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?


.

[Sherlock Holmes]

.


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?


.

Yes that's interesting but it raises three points for me:

1. That the initial state needs to be a singularity seems to show that the theory is incorrect, singularities are universally taken as meaning an incorrect theory.
2. The origin of that initial state is impossible to determine scientifically, only a supernatural event could lead to it starting to exist.
3. Why does the host pronounce "epoch" as "epic" and not "epock" ? seems its a U.S. oddity.

[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?


.

Yes that's interesting but it raises three points for me:

1a. That the initial state needs to be a singularity seems to show that the theory is incorrect,

Don't see any "need" at all. It's simply what has come out of a well-documented, well supported, and well-substantiated explanation of current observations. Got a better explanation that fits current observations? Then I suggest getting in contact with a cosmology department such as those at Princeton or Stanford University.

1b. singularities are universally taken as meaning an incorrect theory.

Really! Care to cite a few such declarations?

2a. The origin of that initial state is impossible to determine scientifically,

And you know this to be a fact because ________________________________________________________________ .

2b. only a supernatural event could lead to it starting to exist.

Sure sounds like a False Dilemma fallacy to me. And heck, the supernatural itself is no more than a "pie in the sky" presumption without an iota of verifiable evidence to back it up.

3. Why does the host pronounce "epoch" as "epic" and not "epock" ? seems its a U.S. oddity.

Because in the USA it's the most common pronunciation, just as its British pronunciation "epock" is likely the most common in GB.


.

[brunumb]

1. That the initial state needs to be a singularity seems to show that the theory is incorrect, singularities are universally taken as meaning an incorrect theory.

But somehow an invented god-being that is immaterial, infinite and super-powerful is no problem at all.

2. The origin of that initial state is impossible to determine scientifically, only a supernatural event could lead to it starting to exist.

When we don't know what could or could not have happened based on our current limited knowledge and understanding, invoke the supernatural.

3. Why does the host pronounce "epoch" as "epic" and not "epock" ? seems its a U.S. oddity.

Why would someone keep using the word supernatural when they really mean magic?

[Sherlock Holmes]

.


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?


.

Yes that's interesting but it raises three points for me:

1a. That the initial state needs to be a singularity seems to show that the theory is incorrect,

Don't see any "need" at all. It's simply what has come out of a well-documented, well supported, and well-substantiated explanation of current observations. Got a better explanation that fits current observations? Then I suggest getting in contact with a cosmology department such as those at Princeton or Stanford University.

1b. singularities are universally taken as meaning an incorrect theory.

Really! Care to cite a few such declarations?

2a. The origin of that initial state is impossible to determine scientifically,

And you know this to be a fact because ________________________________________________________________ .

2b. only a supernatural event could lead to it starting to exist.

Sure sounds like a False Dilemma fallacy to me. And heck, the supernatural itself is no more than a "pie in the sky" presumption without an iota of verifiable evidence to back it up.

3. Why does the host pronounce "epoch" as "epic" and not "epock" ? seems its a U.S. oddity.

Because in the USA it's the most common pronunciation, just as its British pronunciation "epock" is likely the most common in GB.


.

Listen to a theoretical cosmologist who has written extensively about this and related areas.

[Sherlock Holmes]

1. That the initial state needs to be a singularity seems to show that the theory is incorrect, singularities are universally taken as meaning an incorrect theory.

But somehow an invented god-being that is immaterial, infinite and super-powerful is no problem at all.

2. The origin of that initial state is impossible to determine scientifically, only a supernatural event could lead to it starting to exist.

When we don't know what could or could not have happened based on our current limited knowledge and understanding, invoke the supernatural.

3. Why does the host pronounce "epoch" as "epic" and not "epock" ? seems its a U.S. oddity.

Why would someone keep using the word supernatural when they really mean magic?

Very well, I understand, this has no prospect of developing into a serious conversation between us, as you wish.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Why would someone keep using the word supernatural when they really mean magic?

Very well, I understand, this has no prospect of developing into a serious conversation between us, as you wish.

How "serious" can a conversation be when one invokes the supernatural, or magic, as a "serious" explanation?

[Sherlock Holmes]

...
Why would someone keep using the word supernatural when they really mean magic?

Very well, I understand, this has no prospect of developing into a serious conversation between us, as you wish.

How "serious" can a conversation be when one invokes the supernatural, or magic, as a "serious" explanation?

Well you'll now, never find out will you...

[Sherlock Holmes]

1b. singularities are universally taken as meaning an incorrect theory.

Really! Care to cite a few such declarations?

Of course:

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Why would someone keep using the word supernatural when they really mean magic?

Very well, I understand, this has no prospect of developing into a serious conversation between us, as you wish.

How "serious" can a conversation be when one invokes the supernatural, or magic, as a "serious" explanation?

Well you'll now, never find out will you...

What we may find though, is that you might well prefer to avoid fussing this out with anyone who don't toe em your theological party line.