but pure mathematics says that the probability of us coming from the eternal universe is 1 and the probability of us coming from any of the billion billion billion finite universes is ZERO.
It's statistically impossible.
ABSURDITY
The whole notion of something arising out of nothing is absurd. It's incoherent. It literally doesn't mean anything. The only way to ascribe any meaning to it is to say that the universe as-is is equivalent to nothing.
Which is very likely since a flat universe (as ours seems to be) has net zero energy. But to say that it's equivalent to nothing is to say that 'nothing' is subject to physical laws. or at least to mathematical laws. So it's not a true 'nothing' is it? It's something, it's laws of mathematics.
In order to say that what's beyond the universe is true nothing, you can't appeal to any sort of equivalence, you can't say that the universe came out of nothing at all. You can only say that the universe created itself. And what can you appeal to when making such a statement?
Well actually you can say that the universe created itself because it was self-consistent. But if you're going to say that then there are tons of other self-consistent universes possible. And every single one of them must have created itself.
Bravo, you've got the Mathematical (Multi)verse Hypothesis. Which is the exact kind of thing the Big Bang believers are trying to avoid. In trying to provide any kind of rigorous meaning to "the universe came out of nothing" you inevitably run into the fact that our universe can't be the only thing.
You get the same result when you try to define "non-determinism". It literally doesn't mean anything. And when you try to give it some meaning, it always turns out to be inconsistent with the vague notion of "non-determinism".
REVERSION TO RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE
So if the Big Bang is unprovable, mathematically impossible and it's not even coherent then why do these big headed logical types believe in this utter crap? Well first of all, physicists lack big picture thinking. Also known as judgement, which relies on synthesis. And synthesis is a cognitive trait physicists uniformly lack. But that only explains why it's possible for physicists to believe this crap.
Why they actually believe in it is because it's a religious notion. It's a belief in Creation. It's something that people used to believe in until science became atheistic. Until four young scientists made a manifesto and signed it with their own blood. That's why Einstein was so adamantly opposed to the Big Bang. Because it's a religious notion which science had gotten rid of!
And really, that explains it all. When cosmologists were confronted with the fact of an expanding universe, they couldn't handle the notion that ours isn't the only universe out there. So they reverted to religion. They reinvented the "Big Bang" - the Moment of Creation.
The same thing happened in the 1920s with the so-called Copenhagen "interpretation" of quantum mechanics. Which is no interpretation at all - it's the physical theory behind a bunch of useless math. Physicists like Richard Feynman who dismiss the physical meaning of math as unimportant are lackwits. So anyways, Copenhagen would be the physical meaning of QM if it weren't completely absurd and incoherent.
So believers in the Copenhagen doctrine revived vitalism because they couldn't handle the idea of a non-singular timeline. They invented all kinds of crap about "duality" and "uncertainty" because they couldn't handle that Platonism is wrong, that the universe really isn't made up of mathematical points. Even though mathematical points are physically incoherent.
They reinvented the notion that humans and other living things (so-called "observers") are Special, that they have this fundamental Living Force that makes them different from the rest of physical reality. How absurd is that!? But it's something that humans believe intuitively. It's an anthropomorphic notion. And that's why it got reinvented.
Same thing with Creation, or the Big Bang, whatever you want to call it. It's an intuitive anthropomorphic ('we are special') notion that just got reinvented when scientists were challenged to shatter it utterly. They were challenged and they failed. Because they're morons who can't grasp the big picture. Who can't grasp that maybe "creation" is something that needs to be defined before it means anything. Before it can ever be used to explain anything.
Kinda like God. For God to explain anything, it first needs to be defined. Which defeats the whole purpose of it since God is supposed to be this mysterious incomprehensible ball of crap and handwavy bullshit. And bullshit can't explain jack.
Same with Creation. /shakes head/
Previously, the disease process in physics.
Transit Project Openings in 2024: A Global Review
10 months ago
Posts
7 comments:
I don't want to pretend like I have any expertise to speak of in this subject (shit, I barely understand tensors), but I'm curious about this subject in spite of myself. So, what do you make of this letter?
It's crap. Even worse, it's cliche'ed crap. It reminds me of all that Creationist rhetoric about "macro"-evolution never having been observed.
Every so often you'll get people who don't understand Ockham's razor. They think that it refers to the number of physical objects implied by the theory rather than the number of ideas in the theory.
Hey, we've never observed anything beyond the observable universe. Does that mean the universe ends at humanity's limits of observation? You know what else we've never observed? Irrational numbers. And we never will because they require infinite precision! Don't laugh, some people are idiot enough to make these arguments.
But irrational numbers come part and parcel with the reals, so taking them out actually requires MORE work. And putting Earth at the center of the universe also requires adding things, namely the idea of a center to the universe.
Same thing with removing dark matter. Especially since IT FUCKING WELL HAS BEEN OBSERVED. The gravitational influence (and hence the existence) of something that is otherwise invisible *has been observed*. Anyone who claims otherwise is a know-nothing moron. Or more likely, like the editors of New Scientist, they're morons who don't understand Ockham's razor. They don't understand that the idea of dark matter has been observed independently of whatever the hell it might be. They don't understand that an infinite eternally inflating universe is SIMPLER than a one-shot big bang universe.
It's unbelievable really to think that these morons presume they can speak, that they can say anything at all, that they have the right to judge and to pronounce themselves. There can be no clearer proof that either 1) there is no human right to speak your mind, or 2) human rights don't apply to idiots. I vote for #2 and I say that we clearly need a political system that subjugates these dangerous idiots.
Basically, anyone arguing against the big bang on the basis of all the things that are needed to support the big bang ... is an idiot. There's ample and solid justification for every single last thing. Except the big bang. You can't undermine the big bang by trying to chew away at its supporting pillars like an overgrown rat trying to chew marble. You can only knock it off by observing the pillars (eg, inflation) *stand on their own* and *fill the room with no space left over*.
Note that engineers ought have no say whatsoever about science or physics. It's not their domain. So it's about as credible as priests and theologians signing the letter. It seems like above three quarters of the signatories to the letter don't have any relevant credentials. And the rest ought to be fired. And maybe they will be.
Steady state models? WTF? It's only recently that anyone's come up with a steady state model that doesn't contradict the laws of thermodynamics!
Plasma cosmology? Seriously now, come on!
Yeah, this falls in the Creationism bin. Complete with assholes demanding funding for "alternate explanations" to "prevent bias". Bias, you have to be fucking kidding me. It's as if they've never done science! Like someone whining about being slapped at a boxing match.
"boohoo, my pet theory has gotten sidelined by people that know 20 times as much as I do".
When Freeman Dyson wrote that Global Warming was politically motivated crap, he didn't complain about funding or bias. He dealt with facts: that the models are automatically *not even wrong* since they exclude all biological interactions. Nor did he advance any "alternative" pet theory! His implicit argument (and my explicit one) is that we have no chance in hell to understand something as ridiculously complex and chaotic as climate with a coterie of scientists willing to lie and call it "simplification".
Hell, proponents of eternal chaotic inflation or many-worlds back when it was unpopular never resorted to "you're biased boo hoo hoo". They said I AM FUCKING RIGHT!
This "equal time" shit makes me sick. Nobody convinced of the truth of their ideas is going to tolerate his enemies spreading THEIR ideas once they, inevitably, win. So either these sacks of shit are hypocrites or they aren't convinced of the truth of their ideas.
Truth isn't some political game. It's war! You murder your opponents or watch them die then you dance on their graves. That's how science advances.
http://alphaomega37.blogspot.co.uk/
Simple. Creation is mathematical and it's all in the bible as my blog proves. Cestreation was spoken into being as words/letters have numerical values. it's so straightforward. I love it.
Wow, you are without a doubt completely insane. And solid proof that math or any other kind of intellectual tool, shouldn't be left alone in the hands of magical thinkers without supervision by people authorized to use shock probes.
# So now, instead of fearing the Lord and turning away from evil, Adam is able to figure it all out in his own head.
Yup, and a great thing it was as it allowed people to realize that science, knowledge, technology and our own effort is infinitely superior to worship of sadistic evil deities. And also allowed us to realize that YHWH and Jehovah are sick evil lying psychopathic bastards in the first place. Which is why irreligiosity, atheism and profanation are on the rise as we acquire power.
# Sad story.
Say what? You don't want to think and believe mindlessness is good? Oh that's right, you make a virtue out of mindlessness because as a magical thinker, you don't have a mind in the first place. You believe thinking to be sad because you're incapable of thinking in the first place.
Proving once again, that humans constantly refuse to accept the truth and to accept their own limitations because it will harm their fragile little pathetic egos. And incidentally proving that such people (such as yourself) should all fucking die.
Please do us all a favour, please do the entire WORLD a favour, and die.
Thank you kindly.
The problem with the "many-worlds" theory is that it doesn't solve anything, it merely sidesteps the question. When we speak of the concept "universe", we are speaking of everything. Even if "parallel universes", "heavens", "hells", "limbos", and whatever else idiots hallucinate next actually exist, these things must be contained in THE universe.
There is, then, only one universe: THE universe.
When someone asks "what created the Big Bang?", what he's basically asking is "what created the universe?". And the answer is obvious once you stop 2 seconds to think about it. Nothing created the universe. The concept of "creation" itself is today meaningless, a mere memento from our stupid ancestors who still hadn't grasped that nothing ever truly is "created" out of nothing, but merely transformed from something into something else. There are, moreover, no "things": there is only flux.
In addition, the universe is defined as "everything", so there cannot be anything "outside" of it, nothing from which it could have been transformed into its current state. "Outside" of everything there is, then, NOTHING. And everything could not have come from nothing, therefore this universe has always existed and will always exist.
By the way, the existence of this world of flux is perceivable to us, but we can never understand WHY it exists, because we ourselves are this flux.
Wittgenstein: "It's not how the world is that is mystical, but THAT it is."
Post a Comment