Philosophy Now Forum

Here I am giving my take on why scientists first posited a big bang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

It's got redshifts and BIG BANGS ... but what you video doesn't have yet is a helpful comment from Ken to tell us how incredibly simple it is to find out you are totally wrong, incorrect and a 3rd thing that is the same as those two.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:38 pm It's got redshifts and BIG BANGS ... but what you video doesn't have yet is a helpful comment from Ken to tell us how incredibly simple it is to find out you are totally wrong, incorrect and a 3rd thing that is the same as those two.

Give him 24 hours.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:17 pm Here I am giving my take on why scientists first posited a big bang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

A well done presentation of a popular theory.

Spacetime is not fundamental

Spacetime is doomed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pup3s86oJXU

uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:48 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:38 pm It's got redshifts and BIG BANGS ... but what you video doesn't have yet is a helpful comment from Ken to tell us how incredibly simple it is to find out you are totally wrong, incorrect and a 3rd thing that is the same as those two.

Give him 24 hours.

Is 24 hours up yet?

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:39 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:17 pm Here I am giving my take on why scientists first posited a big bang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

A well done presentation of a popular theory.

Thank you. Yes, it's a popular theory because it has very strong supporting evidence.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:39 amSpacetime is not fundamental

Spacetime is doomed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pup3s86oJXU

'Spacetime' is different things in different circumstances. In practical terms it's basically a map with three dimensions to show you where something is, relative to a point of your choosing, with the added constraint of time. So not only can you identify a location, you can describe what happens there.
In the video Nima Arkani-Hamed is talking about spacetime the substance, as conceived in general relativity. Einstein's conception was of an inherently smooth 'æther' (Oh yes it was: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/E ... ein_ether/ ) This is often illustrated with a flat rubber sheet that is distorted when objects are placed on it. Insofar as a rubber sheet can be a useful analogy, in reality the surface is seething, and the whole sheet is growing. So yes, Einstein's original static ethereal idea is dead, but the map is still useful.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:17 pm Here I am giving my take on why scientists first posited a big bang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

Finally confirmation of a theory of mine, that the universe started with a very compressed alphabet, most likely alphabet spaghetti. I think the sceptics God is true, the spaghetti meatball monster created the alphabet spaghetti and hence the hypothesis of string theory.

...you have a very soothing voice, next time I'll drink some coffee and watch it to the end, well done Will.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:38 pm It's got redshifts and BIG BANGS ... but what you video doesn't have yet is a helpful comment from Ken to tell us how incredibly simple it is to find out you are totally wrong, incorrect and a 3rd thing that is the same as those two.

If it is Wrong AND Incorrect, which it IS, then it is ALSO False.

As has ALREADY been, IRREFUTABLY, PROVED True.

Oh, which was done VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY, by the way.

Because of WHAT the Universe ACTUALLY IS, and HOW It ACTUALLY WORKS, ANY attempt at 'trying to' CLAIM that the Universe BEGAN, from NOTHING, which the 'big bang' THEORY 'tries to' do, will, obviously, NEVER work.

Also, so-called "scientists" can posit absolutely ANY thing, just like OTHER ones who belong in OTHER 'religious sects' do, BUT WHY these ones first posited the RIDICULOUS 'big bang' THEORY is for the EXACT SAME reasons "others" first posit OTHER ABSURD 'theories' and CLAIMS.

WHY some so-called "scientists"

Ah LOOK, in less than 12 hours.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 7:51 am

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:39 am

uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:17 pm Here I am giving my take on why scientists first posited a big bang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

A well done presentation of a popular theory.

Thank you. Yes, it's a popular theory because it has very strong supporting evidence.

'supporting evidence', LOL let alone a 'very strong' one.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 7:51 am

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 4:39 amSpacetime is not fundamental

Spacetime is doomed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pup3s86oJXU

'Spacetime' is different things in different circumstances. In practical terms it's basically a map with three dimensions to show you where something is, relative to a point of your choosing, with the added constraint of time. So not only can you identify a location, you can describe what happens there.
In the video Nima Arkani-Hamed is talking about spacetime the substance, as conceived in general relativity. Einstein's conception was of an inherently smooth 'æther' (Oh yes it was: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/E ... ein_ether/ ) This is often illustrated with a flat rubber sheet that is distorted when objects are placed on it. Insofar as a rubber sheet can be a useful analogy, in reality the surface is seething, and the whole sheet is growing.

ONCE AGAIN, you speak as though the THEORY has ALREADY been PROVED True or Correct. Which is TOTALLY LAUGHABLE.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 7:51 am So yes, Einstein's original static ethereal idea is dead, but the map is still useful.

A TYPICAL response from one who likes to use words, as though they are ACTUALLY True and Correct.

That is; just CHANGE the definition of the word, to "make" it work in with what they ALREADY BELIEVE is IRREFUTABLY True and Right.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:17 pm Here I am giving my take on why scientists first posited a big bang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

You STILL write that there was a BEGINNING to the Universe. Which is ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE, considering the Facts here.

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 9:13 amBecause of WHAT the Universe ACTUALLY IS, and HOW It ACTUALLY WORKS, ANY attempt at 'trying to' CLAIM that the Universe BEGAN, from NOTHING, which the 'big bang' THEORY 'tries to' do, will, obviously, NEVER work.

Age, there are many theories about conditions prior to the big bang. Few, if any cosmologists insist the visible universe came out of nothing. Nor do I. You are wasting everybody's time by arguing against a point I am not claiming. We simply don't know how the universe got here, but the evidence is that it is expanding and the extrapolation is that it has been doing so for nearly 14 billion years. Galactic redshift is a demonstrable phenomenon, illustrated by spectroscopy and neatly explained by the Doppler effect. Now, you may interpret the evidence differently, but if you insist the evidence does not exist, you are simply wrong.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 9:17 pm Here I am giving my take on why scientists first posited a big bang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXW6TD2TpLU

"It is safe to say the Universe is big". LOL in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

"finding evidence the Universe used to be much, much smaller". LOL How, EXACTLY, do you define 'the Universe'?

"In a few 'local galaxies', the light is shifted to the blue end of the spectrum. But in the vast majority it is shifted to the red end". So, the "very strong supporting evidence" would be that 'local galaxies' are shrinking or contracting, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, because it is ASSUMED that what happens or occurs in one part of the Universe, then the SAME would happen and occur in ALL parts of the Universe so then, in ALL parts of the Universe, the Universe is shrinking, or contracting.

"it sounds weird but that is what happens when things expand". ONCE AGAIN, an EXPANDING Universe, like a BEGINNING One has ALREADY been concluded. In case you are STILL UNAWARE, PROOF is ACTUALLY NEEDED before 'things' can be concluded to be ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct.

'you' and your so-called "scientists" friends seem to ALREADY BELIEVE that there WAS 'a beginning', and are just LOOKING for 'evidence' for this BELIEF.

Talk about 'religion', and religious BELIEFS, influencing almost a whole species.

How about 'you', human beings, FINDING the PROOF that there WAS an ACTUAL 'beginning', BEFORE you even BEGIN STARTING to TALK as though there was one? If, and WHEN, you do, then what is DISCOVERED is that there could NEVER be 'a beginning' to thee Universe, Itself.

Let us NOT forget that a 'current bun' with currents moving away from each other, under a very specific condition, is NOT thee Universe, Itself. It is just a USELESS analogy. And, conveniently, telling "others" to "never mind the bun for a moment", is, OBVIOUSLY, a deceptive tactic used to FOOL. Just like a "magician", a "snake oil salesperson", or a "politician" USES, when 'trying to' TRICK, FOOL, or PERSUADE "the others".

"As the Universe expands". LOL you have ALREADY CONCLUDED that the Universe EXPANDS. Just like you have ALREADY CONCLUDED that the Universe BEGAN. Seriously, are you trying to EXPLAIN WHY you think SOME people first posited some THEORY, or are you 'trying to' CONVINCE "others" what you BELIEVE is true, that is; the Universe BEGAN, and is EXPANDING?

By the way, the REASON WHY SOME people first posited 'a big bang' is ALREADY KNOWN, and which WAS VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to COME-TO-KNOW.

"it looks like every other galaxy is moving away from you". This only APPEARS to those when they are LOOKING FROM a VERY NARROWED or DISTORTED viewpoint.

From 10:08 10:45 you just get MORE ABSURD to the point where you just CONTRADICT "yourself" COMPLETELY.

ONCE AGAIN, I suggest you TRY AGAIN.

Gentlemen please. Shitehousery on the PN forums is really an overworked meme. You should totally take this to the youtube comments section because that is where great conversation happens.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:11 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 9:13 amBecause of WHAT the Universe ACTUALLY IS, and HOW It ACTUALLY WORKS, ANY attempt at 'trying to' CLAIM that the Universe BEGAN, from NOTHING, which the 'big bang' THEORY 'tries to' do, will, obviously, NEVER work.

Age, there are many theories about conditions prior to the big bang.

SO WHAT?

EACH and EVERY 'theory' will ALWAYS REMAIN 'a theory', which, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT necessarily have ANY resemblance AT ALL to what, ACTUALLY, IS.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:11 am Few, if any cosmologists insist the visible universe came out of nothing. Nor do I.

LOL SO, WHY do 'you' AND 'they' KEEP referring to and USING the 'term' "in the beginning"?

You could NOT get MORE CONTRADICTORY.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:11 am You are wasting everybody's time by arguing against a point I am not claiming.

WHY do you continually STATE, and CLAIM, things like: "at the beginning of the Universe".

ALSO, WHY use the phrase, "the visible universe" here, now?

LISTEN, just be Honest. Do you CLAIM that the Universe BEGAN or NOT?

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:11 am We simply don't know how the universe got here,

YOU do NOT YET KNOW because YOU are LOOKING AT this whole subject from a VERY DISTORTED, NARROWED, or CLOSED VIEWPOINT.

I KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here, which, by the way, can NEVER be REFUTED. This is because of the ACTUAL PROOF that I HAVE, and which IS IRREFUTABLE.

Even your USE of the words "got here" SHOWS just how BLINDED you ARE, which came from the ACTUAL BELIEF you HAVE and HOLD, which can ALSO be CLEARLY SEEN from the USE of the words you CHOOSE to USE.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:11 am but the evidence is that it is expanding and the extrapolation is that it has been doing so for nearly 14 billion years.

What you call "evidence" is just CONFIRMATION BIAS, which EXISTS because of the BELIEF you and "others" HAVE and HOLD. That is; the BELIEF that Universe BEGAN.

By the way, 'proof' will ALWAYS OUTWEIGH 'evidence'. ACTUAL 'proof' is IRREFUTABLE.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:11 am Galactic redshift is a demonstrable phenomenon,illustrated by spectroscopy and neatly explained by the Doppler effect.

I KNOW. I INFORMED 'you' of this ALREADY.

The sun APPEARING to move around the earth is ALSO a 'demonstrable phenomenon'. It is ALSO 'evidence' that the sun revolves around the earth, which was ALSO a BELIEF for some of 'you', human beings, well for a while anyway.

Just like the BELIEF that the Universe EXPANDS, based upon the "evidence", from SOME galaxies APPEARING to be moving away from each other, will ALSO last for a while. That is UNTIL 'you', human beings, evolve more, or just MATURE.

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 10:11 am Now, you may interpret the evidence differently, but if you insist the evidence does not exist, you are simply wrong.

LOL I have NEVER even IMPLIED, let alone INSISTED, that that "evidence" does NOT exist. This is just ANOTHER of your DEFLECTIVE, and/or DECEPTIVE, tactics.

And, as I have SAID PREVIOUSLY, it is YOUR INTERPRETATIONS that are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong.