Yes, there have been many "inventions" (ad hoc assumptions) made to save the Big Bang theory. The nicest thing you can say about this is that math is ahead of the real science. There have been cases where the math lead us to scientific discoveries, but modern cosmology is putting the cart before the horse.

There is a philosophy of science and science including physics cannot exist without it, which by the way is one of the problems with many areas of science today.

Timelord and other interested parties -

Thank goodness you lost your original draft, for the 'weak reflection' of it that you reproduced is sufficiently fascinating to convey meaningful demons and yet does not go so far as to endanger the structure of the universe. (Please keep that in mind when writing your next book AJ.)

I have wondered about the provability of something myself (as we all have). Let me take your example of Newton's Laws of Motion: If the objects that we take as our experimental subjects are very small, the size of electrons, then my impression is that they do not obey those laws - an electron is 'probably' somewhere in its electron cloud orbit (awaiting the proverbial outside force to act on it) but it could decide to vacation in Alpha Centari and drink run drinks with umbrellas on them on a Centarian beach for a while. Similarly, if the objects we take to demonstrate Newton's Laws are moving Really Fast, then acting on them with an outside force will not convince them to exceed c.

So it seems to me that the only chance of making a 'provable' physics statement is to treat it like a magical spell: the first thing you set are parameters and limitations. eg "Within the size of a pea to a planet and between the speeds of a snail and 90% c, an object will behave according to These Laws." And - from what I recall of calculus (where I spent most of my time drooling uncontrollably), mathematicians do a lot of this sort of parametrization. Or maybe math is an exception; god knows, mathematicians are the only ones who can keep physicists humble.

I understand and sympathize with your exhaustion - but I can offer a twilight gleam of hope: One of your Silmarils lit my way home last night. Thank you.

Jan

Correct. I agree.

Depends, I guess, upon how you define "random." If you are using the commonly understood definition or a more technical one.

Correct

I'm sure Newton would have felt the same way when Einstein introduced relativity. Or Bohr when the new model of the atom came out. Or heck, let's go back to Einstein and add in Hawking and quantum mechanics.

Or maybe they would have just looked at things in a new way and went "You know, it wasn't that what I knew was wrong as much as a limited understanding. Now I can apply concepts that are a better description and fit more circumstances."

The fatal conceit is in thinking that we know everything and using that as justification never to test our hypotheses when new data comes out.

Many people are going to quote Rand here because it's part of the site mission. To encourage people to read about Objectivist philosophy. I quote all sorts of experts on topics within the site. When I want to make a moral case for a concept I often find Rand did the work best -use her explanation. There is a lexicon for her work. It makes it easier to tell you exactly where to find it.

You clearly do not understand Objectivism or science. Objectivism is not like the bible, its like citing a text on physics. Knowledge builds on itself and Objectivism is built on reality, logic and reason, on Aristotle and Locke. You are on a website that is about these principles If you have an logical or reasoned argument as to why these are incorrect in this situation, then state it instead of whining.

Yes

[ remember to do a <ctrl>-A / <ctrl>-C every once in a while] Right, normally I do that but this time I didn't, go figure!

I've watched this discussion for a while now and feel that I must add some information for clarity. The Big Bang Theory at it's base relies on three main legs. The first, most people think is of Hubble's work published in 1929 originating the concept of redshift in the spectrum of light recorded from what was supposedly measured by Hubble. That is in fact not the whole story as they say. The expanding universe was originated in the Catholic Church by an Abbott and amateur astronomer named Georges Lemaitre who in 1924 coined the description of the Universe as beginning from a 'primordial atom', which somehow exploded and drove the galaxies apart. Somehow that idea was conflated with mathematical cosmology and astrophysics to derive the expanding Universe originating from the exploding 'primordial atom' of the Catholics and to explain what everyone thought Hubble had determined through supposed redshift. Interestingly, Hubble never accepted that explanation for his work even though Hubble's Law was coined from the explanation.

The second leg of the theory is mathematical (some of which is intricately beautiful in it's derivation and complexity) cosmology and model driven astrophysics in place of obversataonal data.

And the third leg consists of misinterpreting or just plain not including the work of Hubble, Hoyle, and Arp. All of whom, with many others, did not accept the expanding Universe and argued quite strenuously against the purely mathematical and model driven cosmology and astrophysics of the 20th Century.

Much of the purely theoretical and model driven physics, cosmology, and astrophysics have all encountered similar problems when attempting to compare to any actual observational and experimental work, requiring the addition of things such as dark matter and energy, zero point energy, and various others--all that seem to rely on the concept of consensus science. A total and complete misnomer and oxymoron in my opinion.

Tossing God in and out of what is essentially a scientific exercise only confuses the issues.

There simply does not exist at this date, any reality driven hypothesis for the major questions of these three sciences that

Rejection of the supernatural is a lot simpler than that rationalization.

It was always known that the human senses are not capable of giving us perception outside of a certain range. We can't perceive the very small, very large or very fast. The science of what happens in those realms is by inference, building on what we know in a conceptual hierarchy all the way down to our first perception as the base.

Einstein didn't demolish Newton, he built on it. Without Newtonian physics he would have had nothing to build on and wouldn't have come up with anything. And yes, the more we learn the more questions it allows us to formulate for the progress of future knowledge.

A handful of religionists are arguing for their religion, and it most certainly does not belong here. The rest of us are simply rejecting it and explaining certain philosophical concepts and their proper application and relation to the physical science. Understanding concepts such as "time" is very important, but it stops before plunging into Cartesian rationalism and speculating what the physics "must" be. Philosophy is not physics.

Which "sacred text?"
"Principles of Objectivism", "The Bible", Darwin's "Origins of Man"....
Pick one or all since different people on this thread seem to imply the sacredness of each one of them all in THEIR view.
What is YOUR sacred text?

It was already explained above. Time is within the universe; the concepts beginning and end do not apply to existence. There is a fundamental distinction between that philosophical "universe", i.e. existence as such, and particular forms within the material universe studied by astronomers.

The concept of time is a "human construct" -- it is our means of consciousness grasping an aspect of reality. As a concept, it does not exist intrinsically in the universe, but the facts that give rise to it do -- like stars forming and disintegrating into something else. Stars _are_ born and they do die. They do whatever they do in accordance with their nature, independently of our ability to conceptualize and understand it and whether or not any human ever held a concept of time or birth or age in his head.

Actually I prefer the Hitchhikers Guide tot he Galaxy, where we here are earth are just part of a Giant computer experiment to produce the answer to the question of life the universe and everything, to which the answer is 42, all created by Pan-Dimensional Hyper Intelligent mice.

Isn't that the entire point to a discussion like this? To promote your views be them your "rational arguments for or against" a particular viewpoint?

One could say the same about yours and many other posts. "You consciously promote your views on atheism to the people here."

And it has nothing to do with atheism, which is only rejection of the supernatural, not a philosophical or scientific theory of anything. Pursuit of scientific knowledge is entirely independent of anyone else's belief in the supernatural.

for some reason I can no longer see posts on this thread. I have received several emails stating comments have been made but unfortunately it appears that I have been restricted.

Objectively you've proven my point.

Of course scientific principles are proven true, but they are not rationalistically deduced.