Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


russell last won the day on March 8 2016

russell had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

13 Good

About russell

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
  • Religion

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Darwinism Refuted

    Can you present you're evidence?
  2. Darwinism Refuted

    DNA is a code whose formulation though natural means we understand in great detail. We observe it changing in the wild and in laboratory experiments in predictable ways today. Is god getting inside our test tubes and fiddling with the organisms we are testing? Why would you think that when we understand in great detail how DNA works by natural means? Allah/Yahve/God guided someone is a claim without evidence from what I’ve seen so far. Do you have evidence that this is true? Sure some old books say so but that’s at best hearsay, do you have actual evidence that this is more than just wishful thinking on your part?
  3. Darwinism Refuted

    We observe bacteria evolving immunity to our antibiotics, that’s an observed fact of evolution. We observe plant species evolving the ability to survive our herbicides over the course of years. That’s two observed facts of evolution. We know from genetics that these changes aren’t just filtering out the individuals that can’t survive these challenges, though that is happening too, but that novel new DNA has arisen in these organisms. The theory that explains these facts was created by Charles Darwin and has since been updated in many details but that’s a separate issue. The observed facts of evolution mentioned above and many thousands more, require an explanation and the best tested scientific explanation we’ve come up with to date is the theory of evolution by natural selection or the Neo Darwinian Synthesis. What observations do you have in support of the idea that “Allah is the truth?”
  4. Darwinism Refuted

    Very true so, since we have very good reasons to believe it's true, where does Islam stand given you have pointed out that it contradicts the observed facts of evolution?
  5. Hi Eclipse Maybe you need to read back, I explained to you that the limit was 10-43 of a second after the initiation of the universe. You put up guesses that spaned over 20 orders of magnitude but I’ve always used that one figure. Who was it again who was dancing? Yes there is some variation about the exact moment for which we can currently gather evidence though the consensus is around 10-34 or a second when density waves and gravitational waves were created during inflation as I explained. That’s the first time you’ve mentioned Zero, that’s a good way of describing what I’ve been referring to as the initiating event that started the universe. Zero will do so long as you understand what that means. Zero plus 10-43 of a second is the end of the Planck Epoch for example and you can just add Zero + in front of each of those figures I’ve been trying to explain to you and you’ll start to get the idea. Remember that, on that scale, inflation started at around Zero + 10-37 of a second so you were wrong when you stated that the limit to our potential knowledge was after that moment as you were wrong with virtually all of those other guesses you threw out there. Have you looked up how that scientific notation works yet? There are very good reasons why no scientist who understood this stuff would suggest that the limit was 10-47 of a second, as I said you need to understand that scientific notation to get that but it’s important here. 10-47 is also too small to have significance given the limitations we see from Quantum Physics. Maybe that’ll change one day if some other theory comes out to supersede Quantum Physics but that time isn’t now. You can’t just wrap up all those vague guesses you threw out there and claim that some unnamed physicist or other believes it so it was reasonable for you to do so. And here you go again with the vague and inaccurate guesses. A Trillionth of a Trillionth of a Trillionth of a second is 10-36 of a second, that’s during inflation and long after the end of the Planck Epoch which is the most commonly accepted time for the limit to our potential knowledge here. Like I said vague guesses is what got you into this trouble in the first place. Please learn a little maths so you understand how wrong you are here. 10-36 of a second is 10,000,000 times the length of the Planck Epoch so it’s a very long time after the potential beginning of our knowledge of this universe. It’s closer to the time of the creation of those density and gravity waves during inflation but that is a question of our current knowledge of this period not our potential knowledge which is a very different question. Maybe you need to work out which of those questions you are trying to answer here is it when we could potentially know things about this universe or when we can currently gather information about the universe’s early history, they are different times one at 10-43 of a second and the other at around 10-34 or a second. The name “Big Bang” was invented by a reporter, the event itself was neither big nor a bang so you are correct there. If you equate it to Zero, to the very moment of the initiation of this universe then it also predated the start of inflation by some time, around 10-37 of a second. Actually the basis of this discussion is that you made claims for the limit to our knowledge that ranged far into the realm in which the vast majority of physicists agree that we do have knowledge. That’s what I keep trying to explain here. When you throw out these vague guesses as to the time you run into problems due to your lack of mathematical knowledge. The guess you just threw out for the limit to our knowledge was 10,000,000 the commonly agreed limit so I stated that we can have knowledge before that time. When you agree with my statement that the limit it 10-43 I’ll agree that we can’t know what was before that time but you don’t stick to that one correct figure you range over more than 20 orders of magnitude and I’ll disagree with most of those guesses. You range over 20 orders of magnitude as if you are unaware that you are even doing it. As I said a little understanding of maths would help you a lot here. Yes figures such as the cosmological constant may well affect the exact values by quite a few percent. If the figures I’ve been discussing were off by 20% even 50% etc, I wouldn’t be shocked but you are suggesting that they may well be off by 1000000000000000000000% and in making that claim you have stepped well beyond the bounds of possibility. Remember what I said, learn some maths and try again here Eclipse. Dark matter / energy may well play into this, currently it looks like it may account for the majority of matter/energy in this universe. Again that variation falls far short of the 1000000000000000000000% variation that could save your position Eclipse. Maths is the key here, not much maths, just a little will help you immeasurably I agree that all that science can offer beyond that point is speculation, that’s what scientific hypotheses are until they can be tested. You are arguing semantics here Eclipse. The ideas I explained step beyond the point at which they can probably ever be tested but that does not mean that they don’t conform to all of what we know about how this universe works which is what I claimed for them, read back if you don’t believe me. No we don’t know what caused inflation at this stage. Yes Dark Matter / Energy may well be a manifestation of an as yet unknown fifth force which may also be involved in inflation. Time may tell on that one. On Post 305 I said:- "No I have answered that question right at the beginning of this. Quantum physics is a very well tested scientific theory, that’s the evidence applied in the case I was pointing out to you. You may not like it but that is how it is. If you take the maths of quantum physics and apply it to an environment with very little in it, a vacuum, you see quantum fluctuations exactly in line with the predictions. According to the maths that so accurately predicts that if you remove space time itself, which is the situation you would find without a universe, those fluctuations are unbounded, they can get much bigger. In fact, according to that maths, ‘nothing’ is unstable, it contradicts Heisenberg, so it must explode with energy. Now is that speculation, yes as I explained at the start of this it is but it is speculation that is supported by all the current evidence and which conforms to the maths of quantum physics. The very well tested maths of quantum physics. Yes it’s taken beyond that testing to extrapolate further than our current evidence can test but that’s what science does, then it works out how to test it, then it tests it and potentially rejects it if the evidence doesn’t stand up.…." Now you’ll have to explain what you mean by applied in that question. I stated clearly that the ideas are based on things that can be applied and tested here and now, from there it is an extrapolation back to the likely conditions before the universe began, an extrapolation done mathematically, to try to work out what may have happened and make testable predictions based on that. So far no such testing is possible for this idea but who knows what the future may hold. That being said if that maths is run forwards from the nothing before the universe existed into the future after one had come into existence this mathematical idea produces a universe with a few key signatures that we can look for, those signatures are the only tests to which this idea can be put to date and they conform to the universe we see around us. Russell
  6. Hi Eclipse Let me ask you something important here, do you disagree that "the probability of such ideas for the creation of the universe would be much smaller than your death from falling"? If not then what are you complaining about? You want to know what science ‘knows’ yet as I explained science doesn’t work that way, science works with probability’s and testable ideas. Ideas that are best if they are risky and testable. Many of those ideas will prove to be false, many will prove to be only partially correct and will need revision. You may not like the extrapolations that some scientists come up with, that’s fine by the way, but to write them off you need to show that they are unfounded. You can’t of course but that is what you need to do. Until that is done they remain plausible but untested ideas. That’s the basis of science. One of the deepest problems at the base of this discussion is that you don’t know your maths. You seem to actually believe that 10-43 of a second is about half 10-22 or a second. That profound misunderstanding is a problem and I don’t think this discussion can move on until you address it. With that misunderstanding you have made claims for the limit to our potential knowledge of this universe that span over 30 orders of magnitude (you may have to look up what that means too Eclipse but it’ll be worth it) then complained that I won’t agree with those guesses you post. Obviously I can’t agree until you settle down to one specific figure here. As for our hypothetical man stepping off a 50th floor landing, you are starting to see the sorts of things that must be taken into account for that to be true. The building will have to be subject to a gravity field of a certain strength. Pretty simply as most buildings we know of are, and certainly every 50 story building that I’m aware of is. There are buildings under water in a number of locations on earth and stepping off a high floor on one of them would not result in your death so it’s not an automatic given, there are things you must take into account. Yes parachutes, ropes, nets etc are all plausible out clauses for him, what are the chances that something like that would save him? Recently a child fell from a 20th story balcony trying to escape his siblings teasing, he fell 19 of those 20 stories then landed on an awning which broke his fall. He survived with some minor injuries. See the picture is more complicated than you wish to paint it. Now you are starting to sound like Andalusi. “When nothing is known” stretches beyond the data here. We know that whatever was there at the beginning of this universe created a universe that looks like this one. It has values of matter and energy that are known assuming conservation is true. Nothing is an overblown statement, I know it’s one you’ve been clinging too for a long time but it’s false no matter how hard you wish to cling to it. You said that I have presented no evidence then let me present some for your examination. Whatever existed at that moment, 10-43 of a second after the initiation of the universe, had to lead to this so I present the universe as a whole as a rather large and obvious piece of evidence. I’ve pointed that out to you before of course so I see no reason to suspect that you’ll actually listen this time but here it is in black and white one more time. Now as I pointed out earlier the limit to our current direct observational evidence for the beginning of the universe is another question, that one comes in during inflation at around 10-34 of a second in the form of characteristics imprinted on the cosmic microwave background from gravitational and density waves generated during inflation. Those figures are the ones I’ve given here since the very beginning of this. Compare that to your figures ranging over more than 20 orders of magnitude. Consider also that you only recently found out, at least I hope you’ve found out, that inflation was not the first event at the start of this universe and ask yourself, who’s dancing here? Russell
  7. Hi Eclipse No I have answered that question right at the beginning of this. Quantum physics is a very well tested scientific theory, that’s the evidence applied in the case I was pointing out to you. You may not like it but that is how it is. If you take the maths of quantum physics and apply it to an environment with very little in it, a vacuum, you see quantum fluctuations exactly in line with the predictions. According to the maths that so accurately predicts that if you remove space time itself, which is the situation you would find without a universe, those fluctuations are unbounded, they can get much bigger. In fact, according to that maths, ‘nothing’ is unstable, it contradicts Heisenberg, so it must explode with energy. Now is that speculation, yes as I explained at the start of this it is but it is speculation that is supported by all the current evidence and which conforms to the maths of quantum physics. The very well tested maths of quantum physics. Yes it’s taken beyond that testing to extrapolate further than our current evidence can test but that’s what science does, then it works out how to test it, then it tests it and potentially rejects it if the evidence doesn’t stand up. Sorry but I’ve explained all of that to you here before so I assumed you’d read what I wrote. My mistake apparently. So to the question “what does science know” the answer is nothing, it does not know if you will fall when you step of that 50th floor landing but it would suggest that that outcome had a very high degree of probability. That’s how science works Eclipse. The probability it would apply to these ideas for the creation of the universe are much smaller than your death from that landing. Russell
  8. Hi Eclipse No I’ve explained the truth of it, I never said science ‘knew’ what started the universe I said that science had ideas that conform to everything we know about the universe that explain it. You say there is no evidence to base them on but, of course, there is this universes features must come from it and these ideas could create a universe like the one we see. Will it ever be proven, that’s an open question. Not long ago people would have said we would never reach the moon, lets face it not very long before that you could get yourself killed for pointing out that the earth wasn’t flat. So who knows what will be demonstrated in future but at the moment these ideas are exactly what I described them as, ideas, they conform to everything we know but false ideas do that too, only time will tell if that changes. As for the consensus of ideas I’ve presented, that too remains, again you may not like it and it may prove to be wrong one day but this is the current ‘best’ idea that science has to offer and like all ideas in science you are welcome to disagree but you’re best to do that with evidence not just personal incredulity. And yes Maths is still the language of physics, without it we have nothing, without understanding it you have little more. No you never explained the Planck Epoch, you did mention it long after I named it as the limit but you’ve never shown any understanding of why it’s the limit. Lets face it you don’t seem to have much idea of when it ended and that’s critical here. It is a fascinating question if you care to look into it by the way. As for science not knowing that’s true. I think I mentioned that science doesn’t know that you’ll fall and kill yourself if you step off the 50th floor of a tall building, it has a high degree of confidence that you will but it doesn’t ‘know’ it. Science doesn’t work in knowledge but in degrees of certainty. Again as I explained in the past the degree of certainty that would be assigned to the idea that you’ll fall and kill yourself when you take that last step on the 50th floor would be high, the degree of certainty that would be assigned to inflation itself would be quite a bit lower and to the ideas of what came before that would be much lower again but that’s how science works. Have you ever read any Popper? “ At this moment , as we speak , there is no theory on the Origin of the Universe . It does not exist Russell . Are you getting that ?” – Eclipse I think you need to read back a bit here Eclipse. That is what I said. I pointed out that there were ideas that conformed to all the evidence we have that describe what may have happened but no one knows. You can’t really argue against my ideas here by saying the same thing as I’ve already said. Yes I explained ideas that exist in quite a bit of detail to describe this, ideas that you are apparently unaware of, but I never said anyone knew what happened only that we do have more evidence than you are aware of or accept and some great minds have ideas that flow on from that data, that’s it. Russell
  9. Hi Eclipse Maths is the language of physics, if you don’t get the maths you are just regurgitating what someone else told you about it but that’s you apparently isn’t it Eclipse. You seem oblivious to the difference between 10--47 is from 10-27 for example but you can’t be if you want to discuss this stuff rationally, if you want to do more than just regurgitate. If we want to understand the early universe the only thing we have is physics applied to what we observe today. From there you extrapolate backwards with maths, theory wrapped maths to be sure but without the maths it’s nothing, towards the beginning of the universe. If you don’t believe that look at what Einstein did and tell me where that would be today if he didn’t have any maths? Without the maths we don’t know our own history on this planet, without the maths we don’t know how this universe works, without maths there is virtually no science at all. As I’ve explained before science does not deal in absolutes but in degrees of certainty, curved space time is what Einstein described and time and again his theories have stood the test despite the best efforts of scientists to disprove ideas that seem absurd. You may not like that but curved space time is what his maths described and it keeps working when we test it. Yes the maths is based in observation, the maths tries to model observation and extrapolate beyond what has been observed to new discoveries that have not yet been observed. When such discoveries are made, led by the maths, we gain strong evidence that there is some truth to the maths. Remember that has happened often in this field in the past and, no doubt, will continue to happen. As I said above, the maths is critical, without it we have nothing in this area. Without an understanding of it, even a very basic one, you can’t talk about this stuff you can only regurgitate what others have told you about this stuff. I asked you earlier why the end of the Planck Epoch is seen as a boundary but you didn’t answer. Do you know because it’s very relevant here, you say we can’t know but if you understood where the idea of that limit came from you’re realise you were wrong in that statement. Maybe the whole picture is wrong but if it’s not, if this universe had a specific beginning in time then that limit must apply to it. And it’s not just speculation because that limit applies today as well, it’s not just some guessed at historical artefact but a real world part of quantum physics right now. So my challenge to you stands, if you want to grasp what you are saying here you have to understand a little maths, a bit of quantum physics would help too but maybe that’s asking too much. Russell
  10. Hi Eclipse So it’s an obsession to try to understand what exactly is going on in the language of science that works out what is going on. You really have a skewed view of this. What can you know of quantum physics without maths. Richard Feynman explained that maths was the only way you could understand it, your common sense simply could not grasp what’s going on, only through the maths could you ever hope to grasp it. But hey throw out the maths and deal with what’s left hey Eclipse. Now back to reality. You can’t just ignore the maths, you can’t claim that, since 10-47 of a second and 10-27 of a second are both small increments of time that they are basically interchangeable. Now think back and remember that you pointed out that our knowledge of one fact of nature was improved from say 9% to 2.9%, that makes sense, we are always learning but you present figures that are incorrect by 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000% and defend it by saying that they are all small numbers. Sorry if you can’t even get within the ball park in your guesses you’d be better to hang up your hat on this one Eclipse. By the way I agree there are variances in estimates, the length of the Planck Epoch varies by .001% for example, but that’s hardly comparable to your errors of 20 orders of magnitude none of the figures from science varies by anywhere near that much. That’s an Eclipsian error. A scientist who was off by that much would just say, “I don’t know”. Hypotheses yes, that is what these explanations of the beginning of the universe are as I have said over and over again in the past but as for no facts that is simply wrong. Look around, there are your facts. Whatever is back there must be capable of producing this universe. This universe has parameters so it must be able to produce a universe with those same parameters. Yes there is evidence all around us even if you can’t see it. “The rest of your scenario is babble . Curved space time ?” - Eclipse You may remember a rather famous scientist, Einstein was his name, who explained that gravity was curvatures in space time. He wrapped all of that up in a whole lot of maths and, time and again since then, his ideas have been proven to be correct but if you can’t handle curved space time that’s fine. Remember what I said about maths. If you don’t get it you can’t possibly get what science is learning here. That’s enough of that I think, until you can get the maths you simply can’t understand any of this stuff in any significant way. Sure classical physics breaks down in the sort of conditions that existed in the very early universe but quantum physics defined the Planck Epoch and that limit is well accepted even if you don’t understand why. Remember those numbers I keep going on about and that Maths I keep suggesting you learn. That explains why the Planck Epoch is a limit and it explains what sort of limit it is. It’s fascinating to study this but you really do have to get into some maths to do it Eclipse. As I’ve said before, are you capable? Willing? To put in the effort. Russell
  11. Hi Eclipse No I guess you don’t need to learn maths, ignorance seems to fit you quite well. Given that ignorance you do need to stop discussing these time intervals as if you understand what they mean of course but I doubt you’ll do that. We know what the net result is - the Universe we observe . - Eclipse Wasn’t that my point? We know how quantum physics behaves in great detail in the universe and to a very high degree of accuracy, we see around us every day and we have the evidence of the universe we observe, it’s matter and energy balance etc all of which must have been able to appear from whatever preceded it. That’s a constraint on what came before; it must be capable of producing this. You claim we have no evidence then point to the evidence. Interesting position! I believe you are correct when you say you have no idea what so ever what came before, I suspect that the leading scientists do, maybe they are wrong but they do have ideas of what may have come before as I’ve explained. Do they know it? No. Do we know that gravity will make you fall if you step off your roof? No. We strongly suspect it but we don’t know it. That’s not how science works. Science is all about degrees of certainty. The degree of certainty that would be placed on the ideas of what started this universe would be low but not zero. That’s how it is whether you like it or not Eclipse. When scientists point out that they can’t test a chain of causality beyond a certain point, that magic 10-43 of a second figure that you don’t understand, they are not saying that they can’t apply the maths of quantum physics to that period rather they are saying that it’s impossible to calculate mathematically beyond that point because the rules of quantum physics don’t allow it. The rules of quantum physics still apply. It’s like a one way encryption key, you can only pass data one way through it. That doesn’t mean the maths doesn’t hold true beyond that point or that the data does not exist beyond that point. My “Obsession” with maths, with those figures, is not meaningless, it is a minor point that displays your ignorance here but that’s all it is I guess, an object lesson in ignorance. The figure is known and I named it at the beginning of this and have never changed that position while you show your ignorance by continually throwing out guesses over 20 orders of magnitude. If one end of that range were 1 the other end would be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000. You can’t really be taken seriously if you can’t see the difference between those two numbers. Numbers are what these questions are all about. Remember the rules of quantum physics that I’ve been talking about, they are mathematical rules. Numbers are important, maths is important here. The condensed state of matter you talk about starting the universe is not the current best theory for the creation of this universe. The current consensus suggests that the universe started with energy alone in the form of curved space time. During inflation quantum fluctuations were not capable of recombining so rather than each piece of the borrowed vacuum energy annihilating with the rest they moved apart at greater than the speed of light carried along with the universe around them. That’s what inflation is all about remember, so they were forced to become real matter and energy rather than the ghostly energy seen in the casimir experiments. No matter filled singularity existed in this scenario just a curved space time created as I have described. Remember that this idea applies long after that limit you have been guessing at Eclipse, it started at 10-36 of a second or 10000000 times the length of the Planck Epoch after the start of this universe. You don’t have to like it and it’s certainly not the only idea out there for what created this universe but it is by far the most commonly accepted one among those who really understand this stuff and all that maths that you don’t think is important works in this scenario and it can only produce a balanced, zero energy, universe just like the one we see around us. Russell
  12. Hi Eclipse But that difference is irrelevant . 10 with 27 zeros behind it is almost twice as long as 10 with 47 zeros , but we are talking about parts of a second , Planck seconds . - Eclipse Yes I understand that you failed maths in a big way, you’ve proven that time and again here. 10-27 isn’t almost twice as long as 10-47 unless you’re just talking about the space it takes to write it down, it’s 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times as long. You aren’t talking about being off by a few percent but 10,000,000,000,000,000%. It is a big deal if you can’t grasp be basics Eclipse. Remember I suggested that you look this stuff up to try to work out just how wrong you are? Did you try and fail or did you just skip that bit? It was really really important to this discussion. Hubble's Constant has just recently been refined to a margin of error of about 2.9% from a known error of between 5-9 %. - Eclipse. Did you really just compare a change in the accuracy of our knowledge of the Hubble Constant by 6% to you being 10,000,000,000,000,000% wrong in your statements as if that makes it all OK? Really? You’ll have to show me where any main stream scientists suggests that the figure should be 10-27 of a second or that it should be 10-36 of a second for that matter. Both figures are very wrong but you apparently don’t realize just how wrong. “Can I borrow $1010 it’s only twice as much as $10 and I’ll give you $100 so it’s all good?” Didn’t I already say that I could accept 3 Planck Seconds as being pretty close but you didn’t say that did you, you said “3 Planck Segments after the start of inflation” which if you look back or hit the web you’ll see is at 10-36 of a second plus those segments so significantly wrong. And that’s the real issue here, you’ve been giving incorrect figures over a range of 20 orders of magnitude throughout this discussion. Remember I gave the correct figure as it is currently known at the very start of this when told you the limit was the end of the Planck Epoch. That’s never changed throughout this discussion unlike your position which has varied by 10000000000000000000 times. It’s an interesting notion that I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a conclusion that I stated up front in this discussion ages ago? How does that work. I said at the beginning of the that the limit to our knowledge was the end of the Planck Epoch and I’ve stuck to that since, you’ve suggested that it is just after 10-36 of a second, 10-47 of a second, 10-27 of a second among others, never the right figure you’ll notice it was me who posted that right at the beginning of this and repeatedly since. Sure I understand that there’s some wiggle room as these figures are not known exactly but the errors you have repeatedly made here are more than that. No scientists would subscribe to figures spanning 20 orders of magnitude for this. Yes really, it’s possible to have a consensus opinion that can never be proven, why is that a problem to you? All the evidence we have is and probably always will remain insufficient to prove it but science never proves things it just proposes theories that are potentially disproved by the evidence and this idea has not been. Maybe it will be one day. I get the feeling that you really believe that 10-27 is just twice 10-47 of a second and that just after 10-36 of a second is the same as 10-43 of a second but a little maths would debase you of these misconceptions and maybe you’d start to see just how wrong you’ve been since the start of this. But are you up for the challenge, to learn a little maths and see what those numbers actually mean? Can you do it Eclipse? If there is no evidence then what is the universe we see around us? The balance of energy and matter it contains? Do you really believe that what came before could be any old thing regardless of the fact that it had to be able to lead to this? Surely you see that what came before, even if we can’t compute it or observe it directly in any way, must have been something that could have lead to this? Do you see that? Russell
  13. Hi Eclipse True enough I did point out that there is a theory with a great deal of support in current knowledge that could describe how the universe got started, nothing has changed there, the theory still exists, it is still valid against all the evidence we have and it definitely can’t be tested or proven at this stage because of the limit to our knowledge of this universe before the end of the Planck Epoch. Sorry none of that is contradictory. What is contradictory is that the limit to our knowledge is 10-47 of a second and 10-27 of a second and three Planck Segments after the start of inflation( which his at 10-36 of a second) when the actual figure as I stated a very long time ago was the end of the Planck Epoch at 10-43 of a second. That is the definition of a contradiction when you can’t even put your finger on a single point and say “That’s it” but rather range around over 10 orders of magnitude in your guesses. You’re wrong of course that there is no information, you have still never faced up to the fact that whatever happened there must be something that could produce a universe that looks like this one, that gives us a balance of matter and energy in specific quantities etc. That’s not nothing! As for what happened in there to produce that we can’t see evidence for it directly because of that limit so we will probably always be restricted from knowing what exactly happened in that era. Yes I gathered a while ago that you don’t get maths, 10-47 of a second and 10-27 of a second are not just both small fragments of time, they’re precise and specific measures of time. Both are wrong in opposite directions when looking for the limit to our knowledge even though you throw them out there without understanding that. The limit is based in a testable feature of quantum physics, a feature that can be tested now, we don’t have to go back to the beginning of the universe for this because that limit still applies in quantum physics. Nothing is ever certain in science but we have a consensus of opinion, not universally supported, among scientists that the picture I have been explaining since the beginning is probably correct. The view you have expressed is self-contradictory which obviously invalidates it. There is strong experimental evidence of the conditions required to separate the electromagnetic and Weak Nuclear forces so we’ve made progress even here and there is evidence to support the current views for the other forces but no experimental or direct observational evidence for the others. Russell
  14. Hi Eclipse I get the distinct feeling you didn’t read what I wrote last time. Did you? I stated at the start of this that the limit to our knowledge was the end of the Planck Epoch which ended 10-36 of a second before inflation started, you on the other hand keep insisting, even in this last post, that the limit is some time after inflation started, a time which is clearly wrong. No the difference between 10-43 of a second and 10-27 of a second is not irrelevant; one is the correct answer as best science knows it, and one is not. I agree that science can’t know anything before a very short period of time after the start of the universe, I said that in virtually my first post on this question, but the difference between those two numbers is critical, it’s a huge difference. There are 10,000,000,000,000,000 10-43’s in 10-27 so you’re off by a huge margin when you claimed the limit was 10-27. Science is all about exact figures and specific information not vague guesses. If all you were claiming was that somewhere back there we can’t know anything then why didn’t you just say that rather than putting up a huge range of incorrect figures then complaining when I didn’t agree to all of them. And no it is not an ambiguous estimation, the figure for the Planck Epoch has significance for quantum physics today and it is calculated to 6 decimal places which hardly makes is an estimate. I love the fact that you talk about a 2% variation as if it helps your case here given that the latest figure you gave was off by 100,000,000,000,000%. As for rolling it back that was never needed though it would be nice, because this sort of science is forensic in nature. Like working out details of Egyptian society when we can go and have a look we rely on evidence we find today to guide us and that evidence leads to a majority view which I have been trying to explain to you. Sure one day something may come along that will upset it and a new picture will emerge, it’s happened in the past let’s face it, but until that happens we should focus on the best of our current understanding and the consensus view among scientists or we should point out if we are pushing a fringe view. Russell