Bang, bang

Discussion in 'Science' started by (original)late, Jun 6, 2020.

  1. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently there is a theory running around that talks about there being a series of Big Bangs. Meaning there was a Universe right here before we showed up.

    I was not aware of this one.


     
    Cosmo, Derideo_Te and Bowerbird like this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Theoretical physicists have vaious ideas of what might be the larger context. The problem is that finding evidence is difficult.

    There is plenty of room in science for people to get excited about finding out how the heck things actually work!
     
    Cosmo, Derideo_Te and Bowerbird like this.
  3. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is so far over my head. I just want to know how much cooler will my 1000 gal pond be after adding 10 pounds of ice. The water temp was 83 this morning. Air temp was 87.
     
    Injeun and Bowerbird like this.
  4. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I will measure in the morning. Even holding steady won't be too bad. Need to keep it below 90.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  5. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bang bang, flash back
     
    Cosmo and Bowerbird like this.
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let us know! I'm curious!

    Is the limit due to fish?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  7. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fish and crayfish. I was going to raise Tilapia and Australian Redclaw crayfish. So this winter I ran one 40 gallon tank in my shed at tropical temps. On cold nights it took a heat lamp and 150 watts of aquarium heaters just to keep it at 55 to 60 degrees. I have thousands of gallons of water , Redclaw and Tilapia are expensive , and both die at 55 degrees. So... I decided to try native species. All I have to do is keep the water from freezing. The bluegill I have has a feed to meat conversion ratio of 4 to 1. Tilapia is closer to 2 to 1. or better. But no energy cost except my 34 watt air pump. ....Vivosun.... And my water pump. And I would need those with the other system. I decided to try local crayfish. I have two kinds. I will sort and cull all livestock for growth rate and size. I use plants as water filters and crayfish as scavengers. They say I can get 1 pound of fish for 10 gallons of water. I will not stock that heavy because I want water that I can drink coming out of my system. No waste of water.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2020
    Injeun and Bowerbird like this.
  8. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1000 gallons is 8300 pounds

    (8300 pounds x 83 degrees) + (10 pounds x 32 degrees) = 8310 x final temp

    Final temp = 82.93 degrees

    There is some added benefit in melting the ice first [not included here] but not much. I'm afraid 10 pounds of ice is literally just a drop in the bucket.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2020
    Bowerbird likes this.
  9. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well it rained and the temp dropped to 80 degrees at the surface. And considering the average daily tempns will be below 80 I should be okay for a while. It should be 78 in the morning.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2020
    Bowerbird likes this.
  10. Ronald Hillman

    Ronald Hillman Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2020
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Penrose is an astonishing man, his CCM model is looking very interesting.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  11. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Cyclical Universe concept makes a great deal of sense.

    For starters it completely negates the "creation from nothing" drivel by replacing it with an infinite universe that has always existed and will always exist in one form or another. We can only directly observe the current form of the universe and from that try to understand how it functions.

    The cyclical model upholds the Laws of Physics and explains some of the other concepts such as inflation.

    Neil DeGrasse Tyson made the observation that there is nothing unique in our universe because whenever we discover something "new" it turns out that there are others. That same logic probably applies to our universe, it is not unique, just another iteration with the same elements combined differently. Think of sunsets and how they can vary and yet they are all based upon the same combination of light, gases and H2O in the atmosphere.
     
    Phyxius, Cosmo, Diablo and 1 other person like this.
  12. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Big Bang (or a series of bangs) is not science. It is religion.

    These theories are NOT falsifiable, as there is no accessible practical quantitative specific test (yielding a specific result) that can be performed against the null hypothesis of such theories.

    Science does NOT make use of supporting evidence. It only makes use of conflicting evidence. Religion, however, does make use of supporting evidence.
     
  13. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Various theories (the term used loosely) are more attempts at formulating speculative potential explanations that account for gaps in knowledge, criticisms of the limits of popular theories advanced to explain observation and evidence thus far accumulated that still leave unanswered questions like explaining gravity, the nature of nothing, what was before the before, the nature of time, etc. For many of these explanatory frameworks we yet have accumulated enough evidence or measured observation, or the means for measurement to emerge as having a higher level of confidence to be selected as more likely than another. From a science stand point, the more questions to which we develop practical answers of understanding, the more questions that seem to emerge. Some theoretical constructs like string theory, M-Theory, Geometric Unity, Loop Gravity, have some level of promise for developing an approach to understanding, but lack in our ability to develop, at this point, the means for experimentation, measurement, testing to provide for establishing a level of confidence in their validity. What they do provide is a background and framing of questions for developing testable hypotheses that can be used to guide inquiry and we are slowly chipping away at developing the tools to answer our questions, for instance, our tools (CERN, LIGO, light manipulation, etc.) are emerging as a consequence of asking certain questions and our advancing technology capability for developing them. When will we have answers? Well, who knows, my unfounded opinion is, we are still children playing with wood blocks. I once engaged in that past time. But, my blocks have become far more sophisticated as I have aged, learned, found better blocks.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good points on how to think about theory.

    But, the big bang theory doesn't make any claim of going back to t=0, where all that energy came from, what started the expansion, etc., etc.. Information starts becoming available only sometime after t=0.

    Theoretical physics is something separate. It depends on science known from experimentation and observation and creates models that are at least mathmatically consistent while explaining a larger context.

    That's seriously useful in finding what scientests might even look for, etc. This is far from religion. Theoretical physicists are constantly eliminating models that would lead to differences we could detect - which is a form of falsification, just not strong enough to emerge from the realm of theoretical physics. It's more a matter of evaluating models for consistency within themselves and with what they would lead to - with the hopes of full and direct evidence coming later as science learns what to look for and develops technology for looking.

    Also, I'd point out that religion makes no use of falsification through observation or evidence. It doesn't even look for faslification by internal consistency like theoretical physics does. In fact, it has no method of decision making. If it did, we'd not have so many thousands of religious differences.

    Religions tend to have unassaable foundational assumptions such as gods of specific characteristics.

    Science has as its root assumption that we may meaningfully observe our universe - a very different kind of assumption.

    Theoretical physics is not like either of those.
     
    Cosmo and Ronald Hillman like this.
  15. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that is crackpottery.

    AT MOST you can only argue that it is really philosophy. String theory is in the same boat for now.

    But even philosophy can be logically rigorous. That doesn't make it a matter of faith like religion.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  16. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually it is a crackpot claim. It does not make science into a religion. It only speaks to the limits of science.

    Beyond that there is a great deal of evidence consistent with the Big Bang theory AND NOTHING ELSE.
     
    Cosmo and WillReadmore like this.
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hope I addressed your points, as I agree with what you're saying.

    I'll admit that from time to time I break down and seach for the positive even when so little exists.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  18. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I feel my response to this would be beating a dead horse.

    I think I'm okay with this.

    No need to. Religion is always internally consistent since (by definition) it is based on a circular argument (A -> A), which in and of itself is internally consistent.

    Religion is simply accepted/rejected via faith. Any attempt to prove or disprove it leads to numerous logical fallacies.

    True, and that's precisely why Big Bang is a religion. It is one of numerous foundational assumptions regarding how our universe came to be... IF it's even a universe... IF it even "came to be".

    Yup. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature... or, if you prefer, a set of falsifiable models that predict nature.
     
  19. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not at all.

    Nope. It is religion, and so is string theory.
    Philosophy is what defines both science and religion.

    Philosophy is the study of how and why we reason.
     
  20. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm a scientist. But you have fun with your little imaginary world. ;)

    Religion is based on doctrine - words from the alleged god. Science uses evidence and logic to develop hypotheses. And the Big Bang is most certainly a scientific hypothesis, not a religion. It is considered to be a theory because the evidence for it is overwhelming. It cannot meet the criteria of being reproducible for obvious reasons. But that is the only limitation.

    Because it cannot meet the ultimate test of being reproducible, it is technically limited to being a philosophical proof.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2020
    Cosmo, Derideo_Te and Ronald Hillman like this.
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the nature of foundational principles.

    There is a general problem of decision making within a religion - to the point of including pretty much every decision.

    Christianity, for example, has fragmented on the basis of numerous questions of theology for which there is no commonly accepted decision making methodoogy. And, it's easy to come up with other such questions that are fairly central, and can't be answered, especially when one starts considering how a specific religion must impact the lives of its adherents.
    The big bang is not a foundational assumption in science. It is a theory. The foundational assumptions of science aren't theories - they include issues such as separation from metaphysics, the assumption that we may meaningfully observe the universe.

    Let's remember that the big bang theory is certainly NOT the only cosmology that has been proposed. The others get little attention for sound reason - evidence against them. The big bang theory survives, because it is consistent with significant evidence that is available for all to see.

    Also, I think people often mistake what that theory covers - especially in thinking that it includes how the big bang came about - which is not actually part of the theory. It's a little like evolution in that the theory of evolution doesn't include abiogenesis. We hear that the big bang is false because it claims we got something from nothing - but the big bang doesn't claim that.
    Whatever theories we have are only a PRODUCT of the methodology that is science.

    As you point out, those theories are falsifiable - they are not absolute OR foundational. Science has survived the death of many theories of cosmology.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  22. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,293
    Likes Received:
    48,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you raising food fish? I have a 150 gal. koi pond. *edit...nevermind, i saw post 7
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2020
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,479
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My problem isn't temp, it's racoons. It never gets that cold or hot here.

    The structure required for protection ends up killing the esthetic. And, one mistake pretty much means game over.
     
    Injeun likes this.
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't believe you.

    See how meaningless "credentials" are on an internet forum such as this?

    Sort of. It would be more accurate to say that religion is based on an initial circular argument (in other words, an initial "fundamental assumption").

    God(s) are not a requirement of religion.

    Science does not use supporting evidence. It only uses conflicting evidence.

    No. It is a religion. It is a theory that is unfalsifiable. We cannot go back in time to see what actually happened. Science has no theories about past unobserved events.

    Science does not make use of supporting evidence. RELIGION does.

    ... and that is another reason why it is RELIGION and not science.

    There are no proofs in philosophy. Philosophy is an open functional system. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems (such as logic and mathematics).

    See this link for more information about how religion and science work (and the logical framework behind each of them)
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php...mperature-ever.567973/page-34#post-1071445866
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2020
  25. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    20191115_075935.jpg Here is some logic that puzzles me. This glass chicken is obviously designed by a designer. But a real chicken happened by accident? And the raw material that makes up the chicken, silica and such , also happened by accident? We see the design in the glass chicken because we are familiar. But what about a real chicken? Does complexity equal design? Does a blueprint for protien such as DNA equal design?
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2020
    Injeun likes this.

Share This Page