The WLC/SC "Something From Nothing" Cosmology Thread

[_Franktalk]

I have to smile when I read posts like this. On one side we have people who by faith believe in a supernatural God. On the other we have people who have hugely overreached with their interpretations of the cosmos. Both groups are clueless.

But fun to watch.

[_Chap]

I have to smile when I read posts like this. On one side we have people who by faith believe in a supernatural God. On the other we have people who have hugely overreached with their interpretations of the cosmos. Both groups are clueless.

But fun to watch.

Franktalk is even more fun to watch.

He knows nothing very much about anything in particular. But show him an argument going on, and he cranks up his hot air balloon and 'rises above it all'. Actually, it isn't fun. It's a bit sad.

[Guest]

Here is a easily read little book with a slightly different take on some of the general ideas of cosmology that SC was alluding to in the debate. It's a Kindle Single entitled, Before the Big Bang, by John Gribbin.

Short but sweet - to the point and well written for the lay reader. Can easily be read in one afternoon - no math needed. You can download it to your mobile device now for very few sheckles and have an enjoyable evening.

Here is part of the blurb from Amazon.

The Big Bang was not the beginning of time. Before the Big Bang, there was a tiny fraction of a second during which a process called inflation expanded a seed much smaller than the nucleus of an atom into a fireball the size of a basketball -- the Big Bang itself. From this fireball, the Universe as we know it developed.

The origin of the seed from which the Universe began is not known with certainty, but as John Gribbin explains the most likely explanation is that it was a fluctuation of quantum energy in an eternal sea of cosmic energy. And that means that other seeds must surely have inflated to become other universes, bubbles in the cosmic sea. It is even possible that a collision between our universe and another bubble on the sea of eternity may have left an imprint on the cosmic background radiation, the echo of the Big Bang itself.

Gribbin does not indulge in idle speculation. He provides good motivation for the thesis in the book and explains how this general picture arises naturally from observations made over more than a century. As a bit of an outsider (he is a science writer) Gribbin also provides some unexpected insights into some of the personalities involved in the saga to show how science really works (sometimes).

[_Maksutov]

I have to smile when I read posts like this. On one side we have people who by faith believe in a supernatural God. On the other we have people who have hugely overreached with their interpretations of the cosmos. Both groups are clueless.

But fun to watch.

Franktalk is even more fun to watch.

He knows nothing very much about anything in particular. But show him an argument going on, and he cranks up his hot air balloon and 'rises above it all'. Actually, it isn't fun. It's a bit sad.

[_MrStakhanovite]

If you really wanna see William Lane Craig get taken apart at the joints you should read some J.B. Pitts (he has a PhD in Physics and a PhD in Philosophy):

The Big Bang singularity provides little or no evidence for creation in the finite past and hence for theism. Whether one dismisses singularities or takes them seriously, physics licenses no first moment of (space-)time. A physical theory might lack a metric or any other notion of finite length for curves, so a general notion of "beginning" must involve a first moment. The analogy between the Big Bang singularity and stellar gravitational collapse suggests that a Creator is required in the first case only if a Destroyer is needed in the second. The need for and progress in quantum gravity and the underdetermination of theories by data make it difficult to take singularities seriously.

SAUCE

[_Franktalk]

If you really wanna see William Lane Craig get taken apart at the joints you should read some J.B. Pitts (he has a Ph.D. in Physics and a Ph.D. in Philosophy):

There are many views on reality. Let me describe parts of this universe.

We have ether as the main structure of the universe. In certain conditions a stable form of an ether disturbance can be made. We call these protons. Protons have a charge and a spin. The charge and spin make another ether construct we call normal space. When many protons line up in their spin and the group is electrically charged we call this a permanent magnet. On one end we have cw spin and the other CWW spin. Mostly a perceptual difference. When two PM's are brought together with opposite spins the space created by the spin is decreased. This is perceived as attraction. When two PM's with similar spins come together the space is like a bubble keeping them apart. The whole thing is actually space being manipulated by a ether expression. Of course few see magnetic fields in this light. But at one time those who brought us electricity saw magnetism this way. So have we really gained or lost? Let us see where the next major advancement in electromagnetics comes from. I am doing my own experiments trying to rediscover the knowledge that was lost.

Oh well, let the slings and arrows fly.

[_Philo Sofee]

Sean Carroll "The Big Picture" demonstrates that it is not just a singular field of scientific studies and analysis that gives us our "picture" and "understanding" of our universe. It is a multiple field of many disciplines we must take into account and integrate. Your ideas on magnetism are interesting, but one needs all fields, disciplines, and contexts in order to give us a better view of reality, as it were. This is the defect of mere theism. God did it explains exactly nothing and does not elevate our knowledge in the dozens of fields necessary to grasp what little we do about the universe.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I am doing my own experiments trying to rediscover the knowledge that was lost.

I'm way curious to know what those experiments are.

[_Franktalk]

I'm way curious to know what those experiments are.

Many of his experiments have already been duplicated. Transmission of power using scalar waves for one. Right now I am making and playing around with spiral bifilar coils. Since the "poles" are at one point I am trying to use the coils as a gate. I will also use bismuth in some of my test as a shield or field shaping device. Small steps.

[_DrW]

If you really wanna see William Lane Craig get taken apart at the joints you should read some J.B. Pitts (he has a Ph.D. in Physics and a Ph.D. in Philosophy):

There are many views on reality. Let me describe parts of this universe.

We have ether as the main structure of the universe. In certain conditions a stable form of an ether disturbance can be made. We call these protons. Protons have a charge and a spin. The charge and spin make another ether construct we call normal space. When many protons line up in their spin and the group is electrically charged we call this a permanent magnet. On one end we have cw spin and the other CWW spin. Mostly a perceptual difference. When two PM's are brought together with opposite spins the space created by the spin is decreased. This is perceived as attraction. When two PM's with similar spins come together the space is like a bubble keeping them apart. The whole thing is actually space being manipulated by a ether expression. Of course few see magnetic fields in this light. But at one time those who brought us electricity saw magnetism this way. So have we really gained or lost? Let us see where the next major advancement in electromagnetics comes from. I am doing my own experiments trying to rediscover the knowledge that was lost.

Oh well, let the slings and arrows fly.

Franktalk,

How do you know that "those who brought us electricity saw magnetism this way"? Do you really understand what 'those who brought us electricity' had to say on the subject?

Can you write down the equations that are used to describe electromagnetic interactions according to the view you tried to describe. Can the model be used to solve real world physics problems?

Can you refer us to any of their published original work? Don't just throw out names you picked up from some crackpot website. Please provide us with references to published works that are readily available.

Or is this just more of your nonsense? (Actually it is nonsense - but is it yours or that of someone else?)