• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can anyone say for certain that they know the origins of the universe?

No scientific law can be 'broken', merely inaccurately described. A 'scientific law' is descriptive, no prohibitive.

And since we do not know if the REALITY of existence demands that the "laws of physics" apply uniformly in all areas of existence, including any other dimensions that may exist, we honestly do not know if the "laws of physics" are actually the laws of physics...or just the laws of physics as we understand them with our paltry understanding of the whole.
 
Wrong. At a singularity, all 'laws' of physics break down. Also, the four fundamental forces were not always separate. For example, the electromagnetic and weak interactions formed the electroweak interaction. A law has to be consistent across all spatial and time boundaries. Therefore, there are no 'scientific laws', only theories and hypotheses.

A singularity isn't a thing. It is word that describes the fact that the mathematics of physics don't work in some situations. In other words you could substitute the word mystery for singularity.
 
i think what you think is ignorance is actually quite logical, because by "100% flawless theory" i mean that we have a good theory, it just hasn't been proven to what science would call it a scientific law

Scientific theory does not and can not become scientific law. Theories are always subject to the possibility of evidence being found which alters the theory. Theories explain facts of observation. Explanations are not facts.

Big Bang cosmology and biological evolution are explanations which conform to the available evidence. The four laws of thermodynamics are not theories, they represent observed reality. The Second Law (entropy) is a feature of the Universe. It's an observed fact that in an open system entropy always increases. We may theorize for the existence (explain) entropy.

It's an observed fact that biological life has changed on the planet over the eons. That a realized fact forced by the evidence. Biological evolution by means of natural selection is a theory which explains how that evolution or change has taken place.

The available evidence indicates the Universe to be expanding. Big Bang Theory explains the observed evidence for expansion. If the observable Universe is growing larger, then in the past it must have been smaller. The distance between distant galaxies is increasing, therefore in the past those galaxies must have been closer together. The types and morphology typical of galaxies has changed over the past 13 billion years. That's observed evidence. The Universe is evolving and everything within it is evolving, including any life. We observe these things to be the case. Big Bang cosmology explains how in a way which conforms to the evidence.
 
A singularity isn't a thing. It is word that describes the fact that the mathematics of physics don't work in some situations. In other words you could substitute the word mystery for singularity.

A singularity is a point at which there is infinite density of matter, as such, the normal mathematics of physics break down. The breakdown of physical laws succeeds the point of infinite density.
 
No scientific law can be 'broken', merely inaccurately described. A 'scientific law' is descriptive, no prohibitive.


Note the difference between 'law' and law. The quotation marks emphasize that said 'laws' are not real laws.
 
A singularity is a point at which there is infinite density of matter, as such, the normal mathematics of physics break down. The breakdown of physical laws succeeds the point of infinite density.


OK and how do you justify infinite density or infinite anything for that matter? Some of these physical theories are nothing more than a proposed suggested explanation for math or measurements that don't work. I would prefer that they just state that they can't answer the mysteries and leave it at that.
 
Most people point out the problems in other people's beliefs while accepting theirs as the truth. However, there are many unsolved questions which poke holes in many beliefs:

Creationists:

How did life get to Australia if there was a worldwide flood?

If the universe is only thousands of years old, how come we can see billions of light years away?

(Christianity) Why weren't Jesus's miracles recorded by the romans?

(Islam) if Jesus was just a prophet, why is there a religion centered around him?

Evolutionists:

What caused the big bang?

I understand how bacteria evolved into complex life but how did life really begin?

If aliens are out there, why haven't we found them yet (fermi paradox)?

How did complex life survive before they evolved an immune system?

How does a mars like planet (the one which crashed into earth to form the moon) form in earth's orbit without crashing into the earth?

This is not an attack on any belief, this is just something to think about.

It is your own problem,islam has not such a problem,nor does christianity
 
OK and how do you justify infinite density or infinite anything for that matter? Some of these physical theories are nothing more than a proposed suggested explanation for math or measurements that don't work.

Infinite density need not have any infinite properties. If a virtual point with zero volume contained any finite, nonzero value of mass, then the density of that region will be infinite. Spacetime is curved to an infinite degree as a result, with no spatial or time boundaries to separate matter, therefore, the 'laws' of physics break down.

I would prefer that they just state that they can't answer the mysteries and leave it at that.

That is an example of anti-intellectualism. Physicists propose and test theories to overcome the limitations of human knowledge, and your preference would ensure that humanity cannot learn anything beyond our very limited stores of knowledge.
 
Infinite density need not have any infinite properties. If a virtual point with zero volume contained any finite, nonzero value of mass, then the density of that region will be infinite. Spacetime is curved to an infinite degree as a result, with no spatial or time boundaries to separate matter, therefore, the 'laws' of physics break down.

Sorry infinite is an impossibility in my world. No one has ever shown anything to be infinite. Ever.

That is an example of anti-intellectualism. Physicists propose and test theories to overcome the limitations of human knowledge, and your preference would ensure that humanity cannot learn anything beyond our very limited stores of knowledge.

You misunderstood. I don't want to inhibit learning. I just want them to stop inventing physical properties to excuse their incomplete knowledge. They like he idea of dark matter. But you can't see it or sense it or measure it. It is just a way around incomplete math. Let them say we don't know until they can complete the math or find something they can sense and measure and explain.
 
Sorry infinite is an impossibility in my world. No one has ever shown anything to be infinite. Ever.

That is an empiricists' deduction, one in which the non-observable is not possible. Your knowledge is severely confined by a posteriori axioms; if you accept the value of a priori deductions, then infinity is not an impossibility.

Mathematically, if there is a finite amount of matter within a zero-volume virtual space, then the density of that area is infinite, while infinite spacetime curvature is a state in which spacetime does not exist (events are not separated). Is nonexistence impossible in your book too?

You misunderstood. I don't want to inhibit learning. I just want them to stop inventing physical properties to excuse their incomplete knowledge. They like he idea of dark matter. But you can't see it or sense it or measure it. It is just a way around incomplete math. Let them say we don't know until they can complete the math or find something they can sense and measure and explain.

Dark matter is not 'invented'. Observation of inflationary growth in the universe led physicists to arrive at the conclusion that there is a previously unaccounted-for factor in this growth. By only accepting science once it has been proven, then you disregard the scientific process of hypothesization, observation, and conclusion itself
 
The name "dark matter/energy" is a placeholder for whatever is causing observed anomalies unaccounted for by our present level of understanding.
 
The name "dark matter/energy" is a placeholder for whatever is causing observed anomalies unaccounted for by our present level of understanding.
Unfortunately, few seem to actually grasp that fact.
 
Dark matter is not 'invented'. Observation of inflationary growth in the universe led physicists to arrive at the conclusion that there is a previously unaccounted-for factor in this growth. By only accepting science once it has been proven, then you disregard the scientific process of hypothesization, observation, and conclusion itself

It is clearly an invention since they can't detect it. All they have to say is that, strangely, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. It goes against what we expect based on the laws of physics as we know them so we are confounded. We simply don't know why this is the case. Not difficult at all. No reason they can't keep looking for the answers. Personally I prefer the multiverse idea although that is an invention as well.

The very concept of infinity is counterintuitive. Someone will have to find something infinite before I can accept it.
 
It's called the Big Bang Theory for a reason. It's the best guess based on all observational evidence. Most honest scientists will tell you though that nobody knows for sure. Theoretical cosmologists have a bit of a chip on their shoulders when it comes to this topic. Their stuff is incredibly heady and difficult to convey to the average person, as well as a lot of applied scientists. They don't like it when you call the Big Bang a creation myth, like any other.

The truth is that we don't know, in any scientific sense.

What if the universe is timeless?
 
Sorry infinite is an impossibility in my world. No one has ever shown anything to be infinite. Ever.



You misunderstood. I don't want to inhibit learning.

I just want them to stop inventing physical properties to excuse their incomplete knowledge.

Physical properties are not invented, they are observed. We discover them. There may no such thing as infinity or it's polar opposite....absolute zero. When mathematical models include infinities, we know something is wrong with the model or that the model is incomplete. NOTHING (particles) can be infinite. NOTHING can be at a state of absolute zero. That holds true within our local frame of reference, but not necessarily to a larger state which is beyond any possible detection. The multiverse if it exists may well be infinite in both time and space, which is separate and distinct from our realm. Infinite in that sense may just mean nothing happens and time does not progress.

They like he idea of dark matter. But you can't see it or sense it or measure it.

That's not true. It is known to exist because something is warping space-time. Something we can not SEE is creating gravitational effects.
 
Physical properties are not invented, they are observed. We discover them. There may no such thing as infinity or it's polar opposite....absolute zero. When mathematical models include infinities, we know something is wrong with the model or that the model is incomplete. NOTHING (particles) can be infinite. NOTHING can be at a state of absolute zero. That holds true within our local frame of reference, but not necessarily to a larger state which is beyond any possible detection. The multiverse if it exists may well be infinite in both time and space, which is separate and distinct from our realm. Infinite in that sense may just mean nothing happens and time does not progress.

Dark matter is an invention. It has never been observed. The observed behavior of the universe is not understood. It might be dark matter or it might not be. Dark matter is a suggestion to help explain why the universe behaves as it does.


That's not true. It is known to exist because something is warping space-time. Something we can not SEE is creating gravitational effects.

No what is known to exist is the fact that the universe expands at an increasing rate. It might be dark matter. It might not be. Dark matter is not known to exist. I've discussed this with a friend who is a PHD professor of physics at a large university. He, for one, doesn't buy it. He suggests that some physicists use it a way to avoid saying we don't know. But, according to him, we just don't know. It is long road from theory to law.
 
Dark matter is an invention. It has never been observed. The observed behavior of the universe is not understood. It might be dark matter or it might not be. Dark matter is a suggestion to help explain why the universe behaves as it does.


No what is known to exist is the fact that the universe expands at an increasing rate. It might be dark matter. It might not be. Dark matter is not known to exist. I've discussed this with a friend who is a PHD professor of physics at a large university. He, for one, doesn't buy it. He suggests that some physicists use it a way to avoid saying we don't know. But, according to him, we just don't know. It is long road from theory to law.

There is no road from theory to law. How long did you spend talking to this professor exactly?
 
Sorry infinite is an impossibility in my world. No one has ever shown anything to be infinite. Ever...

The key phrase that you are failing to grasp is, '...therefore, the 'laws' of physics break down'.

Density is mass over volume so, any mass with zero volume is by definition of infinite density. A mass of 1kg with a volume of zero would result in 1/0, it is the division by zero that does that.
 
The key phrase that you are failing to grasp is, '...therefore, the 'laws' of physics break down'.

Density is mass over volume so, any mass with zero volume is by definition of infinite density. A mass of 1kg with a volume of zero would result in 1/0, it is the division by zero that does that.

Or more accurately, the laws of physics are incomplete or even wrong. There is no such thing as infinity.
 
There is no road from theory to law. How long did you spend talking to this professor exactly?

He's been a friend for years. I never counted the time we chatted.
 
He's been a friend for years. I never counted the time we chatted.

If he told you that then he ain't much of a scientist.
 
He's been a friend for years. I never counted the time we chatted.

He didn't use the phrase "long road from theory to law."

Because, as it was pointed out, there isn't such a road. Theories don't turn into laws.
 
Or more accurately, the laws of physics are incomplete or even wrong. There is no such thing as infinity.

You apparently think you are an expert on the REALITY of existence.

You aren't.

And there is no way you can possibly KNOW there is no such thing as infinity.
 
You apparently think you are an expert on the REALITY of existence.

You aren't.

And there is no way you can possibly KNOW there is no such thing as infinity.

At least it is good to know you are an expert.
 
He didn't use the phrase "long road from theory to law."

Because, as it was pointed out, there isn't such a road. Theories don't turn into laws.

It was my phrase. Sorry you don't like it.
 
Back
Top Bottom