1) Religion assumes it's conclusion. Which is a nice trick. (for religions with god fantasies) 2) As it stands, that is absurd. 3) You don't know that. There is work being done right now trying to tease information about the background radiation left by the Big Expansion (Big Bang is falling out of fashion). 4) There are different levels of acceptance. A lot of things we couldn't confirm we later confirmed. Black holes, gravity waves, etc. 5) Tell that to Wittgenstein. Your philosophy of science is crude, sounds like something from the 1960s or early 70s. https://www.amazon.com/Understandin...keywords=ronald+n+giere&qid=1591986187&sr=8-3
I am not sure about the big bang not being reproducible. If size is not a consideration maybe the effects may be reproduced. Like a collision that has the same explosive or expansive power it can be studied. But not by me.
Something from nothing.... makes exactly the same amount sense as .....there always was something. Neither make sense to me. Unless...
Suggesting that there have to be humans present to record what happened makes no sense of ANY kind. Science uses all sorts of techniquest for investigating what happened in the past. We take ice cores in order to check out ancient atmospheres. We look through telescopes to see what happened billions of years ago. In fact, with much of astronomy it's impossible to know what is going on RIGHT NOW, while what happed in the distant past may be directly observed. We test the unbelievably tiny using instruments such as the LHC to examine places where there is no chance that a human could go. Human presence is just plain NOT required. Suggesting the big bang theory is unfalsifiable on the grounds that there were no people there is just plain silly.
In regard to cosmology, there are a number of issues and mysteries we have that limit the development of models to explain how the known universe that we can observe and measure appears to us as it does and has the properties it does. Among those, are the the language, abstract concepts, and the various frameworks of knowledge, and means for observation and measurement we have thus far developed that we use to both explore and explain the nature of nature in which we exist. For instance, in regard to the concept of ‘nothing’ most have an understanding of what that concept means that is based on a shared experiential understanding stemming how we experience what we call ‘nothing’, yet in developing the tools that allow us to extend our ability to ‘sense’ beyond the limitations of our biological sensory devices, we find nature doesn’t always correspond to our experiential intuition. At the current level we are able to detect, measure and indirectly observe the Quantum domain, we find it is intuitively unpredictable, and even challenges our understanding and definitions of the nature of ‘nothing’ to the point where we have explanatory models, confirmed by experimentation, that illustrate matter arising from what we have hereto for defined as nothing. When those that have been able to develop our ability to measure distance of objects at Cosmological scale and further measure the speed and trajectory of those objects, there is overwhelming evidence they indicate a common origin in time and location. When projected back to the origin and source of origin, combined with the successful explanation theories developed by Einstein, his theory, his mathematical basis for modeling his explanation and it’s prediction of the nature of gravity, suggests the origin of an infinitely dense singularity as the origin. Thus, when observation was combined with his theories, it was further theorized, an event called by the popular press at the time, the Big Bang was responsible for what we observe and measure of our universe. But, as predictive and as robust as his theory seemed to be, it also raises questions for several reasons. The first was the inability to reconcile the cosmological model with the highly predictive model that worked to describe quantum mechanics... specifically how gravity worked at the quantum level. The second, many mathematicians are highly uncomfortable with the infinities that are predicted by Einstein’s theoretical framework and are further skeptical about the nature of gravity he suggested considering some cosmological observations show abnormalities inconsistent with his theoretical framework (some parts of the universe appear to be repulsed by a force rather that be attracted as our understanding of gravity would appear to predict. Then, there is the nature of time itself which yet appears to be elusive to explanation (I.e. is time quantum in nature, a product of the trigger of initial universe expansion event, a property of space (whatever that is), or something independent of the Universe. These mysteries, discomfort with the infinities predicted by Einstein’s models, have prompted many investigators to speculate and advance other potential models that overcome those difficulties. Each, of the proffered, suggested and speculative models that have attracted interest and investigation, all, thus far, are still works in development, and all helping to frame questions that can be formulated into testable hypotheses to gauge their potential for developing confidence as a vector for continuing to be developed as a fruitful framework for understanding our universe. For instance, the existence of additional dimensions suggested by String Theory, does have the potential for discovery at the CERN in the measured observations of particle collisions and may have already recorded, considering the billions of recorded collision events that have yet been analyzed. What would be a possible hint of extra dimensions? Given E=MC*2, the energy and masses of particles measured prior to a collision event must always equal the Standard Model predicted product of the sum of mass and energies measured for the detected constituent elements produced by the collision event. Thus far, analysis has shown, as predicted, that has always been true. However, an event that is measured to result in less product mass and energy than input, may hint at energy or mass being shed to another dimension. If ever seen in analysis, expect major headlines and cheers from the String Theorists who will be encouraged they are on the right tract of inquiry. Yet seen in CERN results are predictions of some that have developed speculative extensions to the Standard Model for a Graviton particle, super symmetry particle results, more flavors of the Higgs (including a possible gravity force carrier variant). All may be already recorded in the billions of collision events yet to be analyzed. Little by little understanding is increasing, and little by little, the product of continuing inquiry is being found to yield amazing discoveries. Will we find ‘the answer’ or ‘answers’ for which we search? Maybe, maybe not, but the search into the unknown is, IMO, the Ambrosia of life.
Actually the latent heat of fusion accounts for greater cooling than the change in temperature. (8300*83 + 10*32 - 10*144)/8310 = Tf = 82.77 Melting the ice consumes 1440 Btu from the warm water whereas heating the 32°F melted ice to 82.77°F only consumes about 508 Btu. What works better is to install a spray cooler. The latent heat of vaporization of a pound of water is about 988 Btu. These work better in dry air, and don't work much at all when the RH hits 100%. The ambient air temperature is less a factor than the relative humidity. So evaporating a pound of water will more or less cool a thousand pounds of water by 1°F. Evaporating about 8.4 pounds, or about 1 gallon will cool a 1000 gallon pond by about 1°F. So if your pond is approaching 87°F and you want to cool it down to 80°F then you'll need to evaporate about 7 gallons of water. However, nothing is 100% efficient and I'm not familiar with the particulars, but you might look into it.
I have a waterfall in my top pond and a pipe to my filter pond with another drop of a foot or so. The problem with a spray cooler is water usage. The mist travels too far. Shade is also something worth looking into. Using plants to shade and filter the water. Like a layer of duckweed on the filter pond and water Lilly pads to block sunlight. It is a work in process but it is working. My fish are growing faster than expected.
Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed per the Laws of Physics! In order to "create" matter/energy from NOTHING would negate the laws of physics because it would mean that logically it must have been possible to have "created" matter/energy in the first place because we KNOW that matter/energy does exist and we are part of it. The next step along the road of "creating" matter/energy from NOTHING would be "creating" the laws of physics from NOTHING that establish that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed . So that means that the fundamental principle regarding matter/energy also had be "created" out of nothing AFTERWARDS because if it was in place BEFOREHAND then it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to "create" matter/energy without VIOLATING that principle. But what was the purpose of establishing the principle that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed unless the "creator" wanted an ETERNAL universe to exist? In essence introducing the idiocy of the "creator" to the concept of "creating" the universe "out of nothing" just makes it far more complex and opens the door to logical paradoxes. The fundamental principle that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed establishes that the universe has always existed and will always exist in one form or another. This removes the "creator" idiocy and all of the 'splaining that must be pulled out of nether regions to deal with the problems that arise with the existence of a "creator" and "nothing".
Energy but not matter. We create matter from energy all the time. That is one thing that particle accelerators do - convert kinetic energy into matter.
E=mc2 essentially means that energy and matter are just different states of the same of thing for the purposes of the point that I am making. Yes, there are additional complexities but that that just obfuscates the point.
Matter is one manifestation of energy. Information is another. Heat is another. Relative velocity is another. Frequency is another. However, it gets more complicated if we say mass and not matter.
Agreed, and that is exactly why I tried to simplify it for the sake of making the argument a tad more cogent in it's context.
You may call a Creator idiocy but I beg to differ. But I also fail to understand. If there is no creator, no afterlife, and no hope. Does that mean I should develop a personality that creates, offers hope, and searches for immortality? Because that is the question. I identify by a sense of self. Is this self all physical and chemical reactions or is there a spark, or a soul. I don't feel like I am chemical reactions.
Ireactions.If the speed of light is constant why does it have to be squared? It would still arrive at the same speed.
You are a chemical soup. What you are asking is if you are more. I've been watching this, you might find it interesting. Skip the intro.
I think of it more as hardware and software. Where does awareness come in? I share awareness with other things , all living. Life is an interesting concept. And a wonder to experience. In my younger days I knew all the answers. Now days I don't even know most of the questions.
This is the SCIENCE forum and the topic is the nature of the universe. There is a DIFFERENT forum where you can discuss your religious beliefs and I recommend that you ask your questions in that forum.
You can't use science to determine awareness? Being self aware is a religious belief? If my questions bother you ignore me. I will post what I like where I like.
You just moved the goalposts! The metaphorical questions below are NOT addressed by the physical sciences that deal with the literal nature of the universe.
