Reyginus: lol. Its clear you know little about what you are claiming. I observed you are not good at answering questions. Answer the questions I posed you before any further thing.

And what sensible question did you ask?

Reyginus: Lol. Seriously, how would interpretations make sense out of facts? Lol. This scientists. SMH. Or facts are arrived at by interpretations?
If you can't witness a thing as it is happening, how do you now collect data's for interpretation of its onset? Lol. Scientists.
I'm not making the claim that science is a religion, but that it makes unfounded claims.

Facts are raw: like the redshift observations, rain fall, evaporation process. With these facts, implications and inferences are made and a bigger picture is drawn. Hence big bang and the water cycle.

Observation is still key but not all phenomena is expected to be observable. All phenomena is assumed though be clockwork like.

As to your claim that they are unfounded, in that they are not proven? Scientific theories move towards searching for truth, and thus goes beyond validity. Falsifiable theories work on the general laws of thought: that the truth isn't contradictory, and can be drawn into a concept. So it is not unfounded.

Logicboy03:


wow, if you dont know the phyiscal laws, why not ask? Why showcase your ignorance?

can you please show me where i'm ignorant? There's no way a law will have no law-maker. If you differ, please provide proof. One more thing. Why is it that when you atheist are so insolent? If you knw i don't know a thing or two,why don't you explain better instead of showcasing your so called intelligence in a violent way. That's one thing i don't like about you people. Discuss,if you are convinced with what you are saying not the other way round. I still expect an answer to mi question. Is there any law without a law-maker?

Kay 17:

Facts are raw: like the redshift observations, rain fall, evaporation process. With these facts, implications and inferences are made and a bigger picture is drawn. Hence big bang and the water cycle.

Observation is still key but not all phenomena is expected to be observable. All phenomena is assumed though be clockwork like.

As to your claim that they are unfounded, in that they are not proven? Scientific theories move towards searching for truth, and thus goes beyond validity. Falsifiable theories work on the general laws of thought: that the truth isn't contradictory, and can be drawn into a concept. So it is not unfounded.

Please don't bring the water cycle into this. The water cycle explains a phenomenon while the big ban.g theory's stand, on the origin of the beginning explains a process that is already completed. They are two wide divide. And now their is a problem. How do you validate what is not , what never is, but always in the process of becoming?

edogho: can you please show me where i'm ignorant? There's no way a law will have no law-maker. If you differ, please provide proof. One more thing. Why is it that when you atheist are so insolent? If you knw i don't know a thing or two,why don't you explain better instead of showcasing your so called intelligence in a violent way. That's one thing i don't like about you people. Discuss,if you are convinced with what you are saying not the other way round. I still expect an answer to mi question. Is there any law without a law-maker?

Gravity

Reyginus: Please don't bring the water cycle into this. The water cycle explains a phenomenon while the big ban.g theory's stand, on the origin of the beginning explains a process that is already completed. They are two wide divide. And now their is a problem. How do you validate what is not , what never is, but always in the process of becoming?

Both are phenonema, basically the same problem. If you follow the Big Ban.g theory, you'd see the assumptions and structure which is built on the facts/data we have. We are basically searching for an explanation. However if the facts/data accumulate to a point that undermine the Big Ban.g theory, it becomes discarded.

Though there are many cosmological theories, but big ban.g is rooted to be the best for NOW. Absolutes aren't a luxury.

That the Universe is expanding, betrays an inference that it was smaller before. That certain chemical compounds break down at certain temperatures, that gravitational fields mold planets make the BB theory plausible.

Reyginus: Why are you still missing it? Science claims the antimatter was generated and annihilated. My position is, where is the proof that it was generated in the first place. On another note, is it possible to create an equillibrium in a system still under entropy?

If I mentioned it was the most expensive thing we could generate, I hope the possibility that it had been produced first before it was deemed expensive crossed your mind? It did (note, not a question). So you want me to see it with my eyes first? If that were the way used to determine if the item really were antimatter, how would I even confirm I was looking at anti-matter? It looks distinctly different from other particles? You do know there are highly trained scientists a lot more suitable than me for that task than me, yes?

Material backed up by logic, peer reviewed doggedly and confirmed to have been produced by scientists from all walks of life, and you want me to physically confirm it before I believe it was produced? I've never seen any electromagnetic waves, or gravitational waves, or a whale, or the planet saturn through a telescope as well. I shouldn't believe that these exist despite the well documented evidence for their existence?

Hmmm. This isn't like my belief in pikkiwokki or yours in god you know? They are not based on faith, let alone blind faith you know? They are not based on 'beliefs' as well actually. They are based on facts, and note that regardless of what I 'believe' or want, these things objectively exist.

As for equilibrum, what does that have to do with anything? Off the top of my head I would have to say.... No. Except if a perfect vacuum (if perfect vacuums exist, ie) counts. But I'm no pro

Kay 17:

Both are phenonema, basically the same problem. If you follow the Big Ban.g theory, you'd see the assumptions and structure which is built on the facts/data we have. We are basically searching for an explanation. However if the facts/data accumulate to a point that undermine the Big Ban.g theory, it becomes discarded.

Though there are many cosmological theories, but big ban.g is rooted to be the best for NOW. Absolutes aren't a luxury.

That the Universe is expanding, betrays an inference that it was smaller before. That certain chemical compounds break down at certain temperatures, that gravitational fields mold planets make the BB theory plausible.

Both don't create the same problem.
Whereas one is still happening, a phase in the other has being completed. If science is basically searching for explanations, why then is it making a claim when their is no explanation. The moment you admit that you are still searching for an explanation, it undermines any explanation being given.
And I still ask, how do you validate a phenomenon that is not yet understood?
And somehow I think you are misfiring. That substances breakdown at certain temperature do not in any way make the big b.ang plausible. Why should a scientific truth be evident by propability in the first place?
If the big b.ang is the beginning, why should it even be made to begin?
Is it logical to posit that the beginning of all things was disintegrated by temperature changes?
Science has not given us any proof to all this, just assumptions.

wiegraf:

As for equilibrum, what does that have to do with anything? Off the top of my head I would have to say.... No. Except if a perfect vacuum (if perfect vacuums exist, ie) counts.

Lol. I am interested in this part. Your link claimed that antimatter come and go out of existence in the beginning. If this is so, how then is it possible that everything in the beginning was a singularity? In other words, can the beginning be both static and dynamic?

So, reyginius,


No one has answered your questions satisfactorily abi?

Logicboy03: So, reyginius,


No one has answered your questions satisfactorily abi?

Everyone has remained blinded by the hypocrisy in science.

Reyginus: Everyone has remained blinded by the hypocrisy in science.

Or you are just deluded?

Logicboy03:




Or you are just deluded?

Haha! Delusion is cheap, I am asking for deluxe.

Reyginus: Lol. I am interested in this part. Your link claimed that antimatter come and go out of existence in the beginning. If this is so, how then is it possible that everything in the beginning was a singularity? In other words, can the beginning be both static and dynamic?

Nobody knows didley squat about before the beginning, if it even exists ie. Well it most exist in a sense, as even if you say nothing existed, 'nothing' is something that existed. Anyhow I'm not too sure what you're asking here but you have to consider uncertainty. Now, ignoring the official version of uncertainty, when I think about it there has to have been a truly random event, a something from nothing event, to spark this universe. If everything were completely ordered, like you seem to have noted with the matter-antimatter balance, everything would be in perfect equilibrum, so where from the unbalance that led to this universe?

So basically, my case is something from nothing, crazy as it sounds, must exist in some form or the other. Heisenbergs uncertainty demonstrates that, the fancy math of bells inequalities point there as well. So..

tl; dr: probably any reality is likely not deterministic. Flux would come from there. My view, no iron clad explanation available I think.



Lol*t the hypocrisy in science comment *smh*

Reyginus: Both don't create the same problem.
Whereas one is still happening, a phase in the other has being completed. If science is basically searching for explanations, why then is it making a claim when their is no explanation. The moment you admit that you are still searching for an explanation, it undermines any explanation being given.
And I still ask, how do you validate a phenomenon that is not yet understood?
And somehow I think you are misfiring. That substances breakdown at certain temperature do not in any way make the big b.ang plausible. Why should a scientific truth be evident by propability in the first place?
If the big b.ang is the beginning, why should it even be made to begin?
Is it logical to posit that the beginning of all things was disintegrated by temperature changes?
Science has not given us any proof to all this, just assumptions.

A cause mutually connected to its effect and vice versa. It is logically not beyond reach to seek out more understanding of the phenonema. Except you believe that in someway, we are severed from understanding the past.

Its the ultimate search is for truth not explanation. The big ban.g relates to the beginning of this Universe, there could be many more but I don't believe such. So it is not the beginning of all things, just follow the scientific arguments as they are, don't add your jara. Cos if you do, you will not understand it.

I wanted to explain deutriums, but I don't like the technical talk much.

I dropped out of the thread for a a day or two and look what has happened. Some rètards have gotten it into their heads that they can refute the big bàng theory even though they don't even have a basic understanding of what it means or how it was arrived at.

Reading Nairaland these days is like watching the Jerry Springer show. You sit down, laugh at the crazy people and thank the FSM that you're not one of them.

wiegraf:

Nobody knows didley squat about before the beginning, if it even exists ie. Well it most exist in a sense, as even if you say nothing existed, 'nothing' is something that existed. Anyhow I'm not too sure what you're asking here but you have to consider uncertainty. Now, ignoring the official version of uncertainty, when I think about it there has to have been a truly random event, a something from nothing event, to spark this universe. If everything were completely ordered, like you seem to have noted with the matter-antimatter balance, everything would be in perfect equilibrum, so where from the unbalance that led to this universe?

So basically, my case is something from nothing, crazy as it sounds, must exist in some form or the other. Heisenbergs uncertainty demonstrates that, the fancy math of bells inequalities point there as well. So..

tl; dr: probably any reality is likely not deterministic. Flux would come from there. My view, no iron clad explanation available I think.



Lol*t the hypocrisy in science comment *smh*

Lol. What are you doing? Are you throwing my question back to me or what?
I thought heisenberg was only showing us how limited our knowledge of physical properties at the subatomic level are? How are you now drawing that reality is not deterministic, when when heisenberg is uncertain what happens at that level?

Reyginus: Lol. What are you doing? Are you throwing my question back to me or what?
I thought heisenberg was only showing us how limited our knowledge of physical properties at the subatomic level are? How are you now drawing that reality is not deterministic, when when heisenberg is uncertain what happens at that level?

Wiegraff, I think this guy is a nicer version of Sagamite

Reyginus: Lol. What are you doing? Are you throwing my question back to me or what?
I thought heisenberg was only showing us how limited our knowledge of physical properties at the subatomic level are? How are you now drawing that reality is not deterministic, when when heisenberg is uncertain what happens at that level?

Heisenberg's principle only tells us that by observing an event we have automatically affected it's outcome. It doesn't stop us from anticipating such effects and accounting for them. Modern physicists have found plenty of ways to work around uncertainty. You seem to think that the Uncertainty Principle means that we can never know what is happening at subatomic scales which is rubbish.

I advise you to go and read your secondary school physics textbook (I recommend Okeke) before you post again so that you at least have a clue what you're talking about.

Kay 17:

A cause mutually connected to its effect and vice versa. It is logically not beyond reach to seek out more understanding of the phenonema. Except you believe that in someway, we are severed from understanding the past.

Its the ultimate search is for truth not explanation. The big ban.g relates to the beginning of this Universe, there could be many more but I don't believe such. So it is not the beginning of all things, just follow the scientific arguments as they are, don't add your jara. Cos if you do, you will not understand it.

I wanted to explain deutriums, but I don't like the technical talk much.

A cause must always be connected to the effect. That is cheap. The difficult thing is:
1. It is not possible to know the cause when you don't know the laws governing the system before it was caused.
2. It is not also possible to decipher the immediate effect of a cause you were not observing. We can never be sure that the expansion of the universe was the immediate effect of the gigantic explosion.
That said. What I think is, we will never know exactly what happened. We will have to accept assumptions based on calculations for now. Science is limited in understanding, never you think it has the answer to everything.
The problem with science is that it tries to do the work of philosophers.

.

.

.

.

.

Evil Brain:

Heisenberg's principle only tells us that by observing an event we have automatically affected it's outcome. It doesn't stop us from anticipating such effects and accounting for them. Modern physicists have found plenty of ways to work around uncertainty. You seem to think that the Uncertainty Principle means that we can never know what is happening at subatomic scales which is rubbish.

I advise you to go and read your secondary school physics textbook (I recommend Okeke) before you post again so that you at least have a clue what you're talking about.

Here comes another scientist.
How do you explain this principle in relation to metaphysical and microphysics level to begin with?
Anyakoha can help you.

Reygnius the questioner

Logicboy03:


Wiegraff, I think this guy is a nicer version of Sagamite

But @sagamite is genuinely stoopid. The real deal. He's like an atheist(not sure if atheist though, as again I cannot understand how he was able to escape xtianity) @vedax. @Reyg just has a very strong case of the delusion.

Reyginus: Lol. What are you doing? Are you throwing my question back to me or what?
I thought heisenberg was only showing us how limited our knowledge of physical properties at the subatomic level are? How are you now drawing that reality is not deterministic, when when heisenberg is uncertain what happens at that level?

You aren't mixing up uncertainty with the observer effect, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29

Difference between that and uncertainty

"Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer."

Look at the bold. Without any measurement, observer etc, so long as quarks etc interact, there is uncertainty. You cannot accurately determine the state of the system, or accurately predict (ie 100%) what will happen, even on paper, under any condition. So no, this world is not deterministic, it only looks so.

Everything is made of quarks and what not, everything is both a wave and particle, you don't notice these on the macroscopic level (obviously) but once you get to smaller sizes, strangeness ensues. Weird things like walking through walls happen all the time, unpredictably. Energy is borrowed from and immediately balanced out by

Read it up for yourself though, I'm no pro.

Evil Brain: I dropped out of the thread for a a day or two and look what has happened. Some rètards have gotten it into their heads that they can refute the big bàng theory even though they don't even have a basic understanding of what it means or how it was arrived at.

Reading Nairaland these days is like watching the Jerry Springer show. You sit down, laugh at the crazy people and thank the FSM that you're not one of them.

Long shall this be remembered

Logicboy03:


Gravity

and you think it just happened all by itself. The problem here is too much knowledge. You are full of it already. I prefer ignorance. It has only brought pain not the liberation you think you are seeing. The liberation is just in your mind. Buh look around and within. I hope you see.

edogho: and you think it just happened all by itself. The problem here is too much knowledge. You are full of it already. I prefer ignorance. It has only brought pain not the liberation you think you are seeing. The liberation is just in your mind. Buh look around and within. I hope you see.