[Geko45]

Yes, science has a theory as to what caused the Big Bang and the theory makes predictions that should be observable and testable still today. So, I don't want to hear theists claim that "scientists have no idea what came before the Big Bang" anymore. If you want to challenge the validity of the theory, here it is complete with all the supporting math. Break out your slide rule and microwave detector and have at it.

The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang - Justin Khoury (Princeton), Burt A. Ovrut (Univ of Pennsylvania), Paul J. Steinhardt (Princeton), Neil Turok (Cambridge)

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.

[Roering]

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Roering

The paper has several charts. You'll have to make do.

[Roering]

Originally Posted by Geko45

The paper has several charts. You'll have to make do.

Is there any video of him successfully creating/re-creating it?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Roering

Is there any video of him successfully creating/re-creating it?

Read the paper, if the theory is correct there should be tell-tale signs in the cosmic background radiation. Like I said, the theory provides testable predictions. If the math is right then it predicts observable consequences for the universe today. If you want to challenge its validity then bust out your microwave detector and get to work.

If video evidence is your standard of proof then I want to see video of god actually speaking something, anything, into existence.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Read the paper, if the theory is correct there should be tell-tale signs in the cosmic background radiation. Like I said, the theory provides testable predictions. If the math is right then it predicts observale consequences for the universe today. If you want to challenge it's validity then bust out your microwave detector and get to work.

If video evidence is your standard of proof then I want to see video of god actually speaking something, anything, into existence.

Hell I'd settle for video of God. There's more footage of Bigfoot to be had.

[Roering]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Read the paper, if the theory is correct there should be tell-tale signs in the cosmic background radiation. Like I said, the theory provides testable predictions. If the math is right then it predicts observable consequences for the universe today. If you want to challenge its validity then bust out your microwave detector and get to work.

If video evidence is your standard of proof then I want to see video of god actually speaking something, anything, into existence.

Easy Gecko. It's a fair question. After all, the hypothesis should be tested right? And in that testing wouldn't the results be recorded?

So has it been tested?

[Green_Manelishi]

Originally Posted by Geko45

... Like I said, the theory provides testable predictions. If the math is right then it predicts observable consequences for the universe today. ...

Here's a prediction: "science" will sooner than later pull another theory out of their atheist arses when this latest "we don't need no stinking God" intellectual cramp is found to be lacking.

"Branes"? Cripes, that's almost as funny as the dingbat Dick Dawkins claim a marble statue could, under the right circumstances, wave its hands.

From where did the branes arise?

[X-ray 4N6]

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

Where did this "brane" come from?
That's the problem with both the religious and the scientific approach. Whether it is a deity, a brane, a cosmic soup, a wind-up universe generator or naughty pixies, the problem is the same: can't get something out of nothing.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6

can't get something out of nothing.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

massive image

Dood! Could you replace that with a slightly less massive image? You're gonna cause a brane collision with that thing!

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6

Where did this "brane" come from?

We are talking about what existed "before" (quoted because we have no correct word to accurately describe the relationship) spacetime itself. A brane is not an object made of matter like everything around you. It is an extradimensional construct with characteristics totally unlike what you see in classical physics. If nothing else then it should be a sufficient candidate for the primum movens that theists here insist must exist (and usually ascribe to "god").

[Bren]

Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6

Where did this "brane" come from?
That's the problem with both the religious and the scientific approach. Whether it is a deity, a brane, a cosmic soup, a wind-up universe generator or naughty pixies, the problem is the same: can't get something out of nothing.

The difference is, the scientific answer is "we don't know" but the religious answer is "we'll make something up."

"We don't know" isn't a problem, just something to work on.

"We'll make something up" is a problem, because it stops us from trying to find real answers.

Can't get something from nothing? Then something has to have always been...but everything had to start, what came before the start? Did that come from nothing? And on and on.

[X-ray 4N6]

We are talking about what existed "before" (quoted because we have no correct word to accurately describe the relationship) spacetime itself. A brane is not an object made of matter like everything around you. It is an extradimensional construct with characteristics totally unlike what you see in classical physics.

So it could in fact be a wind-up universe generator, or an extra-dimensional goblin or two jube-jubes rubbed just the right way. It could be anything other than nothing. So the problem still remains, something came from nothing...

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6

So it could in fact be a wind-up universe generator, or an extra-dimensional goblin or two jube-jubes rubbed just the right way.

So, do you have a mathematical model for any of these other options that gives us testable predictions?

It could be anything other than nothing. So the problem still remains, something came from nothing...

Not really, no.

[Harper]

Originally Posted by X-ray 4N6

It could be anything other than nothing. So the problem still remains, something came from nothing...

How do you know it was 'nothing'? I mean what you may think of as nothing may actually be something. For instance, empty space is actually something. So my bet is no one is claiming something came from literally nothing.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Yes, science has a theory as to what caused the Big Bang and the theory makes predictions that should be observable and testable still today. So, I don't want to hear theists claim that "scientists have no idea what came before the Big Bang" anymore. If you want to challenge the validity of the theory, here it is complete with all the supporting math. Break out your slide rule and microwave detector and have at it.

The Ekpyrotic Universe: Colliding Branes and the Origin of the Hot Big Bang - Justin Khoury (Princeton), Burt A. Ovrut (Univ of Pennsylvania), Paul J. Steinhardt (Princeton), Neil Turok (Cambridge)

So, in other words, you want to d***le us with B.S. Creating your own conditions and then validating them on those conditions is cyclical logic, then cloaking it in purposefully bloviating pendantic lexicon.

I can also mask a message in intentionally cumbersome language.

For instance, the author's explanation is attached to another object by an incline plane, wrapped helicly around an axis.

[ArtificialGrape]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

For instance, the author's explanation is attached to another object by an incline plane, wrapped helicly around an axis.

So you are a fan of The Big Bang Theory

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

So, in other words, you want to d***le us with B.S. Creating your own conditions and then validating them on those conditions is cyclical logic, then cloaking it in purposefully bloviating pendantic lexicon.

Ah, so your true opinion of scientific research is finally revealed. You go on and on about the logical need for a primum movens and when one is finally provided to you (fully defined) all you can do is harangue and toss out apsersions.

And since when is providing a testable theory cyclical logic? The math and techniques needed may be beyond your capability, but that doesn't make them nonsensical. The math here is solvable. The predictions it makes are real-world testable. You are just to entrenched in your dogma to allow for the possibility that you have been wrong this whole time.

I consider this matter settled. Not only have you been shown to be demonstrably in error, your intellectual dishonesty is now fully confirmed. Fare thee well, CavD... err, I mean Kingarthurhk.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Ah, so your true opinion of scientific research is finally revealed. You go on and on about the logical need for a primum moven and when one is finally provided to you (fully defined) all you can do is harangue and toss out apsersions.

To be blunt, I don't like being lied to even if the the prevarication is wrapped in gilded art deco box. The author seeks to create unprovable, untestable conditions that he conjures into his imagination, and then proceeds to attempt to obfuscate that fact in purposefully stilted language. In essence, he creates a Universe and then goes backward and states that because there is a Universe, the singularity can exist, and then it in turns creates the Universe. Perfectly cyclical, completely illogical. It doesn't explain primum movens. Unless, of course you are suggesting that the singularity exists completely outside time and space, and then once again, you may as well say "God".

And since when is providing a testable theory cyclical logic? The math and techniques needed may be beyond your capability, but that doesn't make them nonsensical. The math here is solvable. The predictions it makes are real-world testable. You are just to entrenched in your dogma to allow for the possibility that you have been wrong this whole time.

Again, complete fabrication. It is not testable, observable, or repeatable. Creating your own prexistant conditions and then inserting a singularity within a prexisting Universe is not primum movens.

Rather, it is simply explaining a phenomena within a prexisting Universe. Now, I don't really have a problem with this concept. I fully believe and understand the Universe is expanding. That is not a point of contention.

I consider this matter settled. Not only have you been shown to be demonstrably in error, your intellectual dishonesty is now fully confirmed. Fare thee well, CavD... err, I mean Kingarthurhk.

You considered the matter settled before your started. And once again, interjecting ad hominum simply indicates the emotional investment you have in the argument, and your inability to properly reinforce your thesis.

[rgregoryb]

a Glock 10mm

[rayetter]

16 gr. Bullseye in a. 357 mag round.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Roering

Easy Gecko. It's a fair question. After all, the hypothesis should be tested right? And in that testing wouldn't the results be recorded?

So has it been tested?

Don't worry. There was no accusatory tone meant in my post. I may have towards King, but I only resort to that when confronted with willful ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty.

The equipment necessary to test it is far from common (a microwave observatory) so I don't know for sure if it has been yet or not. They've laid out a method to do so and published it, so if it has not been, it will be soon.

My point in posting this is to show that progress is continually being made and that it is unfair to simply point at an area of study that is still developing and say that since we don't yet know we never can know.

The god of the gaps is constantly being pushed back. In this case, "he" was right behind the Big Bang, but now we are unraveling that mystery and "he" is receding further. I take this pattern to indicate that "he" is not needed to explain anything at all. If only we are patient and keep struggling to learn then we can discover how just about everything came to be.

[Roering]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Don't worry. There was no accusatory tone meant in my post. I may have towards King, but I only resort to that when confronted with willful ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty.

The equipment necessary to test it is far from common (a microwave observatory) so I don't know for sure if it has been yet or not. They've laid out a method to do so and published it, so if it has not been, it will be soon.

My point in posting this is to show that progress is continually being made and that it is unfair to simply point at an area of study that is still developing and say that since we don't yet know we never can know.

The god of the gaps is constantly being pushed back. In this case, "he" was right behind the Big Bang, but now we are unraveling that mystery and "he" is receding further. I take this pattern to indicate that "he" is not needed to explain anything at all. If only we are patient and keep struggling to learn then we can discover how just about everything came to be.

I get the whole Tower of Babel concept. I was just wondering if preparations were underway to test this theory.

And on a more practical matter, where will the $$$ come from.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Roering

I get the whole Tower of Babel concept.

The inference being we are foolish to attempt to learn what only god should know? If that's not what you mean then please elaborate as that is kinda the usual takeaway from that particular myth.

I was just wondering if preparations were underway to test this theory.

And on a more practical matter, where will the $$$ come from.

There is a reason why we launch observatories like Hubble and Chandra and Fermi into space. It's not just for the pretty pictures, it's to test stuff like this.

The Planck microwave observatory was launched in 2009 by the ESA (European Space Agency). It was built to test inflationary models of the universe (similar to this but different) and to better measure the Hubble constant. I don't know if it is properly equipped to test this particular theory or not.

Planck Observatory