They're having a few technical problems at the moment, but I have a nice little rat-bomb for them
[quote:title=monkornun wrote...]
There was no big bang there was nothing there to make a bang there was no space, no oxygen no matter no atoms no gravity. You have to think nothing and from it emerging very silently from light and superintelligence from the microcosm into the macrocosm with all the laws in tack on how it should work in time. [/quote]
I see the tray is in full again, full of turgid drivel that is, time for you to learn a little science, I think.
The Big Bang Model is NOT a model of the origins of the universe ex-nihilo, it refers to what is, in scientific terms, known as a quantum fluctuation, resulting in the expansion of space and time. To quote the apposite scientific literature regarding the issue...
Some long-standing issues concerning the quantum nature of the big bang are resolved in the context of homogeneous isotropic models with a scalar field. Specifically, the known results on the resolution of the big-bang singularity in loop quantum cosmology are significantly extended as follows: (i) the scalar field is shown to serve as an internal clock, thereby providing a detailed realization of the “emergent time” idea; (ii) the physical Hilbert space, Dirac observables, and semiclassical states are constructed rigorously; (iii) the Hamiltonian constraint is solved numerically to show that the big bang is replaced by a big bounce. Thanks to the nonperturbative, background independent methods, unlike in other approaches the quantum evolution is deterministic across the deep Planck regime.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v96/i14/e141301
In other words, the properties of the current state of the Universe are determined by the quantum expansion that is erroneously described as the "Big Bang" , of course, since someone also brought up the "fine tuning" canard that is typically characteristic of those who seek a gap to insert a cosmic knob jockey into, I feel I'll not be doing justice if I don't deal with that piece of turgid drivel too. Firstly, the assertion that a universe like ours requires a superintelligence to form...
Adams Wrote
Abstract. Motivated by the possible existence of other universes, with possible variations in the laws of physics, this paper explores the parameter space of fundamental constants that allows for the existence of stars. To make this problem tractable, we develop a semi-analytical stellar structure model that allows for physical understanding of these stars with unconventional parameters, as well as a means to survey the relevant parameter space. In this work, the most important quantities that determine stellar properties—and are allowed to vary—are the gravitational constant G, the fine structure constant
, and a composite parameter C that determines nuclear reaction rates. Working within this model, we delineate the portion of parameter
space that allows for the existence of stars. Our main finding is that a sizable fraction of the parameter space (roughly one fourth) provides the values necessary for stellar objects to operate through sustained nuclear fusion. As a result, the set of parameters necessary to support stars are not particularly rare. In addition, we briefly consider the possibility that unconventional stars (e.g., black holes, dark matter stars) play the
role filled by stars in our universe and constrain the allowed parameter space.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3697 is the link to the full research paper on the subject.
If someone needs a layman's interpretation the paper demonstrates that the formation of a universe with laws like ours have a high probability of being formed without supernatural intervention. In the next post I'll be dealing with a mathematical model of pre-big bang physics proposed by Steinhardt and Turok and will also deal with the asinine canard that the Universe is finetuned for life.
Coming to the fine tuning canard first, I quote a paper by Harnik,
A universe without weak interactions is constructed that undergoes big-bang nucleosynthesis,
matter domination, structure formation, and star formation. The stars in this universe are able
to burn for billions of years, synthesize elements up to iron, and undergo supernova explosions,
dispersing heavy elements into the interstellar medium. These definitive claims are supported by
a detailed analysis where this hypothetical “Weakless Universe” is matched to our Universe by
simultaneously adjusting Standard Model and cosmological parameters. For instance, chemistry
and nuclear physics are essentially unchanged. The apparent habitability of the Weakless
Universe suggests that the anthropic principle does not determine the scale of electroweak
breaking, or even require that it be smaller than the Planck scale, so long as technically natural
parameters may be suitably adjusted. Whether the multi-parameter adjustment is realized or
probable is dependent on the ultraviolet completion, such as the string landscape. Considering
a similar analysis for the cosmological constant, however, we argue that no adjustments of other
parameters are able to allow the cosmological constant to raise up even remotely close to the
Planck scale while obtaining macroscopic structure. The fine-tuning problems associated with
the electroweak breaking scale and the cosmological constant therefore appear to be qualitatively
different from the perspective of obtaining a habitable universe.
The last line explicitly states the conclusion of the paper, that the presence of the weak force is independent of the need to obtain a habitable universe, in other words, it punches a nice little hole straight through the asinine assertion of a fine-tuned universe.
Coming to Monkornun’s canard about “nothing” before the big bang, not least because science has come up with several mathematically valid, empirically testable models for pre-big bang physics, including the Guth Inflationary Model & Steinhardt and Turok’s Brane-based model , I can tell you that the canard is, well, a canard.
To quote Steinhardt and Turok,
We propose a cosmological scenario in which the hot big bang universe is produced by the collision of a brane in the bulk space with a bounding orbifold plane, beginning from an otherwise cold, vacuous, static universe. The model addresses the cosmological horizon, flatness and monopole problems and generates a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of density perturbations without invoking superluminal expansion (inflation). The scenario relies, instead, on physical phenomena that arise naturally in theories based on extra dimensions and branes. As an example, we present our scenario predominantly within the context of heterotic M theory. A prediction that distinguishes this scenario from standard inflationary cosmology is a strongly blue gravitational wave spectrum, which has consequences for microwave background polarization experiments and gravitational wave detectors.
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v64/i12/e123522
The Model, if you care to read the abstract, uses data we actually have about the universe, as does the big bang, which appears to have gone straight above the head of our resident denialist par excellence, and actually makes testable predictions, which is vital to the success of science, “Goddidit” , on the other hand, doesn’t offer any means of empirical validation, and therefore to even think that the latter should take precedence over the former is bordering on the hilarious, frankly speaking.
So I guess those are two canards worthy of the intellectual shredder, time to move on to evolution next?
PS- Atheism, in its most rigorous formulation, is a direct effect of the refusal to accept critically unsupported assertions made without any empirical evidence, in other words, anyone who asserts the presence of entity X is asked to provide evidence of entity X, the reason we oppose the imposition of religious dogmas and values even over those who don’t share faith is that things done on the basis of a critically unsupported assertion lack intellectual credibility, and the best way to avoid this is to guarantee equal rights to all religions or eliminating religion from matters of public interest and governance, both of which constitute the principle of secularism.
It's the best solution I've ever found.
