Monthly theme comments and suggestions

[Robert]

This is our first monthly theme and I would like to continue this every month. To help work out the kinks in the monthly theme idea and to make this even better next time, I've started this thread for your comments and suggestions. Let me know what you like, what you don't like, areas that can be improved, etc. Also, if you have any ideas for December's theme post it here and I'll take it under consideration.

--Robert

[Rufus]

Robert

I realize that this thread has expired but before it hits the trash perhaps you might want to use a theme in future that I could suggest.

There hasn't been too much thought put into this and if you respond to it I'll work it out but it would be about theories and their viability. Universe expansion is based on entirely faulty premises'. Those discussing it might as well be talking about something on Star trek because it is based on big bang or big bang bounce nonsense that in turn relies on some form of matter being created out of nothing. Unless, of course, universe expansion is considered quite apart from the origin of the Universe itself. Can you see what I'm getting at?

Don't bother responding if I'm out of my league here.

Rufe

[neutralino]

Universe expansion is based on entirely faulty premises'. Those discussing it might as well be talking about something on Star trek because it is based on big bang or big bang bounce nonsense that in turn relies on some form of matter being created out of nothing.

Actually, the big bang theory does not say anything about where it all came from. There is not, currently, an accepted theory that describes this. The big bang theory simply says that, at an earlier time the universe was more dense than it is today.

Furthermore, the "big bounce" scenario you describe does not require matter being created from nothing, at all! I don't know where you'd get this impression. Finally, talking about the expansion of the universe does not require us to know where the matter came from; that is, we do not need to know (as scientists) what happened before time t=0.

Don't bother responding if I'm out of my league here.

What does this mean?

Still, I'm sure your suggestion will be taken on board.

[N0B0DY]

I think though the big bounce theory doesn't necessitate a creation from nothing, the original big bang proposition of LeMaitre does.

"The empirical origination described by t=0 in Big Bang cosmology tends to confirm what is entailed by theological core theory, 'creatio ex nihilo means ontological origination.'" (Russell, p. 309)

http://www.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43150/carroll2.htm

[Rufus]

Neutralino and Nobody

Both responses to this thread are quite different and show exactly what I am talking about. Ontolgy cannot be mixed with real science no matter how many people seem to think it can.

t=0 is, in itself, a theoretical proposition. There is NO reason whatsoever to think that time began at some point and that theory alone is patently absurd.

Real science always begins with some form of real dense material and that idea too is real dense.

All ontological theories are also man made and have no evidence to support them.

Obviously I'm going nowhere with this thread since all options are refuted, but that is my point.

I'm sorry to be such a wet blanket but I'm really tired of hearing people rant on about theories that are based on other more basic theories that have no foundation whatever.

rufe