Cosmology is now a religion.

[Greylorn Ell]

The original description of Big Bang theory involved running our expanding universe backwards in time, in our imaginations of course, and thinking about where it might end up. This would be the starting point for our universe.

The original starting point was said to be a tiny particle of mass-energy smaller than a proton, but still dimensionally finite. After years of futile attempts to define the size of this micro-pea, cosmologists gave up. A decade or so ago they changed their tune and declared it to be a "singularity."

A singularity is a mathematical concept, not a physical concept. Any equation in which a possible divisor can become zero represents a singularity. One divided by zero does the job, or the tangent of 90 degrees. A singularity within an equation means that the solution becomes infinite-- that is, indefinable. While singularities are common enough in mathematics, any physics student who derives an equation containing a singularity will receive an "F" for his failed efforts.

However, these grading standards do not apply to professors. Some of them have declared that the micro-pea (my word, not theirs), the precursor to the Big Bang, was a singularity. Yet, physical singularities do not exist. No equation can break down such a thing into definable components. If a real physical singularity existed somewhere today, it could not be detected by any methods of physics. Its potential whereabouts can only be guessed at. In fact, the very concept of "whereabouts" cannot be applied to such a thing. The properties of a physical singularity cannot be objectively or mathematically determined.

The only people who can tell us about the properties of their fictitious singularity are the professors who invented it.

Thus, the physical singularity touted by cosmologists is identical to a concept that had traditionally been the province of religion-- the notion of "spirit." The almighty God of Christianity is a spirit. Like a so-called physical singularity, God cannot be located or defined in any of the terms by which we measure the real physical universe.

The only people who can tell us about the properties of their almighty God are the priests who invented it.

Science and religion are running neck and neck in a silly sack race because they are sharing the same sack.

[Cerveny]

Agreement:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9654&start=2
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=10153&start=58

[jackles]

god caused somthin to move out of nothin so the moveing stuff is still being moved by the nothin.in other words god is nonlocality and caused locality which has to move to move .nonlocality caused stuff to move and still keeps cuasing the same old stuff to move.thats stuffs called galaxies and other names by observers livin on a bit of the moveing stuff.when an observer measures the top speed of stuff they find that somethin of there self aint moveing.gosh somthing aint moveing what can it be that aint movein.?only the mover of the stuff aint movein.observer thinks i must be part of the mover movein the the top speed stuff im measurin.golly gosh i aint being moved im part of the mover thats doin the movin of the stuff im measuring.

[uwot]

Good to hear from you, Greylorn. I thought you had left us. I'm sure you can appreciate that someone who is too tight to blow 28 quid on something they do not believe would enlighten them is unlikely to fork out for a transatlantic airline ticket for a chinwag, but if you are ever in Ealing, I will cheerfully share your beer and cigars and tell you why your ideas are bollocks to your face.
This latest post of yours is a straw man. As you say;

The original description of Big Bang theory involved running our expanding universe backwards in time, in our imaginations of course, and thinking about where it might end up. This would be the starting point for our universe.

The original starting point was said to be a tiny particle of mass-energy smaller than a proton, but still dimensionally finite. After years of futile attempts to define the size of this micro-pea, cosmologists gave up. A decade or so ago they changed their tune and declared it to be a "singularity."

There is no consensus on the initial conditions of the Big Bang. There is no "they" in the sense of 'every post-doctoral physicist on the planet' as you seem to suggest.

[jackles]

ha ha.wots gon wrong uwot you was on side at one stage.ha

[Ginkgo]

ha ha.wots gon wrong uwot you was on side at one stage.ha

I am sure uwot can speak for himself, but is seems to me all he is doing is acknowledging the fact that there are some dissident scientists who say some pretty silly things at times, but this doesn't mean their view reflects the view of the establishment.

[uwot]

ha ha.wots gon wrong uwot you was on side at one stage.ha

jackles, me old China, I don't know what side you think I was on; but I wasn't.

I am sure uwot can speak for himself, but is seems to me all he is doing is acknowledging the fact that there are some dissident scientists who say some pretty silly things at times, but this doesn't mean their view reflects the view of the establishment.

Actually, no. What I am saying is that there are scientists with different opinions about what for now, at least for practical reasons, is metaphysical. The same 'establishment' can accommodate, for example, loop quantum gravity and string theory. However, if your job is to keep GPS satellites in position, you'd better know your General Relativity.

[HexHammer]

Don't be silly it's not a religion per se, but too many scientists can take it religiously.

[jackles]

hex you always sound like some one whos pick the wrong song sheet up on the way in.dont know what the reason is cos ya right on topic hear.

[Ginkgo]

Actually, no. What I am saying is that there are scientists with different opinions about what for now, at least for practical reasons, is metaphysical. The same 'establishment' can accommodate, for example, loop quantum gravity and string theory. However, if your job is to keep GPS satellites in position, you'd better know your General Relativity.

Fair enough,but in respect to the question of the so called "initial singularity". Do you think the ontological status in terms of a physical or non-physical substance is in wide dispute?

[uwot]

Fair enough,but in respect to the question of the so called "initial singularity". Do you think the ontological status in terms of a physical or non-physical substance is in wide dispute?

Do I think physicists are doing philosophy? I think you recently mentioned colliding 'branes', for example.
The idea that the universe is getting bigger and, as Greylorn Ell pointed out, by extrapolation used to be much smaller is not seriously doubted. As I understand it, there is sound evidence of the sort of conditions that might have existed at tiny fractions of a second after any 'Big Bang' from high energy collisions in particle colliders. The trail is empirical down to a very tiny thing, but like you say, officially at least, physics isn't in the business of first causes. There is no obvious point to start the Big Bang, I mentioned Bertrand Russell's 5 minute old universe and while it seems fatuous, any time or size greater than zero has a structure that needs explaining. The most parsimonious conclusion is that it popped out of nowhere, but I don't know of any physicist bold enough to insist that there are no possible alternatives.

[Cerveny]

ha ha.wots gon wrong uwot you was on side at one stage.ha

jackles, me old China, I don't know what side you think I was on; but I wasn't.

I am sure uwot can speak for himself, but is seems to me all he is doing is acknowledging the fact that there are some dissident scientists who say some pretty silly things at times, but this doesn't mean their view reflects the view of the establishment.

Actually, no. What I am saying is that there are scientists with different opinions about what for now, at least for practical reasons, is metaphysical. The same 'establishment' can accommodate, for example, loop quantum gravity and string theory. However, if your job is to keep GPS satellites in position, you'd better know your General Relativity.

GPS is not related to the GTR at all. See e.g. http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
As for BB: Before the Big Bang was merely the future, not causal, timeless phase of reality. Universe was created, as the ice on the water with the onset of winter rises... BB and the "future" are the "Goedel's" limits of our physics...

[uwot]

GPS is not related to the GTR at all.

I'll take your word for it.

As for BB: Before the Big Bang was merely the future, not causal, timeless phase of reality. Universe was created, as the ice on the water with the onset of winter rises... BB and the "future" are the "Goedel's" limits of our physics...

Er, but not for that. It's a nice enough story, Cerveny, what evidence do you think supports it, and only it?

[HexHammer]

GPS relies heavily on SRT, on Einsteins understanding of Dialation and Lengthcontraction, tho GPS are not that accurate at the poles, where the Russian version of GPS are much more accurate.

[uwot]

GPS relies heavily on SRT.

Fancy that. Oh well:

if your job is to keep GPS satellites in position, you'd better know your Special Relativity.