The Big Bang And The First Atom

[Miles]

.


I stumbled across the following video (≈ 17 min), which in animated form shows some of what science knows and doesn't know about the beginning of our universe and the formation of its elementary particles. As familiar with it as I am, I still found it pretty cool.


.............................


How do you find it?

Think the singularity sitting there before Planck time at t=0s could be God?


.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...

And your Trumpian efforts to malign and belittle any who disagrees is, I contend, firmly entrenched in the god concept's ever vigilant effort to disregard any contrary notions.

And this belief is relevant to the subject under discussion?

I can only conclude you think your insults are somehow related to the OP.

With that in mind, well there we go.

Even when, come to find out, I happen to agree with the main point.

We risk folks thinking we're ignorant, to downright stupid when all we can do is insult and slander. But hey, if that's what comforts you in times of contrary notions, I reckon insults and slanders might seem a comfort of some small measure

Very well, how shall we proceed?

I propose with a modicum of respect for those whose opinions don't make us so proud.

[brunumb]

Just one example, you say "science is not prepared to examine that which has not been shown to exist" but how do you think science can show anything to exist!

Comments like that remind me of just how much the properties of the imaginary and the non-existent look the same.

[brunumb]

Everything we've discovered was once undiscovered, saying something doesn't exist and shouldn't be sought simply because one has not discovered it yet is a fallacy, unhinged, claptrap, pseudo-science.

On the other hand we don't simply accept that it does exist until we have actually demonstrated that it is so.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Everything we've discovered was once undiscovered, saying something doesn't exist and shouldn't be sought simply because one has not discovered it yet is a fallacy, unhinged, claptrap, pseudo-science.

On the other hand we don't simply accept that it does exist until we have actually demonstrated that it is so.

Good, you've said something at long last that I actually agree with!

[alexxcJRO]

This entire response is unhinged. Just one example, you say "science is not prepared to examine that which has not been shown to exist" but how do you think science can show anything to exist!

Q: "but how do you think science can show anything to exist" - Solopsism ?

If yes:

Q: Is "Sherlock Holmes" (maybe just a figment of my imagination) talking nonsense again?

[Sherlock Holmes]

...
...

And your Trumpian efforts to malign and belittle any who disagrees is, I contend, firmly entrenched in the god concept's ever vigilant effort to disregard any contrary notions.

And this belief is relevant to the subject under discussion?

I can only conclude you think your insults are somehow related to the OP.

With that in mind, well there we go.

Even when, come to find out, I happen to agree with the main point.

We risk folks thinking we're ignorant, to downright stupid when all we can do is insult and slander. But hey, if that's what comforts you in times of contrary notions, I reckon insults and slanders might seem a comfort of some small measure

Very well, how shall we proceed?

I propose with a modicum of respect for those whose opinions don't make us so proud.

The only insult I see is you addressing me with "your Trumpian efforts", being compared to Donald Trump is as you'll hopefully appreciate, never a compliment.

[JoeyKnothead]

Even when, come to find out, I happen to agree with the main point.

We risk folks thinking we're ignorant, to downright stupid when all we can do is insult and slander. But hey, if that's what comforts you in times of contrary notions, I reckon insults and slanders might seem a comfort of some small measure

Very well, how shall we proceed?

I propose with a modicum of respect for those whose opinions don't make us so proud.

The only insult I see is you addressing me with "your Trumpian efforts", being compared to Donald Trump is as you'll hopefully appreciate, never a compliment.

Just a comparison of style, not people.

When we have no respect for others, nor what they have to allow, we often'll not consider how our remarks'll be offensive and such. Or we know it, and don't care.

When we continually malign and belittle others and their arguments, we risk such comparisons to Trumpian tactics.

I propose a great counter to such comparisons is to just accept, or refute arguments, and stop with the...

Unhinged claptrap.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I recently stumbled upon the physicist John Barrow.

I wish I'd encountered him sooner, he sadly passed away a year or so ago.

Anyway his book 'new theories of everything' is superb, a thought provoking exploration of the boundaries of science and possibilities for 'theories of everything'.

I recommend this book to all those interested in this thread.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #38]

Anyway his book 'new theories of everything' is superb, a thought provoking exploration of the boundaries of science and possibilities for 'theories of everything'.

That book is about 30 years old now (published in 1991) and is well known, and Barrow was a successful mathematician and scientist who also believed in the spiritual. He supported the strong anthropic principle and stated "A universe simple enough to be understood is too simple to produce a mind capable of understanding it." He supported the "fine tuning" concept.

The whole idea of fine tuning is backwards. Life arose and thrived on this planet because the conditions happened to be right for it. There is no reason to believe that the universe was designed just for life as we know it on Earth to exist, especially sentient life. We have no idea what kinds of life forms may exist elsewhere in the universe, but we do know that if such life does exist, and whatever form it takes, it must be compatible with the environment that it exists in or else it could not exist, by definition. This is a tautology.

I expect you like Barrow's book because he is open to the idea of the supernatural or the prospect of a creator god being of some sort. But he never advanced anything beyond philosophical arguments that such things might exist ... no different from any other proponent of these kinds of things. God beings continue to be the most elusive entities ever imagined by humans.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #38]

Anyway his book 'new theories of everything' is superb, a thought provoking exploration of the boundaries of science and possibilities for 'theories of everything'.

That book is about 30 years old now (published in 1991) and is well known, and Barrow was a successful mathematician and scientist who also believed in the spiritual. He supported the strong anthropic principle and stated "A universe simple enough to be understood is too simple to produce a mind capable of understanding it." He supported the "fine tuning" concept.

The whole idea of fine tuning is backwards.

Stop right there. Before you start to attack and kill a strawman, tell me please what it is exactly that you are arguing against? is it a statement somebody made?

Life arose and thrived on this planet because the conditions happened to be right for it.

How can your belief be scientifically tested do you think?

There is no reason to believe that the universe was designed just for life as we know it on Earth to exist, especially sentient life.

How did you prove that there is no reason? how do you know that there's no reason? surely you mean that you don't see a reason, yes? Just because you might not see a reason, a justification, does not logically amount to there being no such reason.

We have no idea what kinds of life forms may exist elsewhere in the universe, but we do know that if such life does exist, and whatever form it takes, it must be compatible with the environment that it exists in or else it could not exist, by definition. This is a tautology.

I expect you like Barrow's book because he is open to the idea of the supernatural or the prospect of a creator god being of some sort.

No, that's not why I like Barrow's book.

I like Barrow's book because he's a first rate theoretical physicist and mathematician who also has a deep understanding of philosophy and epistemology. His explanation of symmetries and invariances in modern theoretical physics is one of the most accessible explanations I've seen and I have many book on these subjects. He's a very good writer, superb vocabulary and deep insights into the sciences.

His chapter on singularities and infinity is superb reading.

But he never advanced anything beyond philosophical arguments that such things might exist ... no different from any other proponent of these kinds of things. God beings continue to be the most elusive entities ever imagined by humans.

Are you disagreeing with something Barrow has said or written? is this just the start of another ad-hominem attack?

What does the vacuous assertion "he never advanced anything mean"? what does that mean? could it be that you've misunderstood something here?

And look! you've been "thanked" for your post - but why? I post about a book and you respond with an ad-hominem attack against the author (saying nothing about the book, quoting nothing from the book, speculating on why I might enjoy the book) and you get thanked for that, how sad, how very sad.

Perhaps those people are willing to explain why they thanked you, what you said that they approved of so much, one thing is clear, it was nothing to do with his book, which was the subject of my post.