Posted on 02/26/2015 11:50:10 AM PST by Mount Athos
Generally, a law is a provable dependency between observable entities. I'm not sure what would the law look like if there is neither space or time for it to exist in, nor objects to apply to.
Well, math anyway...which could or could not be ultimately valid.
The creation event, which is the term I prefer, has always seemed tied up with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which essentially states that one can never determine a particle’s momentum without a loss of information as to its position, and vice versa.
According to what the Standard Model has on gravitation and General Relativity...mass.
More like the Big Bong Theory
Bill Nye says these scientists are science deniers!
"You can't think and hit at the same time." -Yogi Berra
It’s not funny when you consider what schools have been teaching all these years.
Oh nuts! Those guys beat me to it.
Just the opinion of a simple minded non-physicist, but it sounds like these two are solving the problem of the Singularity by forcefully formulating a theory without one. In other words, they’re bending the math to discount something which so far can’t be accounted for in current quantum physics. There’s nothing wrong in doing that. Scientific theories are always open to question. But aren’t the observed expansion of the universe and the “echo” observed by Wilson and Penzias fifty years ago physical facts that would be equally hard to explain in a revived steady state theory?
I hear lots of big bangs around here on opening day of deer season.
Indeed, the one force that holds the universe together, that makes everything possible, and all we really know about it is the effect we witness. I can take two golf balls, place them 40,000 miles apart, and somehow they interact with each other. If no particles pass back an forth, how is that possible. I don't think they have even determined what the speed of gravity is.
“MAY” never have happened is the question here?
Isn’t it called the “Big Bang THEORY”?
Theory meaning it MAY or may not have happened that way?
We don't really understand any of the "four forces" at a fundamental level.
“In the beginning, there was the Word. . . “
These days, physicists regularly talk in terms of information as a fundamental characteristic that controls particle interaction. I've found it to be at least somewhat interesting to see them dance around the Lord without actually admitting it.
Plastic bags are better, now it’s paper bags, wait... back to plastic, cloth, then back to paper.
Alcohol is bad for your health, but wine is now good for you.
Eating eggs is bad, now they are good for you.
Coffee is bad, but now it’s good for you again.
Global warming, global cooling, climate change.....
Settled Science: All scientists and lib-tards evolved from monkeys, the rest of us were created by God.
Such is the humility they need to have.
Libs tend to say “this is RIGHT, and you must change your behavior accordingly”,
and when it’s found out that it isn’t right, then they say their NEW thing “is RIGHT, and you must change your behavior accordingly”.
I had just such a conversation with a libinlaw the other night.
I asked her how it could be that they insisted they were right then, and insist they’re right now.
How did they get reality to change, since they are so obviously infallible that we have to change our behaviors and lifestyles according to what they absolutely know to be right at the time... ie, Global Warming.
It’s all reasonable suppositions, based on their initial assumptions. But are their initial assumptions correct?
I think dark matter and dark energy are both hand waving to distract us from the fact that at a fundamental level, they really don't know squat. I'm not saying they are completely clueless, but it's clear that there are some seriously fundamental things that we simply do not know. While they are in the process of following those things up, why not admit outright that what we do know is merely an approximation of the universe, that is useful in the real world. i.e., we know enough about gravity to predict planetary orbits, and to send spacecraft to Pluto (which IS a planet), and to make use of atomic energy on a fairly primitive level, but we really, really don''t know how the universe actually works.
Here’s a thought - the cosmologists pretty much ignore everything but mass and gravity, under the assumption that electromagnetic forces cancel each other out, on the large scale. But do they?
We’ve invented dark matter because the gravity generated by the mass that we can see does not generate sufficient force to create the drive the movement that we see. Is it possible that rather than there being matter that we can’t see, that there are forces that we’re ignoring?
Are you a part of the electric universe FR ping list?
LOL... Good for you. I don’t even bother to talk to libinlaws anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.