1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Let's free the Physics!

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by questfortruth, Aug 17, 2020.

  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    4,921
    Ratings:
    +786
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
  2. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    14,187
    Ratings:
    +12,631
    Religion:
    Humanist
    No, one of the key tenants of science is that it HAS to be repeatable.
    Miracles by their very nature are not repeatable
     
  3. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    4,921
    Ratings:
    +786
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    but the freedom function is absolutely necessary: science can not work without it.
     
  4. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    46,061
    Ratings:
    +42,703
    Religion:
    None
    And it still must be repeatable, i.e. free X must equal free X each time measured/observed.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    4,921
    Ratings:
    +786
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Who has told you, that Big Bang must be repeatable?!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Secret Chief

    Secret Chief Northern scum

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    13,577
    Ratings:
    +12,885
    Religion:
    zen
    tenants? ;)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    14,187
    Ratings:
    +12,631
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Too many beers before tea
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    14,187
    Ratings:
    +12,631
    Religion:
    Humanist
    It is free, as long as it is repeatable
     
  9. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    14,187
    Ratings:
    +12,631
    Religion:
    Humanist
    The Big Bang is not absolutely proven; but yes, that would have to be repeatable too. Although pretty hard to set up an experiment to demonstrate the repeatability.
     
  10. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    46,061
    Ratings:
    +42,703
    Religion:
    None
    Who is to say it isn't?

    And of course the bb is not a laboratory experiment, if is as far as we know unique in this universe and at the time of the BB, natural universal laws did not exist so your free x is irrelevant.
     
  11. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    15,594
    Ratings:
    +15,935
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    It's the observations on which the theory is based that have to be repeatable (reproducible, in fact). Nobody can "repeat" a theory, which is a model for how nature seems to behave.

    In the case of the Big Bang the observational evidence is things such as the red shift and the CMBR. Both of these have been observed reproducibly many times, by many people.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
  12. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    8,211
    Ratings:
    +3,256
    Religion:
    Atheist
    He didn't say it had to be repeatable....but the measurements of the results of the big bang (all of the universe) must be repeatable.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. sun rise

    sun rise "This is the Hour of God"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    70,519
    Ratings:
    +35,563
    Religion:
    Love/Omnism
    I 100% don't accept that assertion.
     
  14. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    9,240
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Religion:
    Something else
    What is this freedom function?
     
  15. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    211,477
    Ratings:
    +79,726
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I'm a big fan of this.
    Now science can study fairies, nymphs, demons, gods, astral
    planes, boogeymen, homunculi, cherubs, gargoyles, fiscally
    conservative Democrats, & other magical beings.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,668
    Ratings:
    +5,964
    Religion:
    Pi π
    You don’t understand what @Altfish and @ChristineM meant by “repeatable”, questfortruth.

    It meant observations, which come in the forms of evidence or tests (eg test result that provide measurements as data, in the experiments).

    In the case, of the Big Bang, which you have brought up, astrophysicists in the 1920s, 1948 and 80s & 90s, formulated both explanations and predictions that fulfilled the requirements of being “observed”.

    In the 1920s, both Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25) and Georges Lemaître (1927) have predicted that the Redshifts can be used to determine if two distant objects (eg 2 galaxies) were moving away from each other, by looking at and comparing the absorption lines of the wavelengths, to see if wavelengths have lengthened or shortened.

    If the comparisons of absorption lines showed the wavelengths have shift towards red end of spectrum, then it is “redshifted”, which is an indication that objects are moving towards each other, hence expansion.

    But if these absorption lines have shift toward the blue end of spectrum, then it is “blueshifted”, an indicator that objects are towards each other, hence contraction.

    The measurements of Redshifts can be used with the Hubble Law, to calculate the distance (normally given in Astronomical Unit (AU) instead of light year) between observed object (eg galaxy, nebula, star, etc) and the Observer.

    Such measurements provide evidence for the expanding universe model (which was later called the Big Bang theory in 1949), and in 1929, Edwin Hubble made the discovery.

    Redshifts are important measurements even to this day, in astronomy, and used by hundreds of observatories, as well as space observatories, since the first discovery. Hence, REPEATABILITY of observations, since the original 1920s predictions of Robertson and Lemaître, have been made.

    Later, in 1948, a team of astrophysicists (George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman) explain the hot and young beginning of the universe, and Gamow and Alpher predicted the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and Alpher and Herman predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

    Both predictions are related to the formations of matters or atomic nuclei of the lightest atoms available (eg hydrogen, deuterium and helium nuclei) when the universe was young:
    1. without electrons bonded to the nuclei in the BBN prediction,
    2. with electrons bonded to nuclei in the CMBR prediction.
    When the electrons bonded with ionized atoms for the first time, the hydrogen, deuterium and helium became electrically neutral, 377,000 years after the Big Bang (known as the Recombination Epoch). At the same time, the universe was cool enough for photons to travel freely in transparent space, AND it caused residual heat signatures (temperature) that can be measured from the highly redshifted cosmic background radiation.

    CMBR are the earliest photons that can be observed, which is older than lights from the earliest quasars and earliest stars.

    CMBR was later discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who were setting up radio telescope.

    Since then, other radio telescopes including space observatories like COBE, more recent WMAP and Planck spacecraft were able to map space for CMBR, at higher resolution. Hence, repeatability of the observation.

    It was 1964 discovery is what turn the Big Bang model from “Hypothesis” into officially accepted “Scientific Theory”.

    Then there was in 1980s, a more recent contribution to the Big Bang theory, the ΛCDM model (Lambda-CDM model). The Greek letter Λ stands for “Dark Energy”, while CDM is abbreviation for “Cold Dark Matter”.

    Part of premises made in this newer model, is the prediction that the universe is not only still EXPANDING, but the expansion has also “accelerated”.

    Now, I know there are lot of skeptics about the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, but the observation of Type 1a Supernova in 1998, confirmed that the universe was indeed accelerating in its expansion.

    Since 1998, other observations confirmed the prediction that the acceleration of the expansion. Hence, the observation meet REPEATABILITY requirements.

    Observation don’t just mean “seeing with the eye” observation. Observation can include detecting, measuring and testing unseen phenomena, using devices that can detect and measure.

    Like for instance, multimeters can detect electricity, and measure the current, voltage, power and resistance in electrical components or wiring. Meteorologists have various equipments designed to measure not only temperature, but also measure humidity, air pressures, wind speed, etc.

    In medical science, genetics, any biology-related fields, and even in forensics, we cannot observe and measure with eyesight because some things are too small to see, so they relied on various techniques and technology to check blood samples, semen samples, and other specimens, for testings, eg illnesses, diseases, sugar levels, cholesterol levels, DNA, etc.

    In astronomy, we not only have optical telescopes to view distant objects from visible light spectrum, but also from infrared, ultraviolet, microwave, x-ray and gamma-ray wavelengths in radio astronomy. We cannot see neutrinos, but we can measure them coming from the sun, or from other stars.

    We use all sorts of technology of devices and equipment that can observe/detect, measure and test, repeatedly, which our eyesight, hearing and touch cannot perceive. We also used computers that do calculations at higher speed and with higher precision.

    We can use technology to assist with research, investigation and testing, to find/discover evidence.

    You really need to understand what science means by repeatable.
     
    #16 gnostic, Aug 17, 2020
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 2
  17. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,190
    Ratings:
    +583
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    This OP is about "setting the physics free" and not just cementing old ideas and assumptions. Have you ever tried to falsify all these cosmological dogmas for yourself? Have you ever searched for articles which falsifies these dogmas?
     
    #17 Native, Aug 18, 2020
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  18. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,668
    Ratings:
    +5,964
    Religion:
    Pi π
    questfortruth had asked a question about the Big Bang being "repeatable".

    So I replied with clarification of what ChristineM and Altfish meant by "repeatable" in science, with examples of evidence or observation that are repeatable.

    One of the things that determine what is science or what isn't science, is by examining and testing every observation or evidence, as a mean of verification.

    So finding multiple evidence or being able to perform multiple experiments are requirement.

    Only people who are against seeking answers PLUS verification, are those who believe in religious or spiritual woo and myths, which don't need verification.

    If you want to accept myths as your truth, that's your choice, but if someone going to ask a question, then I will answer it, regardless if you agree with me or not, because my reply was to questfortruth, it was never addressed to you.

    And BTW, I was a former civil engineer, and currently a computer programmer, so I am not astrophysicist, nor a scientist, so why would I need to falsify the physical cosmology, when that's not my job.

    But all the evidence are available for viewing, discoveries made public, in regarding to the Big Bang. Works have already being done, so why would I need to falsify something that have already been FALSIFIED!

    You are being absurd, if you are going to ignore the evidence just because it doesn't meet up with your silly myths.

    Are you astrophysicist? You seem very interested in believing the ancient myths of the Milky Way, and tried to mix it with parts of modern science that you do accept and parts that you don't accept?

    You have been pushing your beliefs about the Milky Way, as if your own belief and assumption were facts.

    Have you falsify your myths in regarding to the Milky Way's origin?
     
  19. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,190
    Ratings:
    +583
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Obviously you conflate "assumptions" as evidences and by accepting the unfalsifyable "Big Bang" as the main cause of everything, all your other noted "evidences" are just scientific ad hoc assumptions and nothing else.
    So, you think it is your job just to repeat the assumptions of "standard cosmology" without thinking of the contents and whether the scientific method is done correcly?
    Conflating "Big Bang" assumptions for "evidences" once again.
    And what then about the woo of "a primordial atom which created everything in a Big Bang" which even cannot be verificated scientifically? Even the better of ancient Myths of Creation are not that superstitious.
    I´m not ignoring evidences at all. I´m just questioning the logics of standard cosmology.
    This is the very process of making logical sense. Of course I take what I can use as confirmations - both from modern cosmological observations and from the mythical texts.
    You keep forgetting that the ancient myths are not "my own beliefs" but a collective knowledge of which you can read from all relevant encyclopedias. When a myth for instants refers to the Milky Way, of course I take it for granted. (Contrary to you who just ignores such texts)
    Of course I have and I´m doing this process frequently when dealing with ancient Myths of Creation.
     
    #19 Native, Aug 19, 2020
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2020
  20. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,668
    Ratings:
    +5,964
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Why do you talk of science when you have no idea what you are talking about?

    You talk of "falsifiable" and "unfalsifiable", but it is very apparent that you have no idea what they mean.

    Being falsifiable doesn’t mean a model is true or false, Native. What it really means by falsifiable is that the explanatory model is TESTABLE, regardless if it is true or false.

    So if there are observations or evidence, then that model is falsifiable...EVEN IF those evidence or observations happened to REFUTE the model.

    As long as there are evidence, regarding if the evidence support or don’t support the hypothesis or theory, the hypothesis or theory is still falsifiable.

    The only time, when a model is UNFALSIFIABLE, is when there are ZERO EVIDENCE or ZERO OBSERVATION or ZERO TESTS.

    An unfalsifiable model is a model THAT IS UNTESTABLE!

    And in the case of the Big Bang theory, it is falsifiable, not unfalsifiable, because there have been testable observation and evidence, for examples, Redshift and CMBR.

    Astronomers, astrophysicists have been using them for decades, since their first discoveries, respectively in 1929 (discovered by Hubble) and 1964 (discovered by Penzias and Wilson).

    You have some observatories that are devoted to detecting and measuring redshifts of galaxies, known as galaxy redshift survey. And there are telescopes equipped to detect CMBR, measure the remnant temperatures, eg COBE, WMAP and Planck.

    The only way for you to claim that the Big Bang theory is unfalsifiable is to wish away the decades of evidence and data, as if they don’t exist.

    All you have done (what I have quoted from you, above) is prove that you are clueless as to what “falsifiable” mean.
     
Loading...