the big bang...

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

the big bang...

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Bekken 02 Aug 17 10.37pm
I find the idea of space fascinating, I'm not sure of the Big Bang theory because I'm not sure one large explosion gives birth to billions upon billions of stars which stretch over millions and millions of miles but something but the planets there... finding the answer would prove science right but will it do away with religion? What is the void we find ourselves in? Where is the edge of space and what does it look like on the other side if you could see through? Are we just pawns in an alien snow globe? How did so much water find its way to earth? Is the centre of the earth really hotter than the surface of the Sun, or is it hollow like some have suggested? What's on the dark side of the moon and why haven't we been back? What are black holes and will time travel using them ever be a thing? Is the earth flat and is everything we've ever been told in the story books a lie? Is Nibiru coming to get us? Stay tuned and keep your eyes to the sky lol.....

Bekken

02 Aug 17 10.37pm

I find the idea of space fascinating, I'm not sure of the Big Bang theory because I'm not sure one large explosion gives birth to billions upon billions of stars which stretch over millions and millions of miles but something but the planets there... finding the answer would prove science right but will it do away with religion?

What is the void we find ourselves in? Where is the edge of space and what does it look like on the other side if you could see through? Are we just pawns in an alien snow globe? How did so much water find its way to earth? Is the centre of the earth really hotter than the surface of the Sun, or is it hollow like some have suggested? What's on the dark side of the moon and why haven't we been back? What are black holes and will time travel using them ever be a thing? Is the earth flat and is everything we've ever been told in the story books a lie? Is Nibiru coming to get us?

Stay tuned and keep your eyes to the sky lol.....

thebob Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 02 Aug 17 10.40pm
Originally posted by sitdownstandup theory... Do you believe in it or not? The difficult part is the word "believe". If you are of the opinion that data is the only evidence that should be evaluated to reach a conclusion. And that all relevant data needs to be considered, then the theory appears to be quite robust. If you are of the opinion that "belief" is just conjured up from your own head, and evidence is then sought that supports your belief, then almost anything goes, and you are probably also a climate change denier, user of "alternative" medicine, anti vaccine, and also think that "organic" food means something.. You also are either religious or hold other "belief" based ideas. There must be a logical fallacy there somewhere. Argument from ignorance? I can't understand it so it can't be true?

thebob

Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 02 Aug 17 10.40pm

Originally posted by sitdownstandup

theory... Do you believe in it or not?

The difficult part is the word "believe".

If you are of the opinion that data is the only evidence that should be evaluated to reach a conclusion. And that all relevant data needs to be considered, then the theory appears to be quite robust.

If you are of the opinion that "belief" is just conjured up from your own head, and evidence is then sought that supports your belief, then almost anything goes, and you are probably also a climate change denier, user of "alternative" medicine, anti vaccine, and also think that "organic" food means something.. You also are either religious or hold other "belief" based ideas.

There must be a logical fallacy there somewhere. Argument from ignorance? I can't understand it so it can't be true?

Ray in Houston Houston 02 Aug 17 10.50pm
Originally posted by thebob The difficult part is the word "believe". Science is ever-evolving; whenever new evidence comes along that disproves previously held science, the new evidence is adopted. Rinse, repeat. "Belief" tends to stay rigid and mostly unaffected by improving knowledge and understanding. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Ray in Houston

Houston 02 Aug 17 10.50pm

Originally posted by thebob

The difficult part is the word "believe".

Science is ever-evolving; whenever new evidence comes along that disproves previously held science, the new evidence is adopted. Rinse, repeat.

"Belief" tends to stay rigid and mostly unaffected by improving knowledge and understanding.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

.TUX. 02 Aug 17 10.54pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Science is ever-evolving; whenever new evidence comes along that disproves previously held science, the new evidence is adopted. Rinse, repeat. "Belief" tends to stay rigid and mostly unaffected by improving knowledge and understanding. Well said. Buy Litecoin.

.TUX.

02 Aug 17 10.54pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Science is ever-evolving; whenever new evidence comes along that disproves previously held science, the new evidence is adopted. Rinse, repeat.

"Belief" tends to stay rigid and mostly unaffected by improving knowledge and understanding.

Well said.

Buy Litecoin.

sitdownstandup 02 Aug 17 11.05pm
Originally posted by thebob The difficult part is the word "believe". If you are of the opinion that data is the only evidence that should be evaluated to reach a conclusion. And that all relevant data needs to be considered, then the theory appears to be quite robust. If you are of the opinion that "belief" is just conjured up from your own head, and evidence is then sought that supports your belief, then almost anything goes, and you are probably also a climate change denier, user of "alternative" medicine, anti vaccine, and also think that "organic" food means something.. You also are either religious or hold other "belief" based ideas. There must be a logical fallacy there somewhere. Argument from ignorance? I can't understand it so it can't be true? ok... do you agree with it or not then? Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping. Hubert Reeves

sitdownstandup

02 Aug 17 11.05pm

Originally posted by thebob

The difficult part is the word "believe".

If you are of the opinion that data is the only evidence that should be evaluated to reach a conclusion. And that all relevant data needs to be considered, then the theory appears to be quite robust.

There must be a logical fallacy there somewhere. Argument from ignorance? I can't understand it so it can't be true?

ok... do you agree with it or not then?

Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping.

Hubert Reeves

Stirlingsays 02 Aug 17 11.09pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Science is ever-evolving; whenever new evidence comes along that disproves previously held science, the new evidence is adopted. Rinse, repeat. "Belief" tends to stay rigid and mostly unaffected by improving knowledge and understanding. Seconded. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

02 Aug 17 11.09pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Science is ever-evolving; whenever new evidence comes along that disproves previously held science, the new evidence is adopted. Rinse, repeat.

"Belief" tends to stay rigid and mostly unaffected by improving knowledge and understanding.

Seconded.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

thebob Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 02 Aug 17 11.09pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Science is ever-evolving; whenever new evidence comes along that disproves previously held science, the new evidence is adopted. Rinse, repeat. "Belief" tends to stay rigid and mostly unaffected by improving knowledge and understanding. Science is self-correcting, anything can be challenged, nothing is set in stone. "Blind belief" is the dangerous meme. It is impervious to logic. When people plead "common sense" it usually means that they don't really understand why they "believe" something. Lots of knowledge is counter intuitive.

thebob

Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 02 Aug 17 11.09pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Science is ever-evolving; whenever new evidence comes along that disproves previously held science, the new evidence is adopted. Rinse, repeat.

"Belief" tends to stay rigid and mostly unaffected by improving knowledge and understanding.

Science is self-correcting, anything can be challenged, nothing is set in stone.

"Blind belief" is the dangerous meme. It is impervious to logic. When people plead "common sense" it usually means that they don't really understand why they "believe" something. Lots of knowledge is counter intuitive.

Stirlingsays 02 Aug 17 11.11pm
Originally posted by thebob The difficult part is the word "believe". If you are of the opinion that data is the only evidence that should be evaluated to reach a conclusion. And that all relevant data needs to be considered, then the theory appears to be quite robust. If you are of the opinion that "belief" is just conjured up from your own head, and evidence is then sought that supports your belief, then almost anything goes, and you are probably also a climate change denier, user of "alternative" medicine, anti vaccine, and also think that "organic" food means something.. You also are either religious or hold other "belief" based ideas. There must be a logical fallacy there somewhere. Argument from ignorance? I can't understand it so it can't be true? Thirded. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

02 Aug 17 11.11pm

Originally posted by thebob

The difficult part is the word "believe".

If you are of the opinion that data is the only evidence that should be evaluated to reach a conclusion. And that all relevant data needs to be considered, then the theory appears to be quite robust.

There must be a logical fallacy there somewhere. Argument from ignorance? I can't understand it so it can't be true?

Thirded.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

thebob Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 02 Aug 17 11.11pm
Originally posted by sitdownstandup ok... do you agree with it or not then? The evidence seems to support it presently, so it is useful working hypothesis as long as other data doesn't come along and introduce some different conclusions! So kinda, sorta yeah.

thebob

Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 02 Aug 17 11.11pm

Originally posted by sitdownstandup

ok... do you agree with it or not then?

The evidence seems to support it presently, so it is useful working hypothesis as long as other data doesn't come along and introduce some different conclusions!

So kinda, sorta yeah.

Hrolf The Ganger 03 Aug 17 7.41am
Originally posted by davenotamonkey Not true. To understand the universe as it was at a very early stage, you need to access energy regimes that can only be reached with particle accelerators like the LHC. The spin-offs from CERN et al. have been immense. Including, but not limited to the World wide Web. Development in superconducting magnets, required for these types of experiments also had applications in, for example, fusion generators. Yes, the mechanics of scientific investigation can lead to inventions that serve a useful purpose for sure. Some of the technology that was used on the Moon landings was used in commercial products. What I'm saying is that the pure knowledge of cosmology is not going to have a practical impact on anyone.

Hrolf The Ganger

03 Aug 17 7.41am

Originally posted by davenotamonkey

Not true. To understand the universe as it was at a very early stage, you need to access energy regimes that can only be reached with particle accelerators like the LHC. The spin-offs from CERN et al. have been immense. Including, but not limited to the World wide Web.

Development in superconducting magnets, required for these types of experiments also had applications in, for example, fusion generators.

Yes, the mechanics of scientific investigation can lead to inventions that serve a useful purpose for sure. Some of the technology that was used on the Moon landings was used in commercial products.
What I'm saying is that the pure knowledge of cosmology is not going to have a practical impact on anyone.

Stirlingsays 03 Aug 17 8.13am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Yes, the mechanics of scientific investigation can lead to inventions that serve a useful purpose for sure. Some of the technology that was used on the Moon landings was used in commercial products. What I'm saying is that the pure knowledge of cosmology is not going to have a practical impact on anyone. I'm not so sure that's true. It involves working on string theory and other theories. These could potentially lead to controlling mass, which would be the single most dramatic impact imaginable. The powerhouse work in these areas isn't done for potential unclear commercial advantages. They are spin offs that benefit us. The reason that so much brain power goes into these pursuits is largely philosophically driven. If the west isn't doing this work, then it eventually will be done by others who aren't the west. We don't know how that would work out for us. Hitler learnt the lesson of not bothering with 'Jewish science'. We have learnt the benefits of keeping up the pace of research into science and technology. That's why we have the EU space agency and Nasa and projects like CERN ..all obviously funded by taxpayers from around the work. Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Aug 2017 8.15am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

03 Aug 17 8.13am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I'm not so sure that's true. It involves working on string theory and other theories. These could potentially lead to controlling mass, which would be the single most dramatic impact imaginable.

The powerhouse work in these areas isn't done for potential unclear commercial advantages. They are spin offs that benefit us. The reason that so much brain power goes into these pursuits is largely philosophically driven.

If the west isn't doing this work, then it eventually will be done by others who aren't the west. We don't know how that would work out for us. Hitler learnt the lesson of not bothering with 'Jewish science'.

We have learnt the benefits of keeping up the pace of research into science and technology. That's why we have the EU space agency and Nasa and projects like CERN ..all obviously funded by taxpayers from around the work.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Aug 2017 8.15am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

sitdownstandup 03 Aug 17 8.58am
Originally posted by thebob The evidence seems to support it presently, so it is useful working hypothesis as long as other data doesn't come along and introduce some different conclusions! So kinda, sorta yeah. thebob.. nice answer Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping. Hubert Reeves

sitdownstandup

03 Aug 17 8.58am

Originally posted by thebob

The evidence seems to support it presently, so it is useful working hypothesis as long as other data doesn't come along and introduce some different conclusions!

So kinda, sorta yeah.

thebob.. nice answer

Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping.

Hubert Reeves

thebob Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 03 Aug 17 9.15am
Originally posted by sitdownstandup thebob.. nice answer Most people don't understand that science has no "facts" and no "laws". Nothing has beed decided categorically, and never will be. All science can do is show something is wrong, it can never show that something is right!

thebob

Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 03 Aug 17 9.15am

Originally posted by sitdownstandup
thebob.. nice answer

Most people don't understand that science has no "facts" and no "laws".

Nothing has beed decided categorically, and never will be. All science can do is show something is wrong, it can never show that something is right!

Part Time James 03 Aug 17 9.27am
However we came about, my evening is going to be the same.

Part Time James

03 Aug 17 9.27am

However we came about, my evening is going to be the same.

hedgehog50 Croydon 03 Aug 17 9.38am
What caused this Big Bang? We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 03 Aug 17 9.38am

What caused this Big Bang?

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Part Time James 03 Aug 17 9.41am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 What caused this Big Bang? The HF

Part Time James

03 Aug 17 9.41am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

What caused this Big Bang?

The HF

hedgehog50 Croydon 03 Aug 17 9.58am
Originally posted by Part Time James The HF Henry Ford? Didn't realise his activities extended that far. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 03 Aug 17 9.58am

Originally posted by Part Time James

The HF

Henry Ford? Didn't realise his activities extended that far.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Stirlingsays 03 Aug 17 10.31am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 What caused this Big Bang? We currently have no way of knowing that. We have to recognise the extent of knowledge..What can be known from where we are now.....When you learn just how small the Planck length is...which is the smallest something can be that makes sense....you recognise the current limit to our knowledge....take one point six metres, separate it into ten equal parts. Now repeat that process another 34 times. That's the planck length.....Or another way to think of it is to think of a single strand of human hair...which is roughly the smallest thing we can see at 0.1mm....now imagine that strand of hair was expanded in size to the extent of the observable universe.....now how small would a planck length be in proportion...well it would be 0.1mm...or that size of a single human strand of hair...just about observable with the human eye. That's the planck length....imagine what's going on below the sizes of of things incredibly far far far smaller than the 'particles' that make up atoms....it's mind blowing. You start to recognise just how much missing potential knowledge there is. Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Aug 2017 10.34am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

03 Aug 17 10.31am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

What caused this Big Bang?

We currently have no way of knowing that.

We have to recognise the extent of knowledge..What can be known from where we are now.....When you learn just how small the Planck length is...which is the smallest something can be that makes sense....you recognise the current limit to our knowledge....take one point six metres, separate it into ten equal parts. Now repeat that process another 34 times. That's the planck length.....Or another way to think of it is to think of a single strand of human hair...which is roughly the smallest thing we can see at 0.1mm....now imagine that strand of hair was expanded in size to the extent of the observable universe.....now how small would a planck length be in proportion...well it would be 0.1mm...or that size of a single human strand of hair...just about observable with the human eye.

That's the planck length....imagine what's going on below the sizes of of things incredibly far far far smaller than the 'particles' that make up atoms....it's mind blowing.

You start to recognise just how much missing potential knowledge there is.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Aug 2017 10.34am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Hrolf The Ganger 03 Aug 17 10.49am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I'm not so sure that's true. It involves working on string theory and other theories. These could potentially lead to controlling mass, which would be the single most dramatic impact imaginable. The powerhouse work in these areas isn't done for potential unclear commercial advantages. They are spin offs that benefit us. The reason that so much brain power goes into these pursuits is largely philosophically driven. If the west isn't doing this work, then it eventually will be done by others who aren't the west. We don't know how that would work out for us. Hitler learnt the lesson of not bothering with 'Jewish science'. We have learnt the benefits of keeping up the pace of research into science and technology. That's why we have the EU space agency and Nasa and projects like CERN ..all obviously funded by taxpayers from around the work. Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Aug 2017 8.15am) I think you are disagreeing with something I haven't said. The pursuit of knowledge can lead to all kinds of discovery and invention but the knowledge in itself might be useless.

Hrolf The Ganger

03 Aug 17 10.49am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I'm not so sure that's true. It involves working on string theory and other theories. These could potentially lead to controlling mass, which would be the single most dramatic impact imaginable.

Edited by Stirlingsays (03 Aug 2017 8.15am)

I think you are disagreeing with something I haven't said.
The pursuit of knowledge can lead to all kinds of discovery and invention but the knowledge in itself might be useless.

thebob Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 03 Aug 17 10.59am
Originally posted by hedgehog50 What caused this Big Bang? At the instant of the Big Bang, spacetime as we know it appears to have come into existence . So it is very difficult to ascertain what came before time, because there may not have been any time to measure it by. We are not even sure that causality, the process where an effect follows a cause has been observable all the way back to the singularity. Without causality everything is a bit iffy. That is a technical term to mean we don't really know but like to talk about it anyway!

thebob

Tatebayashi (from Croydon) 03 Aug 17 10.59am

Originally posted by hedgehog50

What caused this Big Bang?

At the instant of the Big Bang, spacetime as we know it appears to have come into existence . So it is very difficult to ascertain what came before time, because there may not have been any time to measure it by.

We are not even sure that causality, the process where an effect follows a cause has been observable all the way back to the singularity. Without causality everything is a bit iffy. That is a technical term to mean we don't really know but like to talk about it anyway!

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

the big bang...

Site Map