Good to see you back,
rcglinsk
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcglinsk
The "so called big bang theory" is not nearly so complex as you describe. It has three basic axioms:
1. The universe is finite in volume
2. That volume is increasing
3. The universe is finite in time, it has an "age"
|
It seems that, despite the efforts of several BAUT members, you have either not read some of the excellent material they provided links to, on LCDM cosmological models, or did not understand them.
I will be starting a new thread, designed specifically, and only, to examine these three points. It is my hope that you actively participate in that thread and, in a month or so's time, get a much better appreciation than that I am quoting.
ETA: DONE ("
What are the "axioms" of the Big Bang theory?")
Quote:
While that "age" may be the most recent bang after a crunch, it makes little difference.
Suppose I had an odd religion. Some profit came a thousand years ago, wrote a book of poetry and laid down a couple tenants:
1. The universe is infinite in time - there is no beginning nor an end
2. The universe is infinite in space - go off in a straight line and you will never find an edge nor get back to where you started.
Suppose a child went to school, raised to believe in the religion as I described, and was told by a teacher that "science" knows their religion is wrong. Wouldn't that violate that child's right to religious freedom?
|
In
post #73 in this thread,
Ken G tried to address a persistent mistake in your writing, concerning a misunderstanding of the nature of modern science.
In an earlier post in this thread, you introduced a term for one kind of logical fallacy; may I ask if there is a legal term for another kind of logical fallacy, popularly known as "the strawman argument"?
Quote:
I submit that the only standard to judge the difference between science and religion is saying that science can be falsified by experimentation, while religion is different. To quote the wise words of my sister, "mystery is a prerequisite to faith." Religion cannot be falsified.
I do not think that any of the axioms I laid out, 1-3 for the big bang, and 1-2 for my fake religion, can be falsified. I think it's a violation of a child's religious freedom to be told that "science" knows the universe is expanding after a big bang.
|
To repeat, you have a faulty notion of science ("
science can be falsified by experimentation" and "
"science" knows the universe is expanding after a big bang") ... if the premises are wrong, the conclusion is {insert answer here}.
Or not.
Perhaps you intended to use the word "only", as in "science can ONLY be falsified by experimentation" or perhaps "science can be falsified ONLY by experimentation"?
In any case, it seems we haven't moved forward from
my post #19 (extract):
Quote:
rcglinsk, if memory serves correctly, we've discussed something like this before, haven't we?
The extreme digest version (well, one such version) goes something like this:
Why is cosmology a science? Because astrophysics is a science.
Why is astrophysics a science? Because physics is a science.
Why is physics a science? So, this discussion is, fundamentally, about what 'science' is (in the last century or three)?
Perhaps if you could distill your questions into these key aspects?
* where do you see the biggest disconnect between cosmology and astrophysics?
* ditto, between astrophysics and physics?
* ditto, wrt your view of science and that you infer from what you read?
|
I'm interested in exploring your evident misunderstanding of the nature of science a bit, and leaving for a separate thread an attempt to bring you up to speed on just what contemporary cosmological models are really about.