[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.

[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 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").

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[rgregoryb]

a Glock 10mm

[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.

[rayetter]

16 gr. Bullseye in a. 357 mag round.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Again, complete fabrication. It is not testable, observable, or repeatable.

You clearly did not even read (or understand) the abstract. They mention specifically that if the theory is correct there will be a measurable result in the polarization of microwave background radiation. They elaborate further in the paper the exact characteristics they predict.

I have a background in electromagnetic radiation and understand exactly what they are referring to when they talk about microwave polarization. It is not nonsensical, this is a real phenomenon.

Furthermore, we are talking about foremost researchers at Princeton, Cambridge and Univ of Pennsylvania. Are you seriously suggesting that they just made up and published nonsense and submitted it for peer review?

If the answer is yes then you are a lost cause. No amount of evidence will ever be enough for you.

[Geko45]

I will add that testing this will require a microwave survey of the entire visible sky with equipment calibrated to look for their predicted results. That could take several years and millions of dollars. But this is what science is all about. It will be tested (if not already underway).

[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.

[Woofie]

Those equations are a little bit beyond my ability. I did notice that they mentioned the phrase heterotic M theory. . .

[juggy4711]

Originally Posted by Geko45

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)

I recently finished a book that included this subject. Don't expect any of the usual suspects to even bother considering it, or have the capacity to understand it.

To be fair however, I know atheists that can't believe what science tells us about things of this nature. Once you delve into quantum mechanics and m-theory, things are so counter intuitive the mind rebels and rejects as one's existence is defined by classical experience. Some folks simply can't wrap their brains around it.