.
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?
.
The Big Bang And The First Atom
Moderator: Moderators
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom
Post #41This is a fascinating lecture on the origin of the universe, what we know and what we don't what we can infer and what we can't.
Any replies that comment upon the speaker, his manner of speaking, his presumed beliefs be they religious, political, racial, his likes or dislikes in art, literature, food etc. will be ignored.
Any replies that want to discuss the person rather than what the person says, his arguments and so on, will be ignored.
Any replies that attack paraphrased statements rather than accurately quoted source material will be ignored.
Any replies that resort to sarcasm instead of using reasoning and logic will be ignored.
With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo, if this is all you have to offer, I'm ignoring you.
I expect certain minimum standards in discussions about science and I am not prepared to drop below those standards, so if you really want to discuss science with me then choose your words carefully.
If I ignore a reply I will respond saying "Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41".
Any replies that comment upon the speaker, his manner of speaking, his presumed beliefs be they religious, political, racial, his likes or dislikes in art, literature, food etc. will be ignored.
Any replies that want to discuss the person rather than what the person says, his arguments and so on, will be ignored.
Any replies that attack paraphrased statements rather than accurately quoted source material will be ignored.
Any replies that resort to sarcasm instead of using reasoning and logic will be ignored.
With all the talk I hear of science around here, it would be nice for once to see some real science posted rather than endless ad-hominem, personal slurs, digs, innuendo, if this is all you have to offer, I'm ignoring you.
I expect certain minimum standards in discussions about science and I am not prepared to drop below those standards, so if you really want to discuss science with me then choose your words carefully.
If I ignore a reply I will respond saying "Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41".
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Mon Feb 07, 2022 9:37 am, edited 5 times in total.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom
Post #42I did so cause it's a good post with pertinent information...Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 12:43 pm Perhaps those people are willing to explain why they thanked you,
...derived from obvious understanding of the material.what you said that they approved of so much,
Your inability to see the connection to the book is a condition you'll just hafta suffer.one thing is clear, it was nothing to do with his book, which was the subject of my post.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom
Post #43"If I ignore a reply, I understand the observer's apt to think I either can't refute it, or that I ignore anything and everthing that doesn't comport to my deeply held sacred beliefs."Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:06 pm If I ignore a reply I will respond saying "Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41".
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom
Post #44Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:39 pm"If I ignore a reply, I understand the observer's apt to think I either can't refute it, or that I ignore anything and everthing that doesn't comport to my deeply held sacred beliefs."Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:06 pm If I ignore a reply I will respond saying "Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41".
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom
Post #45LolSherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:40 pmIgnored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:39 pm"If I ignore a reply, I understand the observer's apt to think I either can't refute it, or that I ignore anything and everthing that doesn't comport to my deeply held sacred beliefs."Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:06 pm If I ignore a reply I will respond saying "Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41".
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom
Post #47[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #40]
Barrow supported the anthropic cosmological principle (wrote a book on it) and "fine tuning" is part of that concept. Fine tuning is an argument associated with a creator via the argument that the various physical constants have the values they do because intelligent life was somehow a plan. Stephen Jay Gould (a paleontologist), called the anthropic principle the latest manifestation of ''that age-old pitfall of western intellectual life - the representation of raw hope gussied up as rationalized reality." Stephen Hawkings described it as ''a counsel of despair.'' Barrow's approach to it was philosophiscal, not scientific, so he did not do anything to support the anthropic principle scientifically. That is not a "vacuous assertion" (another of your many thinly veiled ad-hominems).
You've posted many links to videos and books by people who have some agreement that the supernatural exists, or are against evolution, with the obvious inference that because these people are famous scientists or respected in their fields that what they have to say about these subjects is somehow correct. Referencing Barrow's book appears to be just another example of this.Stop right there. Before you start to attack and kill a strawman, tell me please what it is exactly that you are arguing against? is it a statement somebody made?
Do you seriously think life could arise and thrive on a planet where conditions were not compatible with it?How can your belief be scientifically tested do you think?
Not sure how to respond to this sort of gibberish.How did you prove that there is no reason? how do you know that there's no reason? surely you mean that you don't see a reason, yes? Just because you might not see a reason, a justification, does not logically amount to there being no such reason.
You've served up far more ad-hominems here than everyone else put together, by far, challengng someone's comprehension repeatedly, etc. If you're going to dish them out ...Are you disagreeing with something Barrow has said or written? is this just the start of another ad-hominem attack?
What does the vacuous assertion "he never advanced anything mean"? what does that mean? could it be that you've misunderstood something here?
Barrow supported the anthropic cosmological principle (wrote a book on it) and "fine tuning" is part of that concept. Fine tuning is an argument associated with a creator via the argument that the various physical constants have the values they do because intelligent life was somehow a plan. Stephen Jay Gould (a paleontologist), called the anthropic principle the latest manifestation of ''that age-old pitfall of western intellectual life - the representation of raw hope gussied up as rationalized reality." Stephen Hawkings described it as ''a counsel of despair.'' Barrow's approach to it was philosophiscal, not scientific, so he did not do anything to support the anthropic principle scientifically. That is not a "vacuous assertion" (another of your many thinly veiled ad-hominems).
You'll have to ask them. You've made a large number of posts here in the S&R section, but it seems you've yet to convince anyone that your views on evolution or gods are correct. Why do you think that is?And look! you've been "thanked" for your post - but why?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom
Post #48Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 4:31 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #40]
You've posted many links to videos and books by people who have some agreement that the supernatural exists, or are against evolution, with the obvious inference that because these people are famous scientists or respected in their fields that what they have to say about these subjects is somehow correct. Referencing Barrow's book appears to be just another example of this.Stop right there. Before you start to attack and kill a strawman, tell me please what it is exactly that you are arguing against? is it a statement somebody made?
Do you seriously think life could arise and thrive on a planet where conditions were not compatible with it?How can your belief be scientifically tested do you think?
Not sure how to respond to this sort of gibberish.How did you prove that there is no reason? how do you know that there's no reason? surely you mean that you don't see a reason, yes? Just because you might not see a reason, a justification, does not logically amount to there being no such reason.
You've served up far more ad-hominems here than everyone else put together, by far, challengng someone's comprehension repeatedly, etc. If you're doing to dish them out ...Are you disagreeing with something Barrow has said or written? is this just the start of another ad-hominem attack?
What does the vacuous assertion "he never advanced anything mean"? what does that mean? could it be that you've misunderstood something here?
Barrow supported the anthropic cosmological principle (wrote a book on it) and "fine tuning" is part of that concept. Fine tuning is an argument associated with a creator via the argument that the various physical constants have the values they do because intelligent life was somehow a plan. Stephen Jay Gould (a paleontologist), called the anthropic principle the latest manifestation of ''that age-old pitfall of western intellectual life - the representation of raw hope gussied up as rationalized reality." Stephen Hawkings described it as ''a counsel of despair.'' Barrow's approach to it was philosophiscal, not scientific, so he did not do anything to support the anthropic principle scientifically. That is not a "vacuous assertion" (another of your many thinly veiled ad-hominems).
You'll have to ask them. You've made a large number of posts here in the S&R section, but it seems you've yet to convince anyone that your views on evolution or gods are correct. Why do you think that is?And look! you've been "thanked" for your post - but why?
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom
Post #49[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #48]
Brilliant response. But this does contain just as much information to support your arguments against evolution and the existence of god beings as any other response, so kudos for being brief I suppose.Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
Re: The Big Bang And The First Atom
Post #50Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 11:41 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #48]
Brilliant response. But this does contain just as much information to support your arguments against evolution and the existence of god beings as any other response, so kudos for being brief I suppose.Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41