Does time exist as we understand it? Is the "Big Bang" hypothesis wrong? James Webb Telescope is upsetting many held beliefs.

[Ronald Zeeman]

Physics has been stuck for a hundred years, other than the finding of the Higgs not much else has happened. Lots of theories not much evidence.

 

[Crossbreed]

Physics has been stuck for a hundred years, other than the finding of the Higgs not much else has happened. Lots of theories not much evidence.

So, even physics is developmentally disabled...!?

 

[AdamG]

So, even physics is developmentally disabled...!?

it is more academia. Lots of brilliance out there, unpublished.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

The JWT is the first time in years that real evidence is being collected. the challenges the status quo, I'm really excited.

 

[AdamG]

The JWT is the first time in years that real evidence is being collected. the challenges the status quo, I'm really excited.

it'll shake things up properly, for sure. Reality has not suddenly changed, am I right?

 

[Fino]

As I understand it, it is a myth that it was ever widely believed that the earth was flat.

 

[AdamG]

As I understand it, it is a myth that it was ever widely believed that the earth was flat.

agreed. Nobody with any sort of cognitive abilities actually believed that. The earth looks flat when you don't look far enough, but there is a horizon. Even before the stars became more than pinpricks in a cloth. Which is also a myth.
.
Ancient peoples were not stupid. They were just around before us, and didn't have computers.
.
they knew astronomy. The stars move.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Read a book on Occom's razor a few months ago, came to the conclusion Neil Turok currently has the best theory.
similar to what I can see. either way the correct theory has to explain Bell's theory. So locality cannot exist.

 

[The Pandector]

As a literalist, I grudgingly agree that the measure of a theory is its usefulness. As a Christian, I believe it would be far more useful to know God than to understand his handiwork. But then, I have to deal with this under-considered gem from Romans Chapter 1.

It says that those things that can be known about God are plain for people to see because God has revealed those things to them; that his invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature are not merely evident but have been clearly perceived since the beginning, because he has displayed them for us in his creation.

We can draw lessons, for example how every extant species proves that life and death are inseparable. Sure enough, Jesus demonstrated with a head of grain that the plant had to die to provide seed. Sunday school, right?

So I’m fascinated with multidimensional theories about the possibility of other worlds existing alongside our own. Science is in danger of finally catching up with millennia-old Scripture that speaks plainly about other dimension sets and of an abundance of creatures with which God populated them. Yeah, intelligent creatures.

In studying as-yet-unfulfilled prophesy, you’ll come across various doctrines to explain timeline difficulties, thereby slanting your predicted outcomes. No, I haven’t solved end times chronology, but could see one reason so many honest scholars disagree. They make the assumption that God operates within the confines of time. The Bible teaches that, in reality, God exists right now, meaning both before and after time. God is not beholden to time, rather it does his bidding.

For me, this clears the deck. Many of the scientific mindset scoff at the countless miracles of the Bible. But so many of them are time and distance related. Could Phillip possibly have been immediately transported to a place many miles distant? Could Paul possibly have been transported into a heavenly place (he confessed repeatedly that he didn’t know whether it had been in or out of the flesh). John wrote extensively about a nearly identical experience.

Through most of my lifetime, believing in intelligent beings that operate among us unseen has been a social liability best unmentioned. Now, the most nimble and foreword minds assure us these things are a mathematical likelihood. Well, not the God part, of course. Just the part about his creation being consistent with those beliefs. Man is still trying to duplicate the transporter thing.

So I also agree heartily with those pointing out that we reach new discoveries and think we’ve achieved enlightenment, when in fact we just get blinded by the light at the end of a very long tunnel. It comes from looking at the sun through a magnifying glass rather than in context.

Yet, the Lord instructed us to subdue the world, which certainly includes science.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I'm agnostic not an atheist, sort of like he does not help those who do not help themselves, which may include understanding how everything works Either way I'm in not into philosophy, including religious philosophy.

 

[Tom]

I know for a fact time exists. Its proven every time I show up late for an appointment and they make me reschedule.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Just found a u-tube video of Brian Greene debating Eric Weinstein on the failings of physics. Just released. I really like Eric what a great debater. Probably the brightest guy I have ever come across.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

If you read the latest addition on Peter Waits blog, on the ABC conjecture the mathematicians use the same argument. they do not have the time to look at a colleague's work. Seems like a feeble excuse. I feel for Peter
40 years as a teacher in university but no promotion to a professorship.

 

[The Pandector]

I'm agnostic not an atheist, sort of like he does not help those who do not help themselves, which may include understanding how everything works Either way I'm in not into philosophy, including religious philosophy.

Yeah, I’ll admit I’m much more interested in ‘religious philosophy’ than the ‘scientific’ philosophizing others do. But when modern science starts aligning with ancient ‘philosophical’ texts, it gets my attention. Kind of like light being the the first order of creation; that was millennia early, right?
Anyway…. Can’t blame me for seeking common ground. I might pick up some insight. Important in science and philosophy. Sometimes looking east can help us understand the west. Works for me, anyway. Cheers.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I was always agnostic, but my stroke really got me thinking, most notably the message I came back with. If a creator made all of us he made me curious for a reason not to squander finding both of the major theories of physics could support life after death was eye opening. Recently finding a loophole where free will and determinism could coexist.
really hit me.

 

[annO]

That argument is a little flawed. We used to think the earth was flat, then we looked at it, looked at it more closely, measured it a lot, in lots of different ways, travelled around it, sent things into space and took photos of it, took videos of it... now we're sure it is round.

Being sure about something is no indication that it's correct. Being sure about something after gathering mountains of data is.

The scientific process is only a good as the observable data. All the data about all the things related to space and time and space-time and physics is still incomplete and/or biased. There is a lot of unobservable pieces and processes even still and we don't have much data on that. Only recently some tiny bits of those unobservable things are coming to light, as has always been the true nature of the scientific process and will continue to bee until the end of "time" (or infinity).

 

[tazz]

Sure. I agree. Good data is the key. And the good thing about the scientific method is that when scientists have gathered good data they can be sure they're correct, but until that time they're very happy to be unsure.

The idea that we can never be sure of anything is dangerously inaccurate. It's the argument that lots of charlatans use to belittle and circumvent the mountains of evidence we have so they can peddle their trash.

The scientific method gets things wrong, when they think they've got good data but it turns out they didn't. But at least the scientific method invites literally anyone and everyone to try and prove it wrong so we can find these mistakes. It is open and rigorous.

Singularities, the origin of the universe and how space, time and spacetime work, all need further investigation and everyone within the scientific community agrees on that. On the other hand, we do know some things for sure because the data is already very, very good. The most important thing is that no-one is saying you can't question the data, no matter how sure we are that the data is good, no-one ever says "we're done, leave it alone, don't question that".

 

[vergil96]

Big bang is an approximation that holds true in a certain scale, just like Newtonian dynamics.

 

[NB79]

I'm agnostic not an atheist, sort of like he does not help those who do not help themselves, which may include understanding how everything works Either way I'm in not into philosophy, including religious philosophy.

For me the world was made by God, because it does not make sense that rocks and dust start one day to assemble themselves and end up as organisms and later art intelligence consciousness etc. For me the creation is always less than the creator, meaning, what has zero IQ lets say and knows nothing with zero ability to do anything, can't come up with intelligence and consciousness and marvelous organisms and systems.

 

[Outdated]

I like the way Terry Pratchet summed it up:

Creation by a mythical magical creature versus first there was nothing then it went bang.

I don't believe in mythical magical creatures and very simple physics tells me that you can't get a big bang out of nothing. As far as I'm concerned none of it stacks up.