since9
Campaign Veteran
I don't want to start an argument. I just want to clear up something.
When I read the quoted post, I initially thought I misunderstood the word atheist.
So, I looked it up. The dictionary definition is a little different than Tawnos represents here. The common usage (this is how a word gets in the dictionary) of the word atheist is one who disbelieves in god(s) or denies the existence of god(s).
This is a little different from one who lacks a belief either way.
Tawnos seems to be confusing atheist and agnostic.
Do I have something sideways?
Nope! You're right on target.
The big bang theory does not demand a belief in the impossible or shatter any "hard laws" of science. The big bang theory also doesn't attempt to explain how all things began, just how our ever expanding space came to be the way it is. As a working theory it is far more useful than how Einstein believed in a static universe and how his explanation of gravity keeping everything moving. Einstein was not as correct in his theories on gravity as we once believed.
Actually, he was (and is). It's just that as he was forumlating his theories for both general and special relativity, he was unaware at the time of the effect of frame dragging and more than half a dozen similar effects which we know know would render his view of a static universe as relegated to forever slowing down, collapsing into black holes, and dying a never-to-be-resurrected death.
His theories were sound. It's just that despite the accuracy of his theories, he lacked both experiential and experimental knowledge of just how far-reaching his theories really were.*
The Big Bang remains the best working theory we have to date, but there are some conundrums about it which cannot be explained away by "we just don't yet have the physics for it." It is for this reason that several branches of physics including strings and m-branes have gained steady and strong acceptance throughout academia in an attempt to understand the how/why behind the conundrums which are currently unacceptable with the only slightly more traditional path of modern physics.
* The other forum at which I spend much of my time is one dealing primarily in advanced and theoretical partical physics and astrophysics.
The other thing I want to talk about is the idea of scientific "laws". The law of gravity is only a law in our local environment, the earth. The laws we follow in earths atmosphere change drastically in different areas of space. Extraordinarily dense objects warp everything around them and change how we must calculate their forces, applying our laws of science to things that don't abide by them is ridiculous. The idea of hard laws of science is antiquated.
I hope this makes some sense.
It does make sense. However, we hold that various laws are immutible, that is, they apply at all times, even when their effects are diminished by other, much more powerful forces. Thus, Newton's "law of gravity" is no longer a law. Rather, it's referred to as a "classical law," meaning that it held true at the time of its creation, as well as for a substantial period beyond that, commensurate with observational error of the day. If we were to use it to calculate orbits of our GPS satellites, however, it would take only minutes before we'd be well beyond the accuracy tolerances expected of the system.
Thus, something as simple as calculating a Hohmann transfer orbit, while good for an undergraduate class exercise, is woefully inadequate in this day and age, and has been since before the first Apollo launch. Even during the Apollo program, however, while some attempt was made to correct for the lesser effects, most particularly time delays of ground-based telemetry, it would up being somewhat of a fly by the seat of one's pants operation, as constricted as it was by the most advanced computers and processing of the day.
Last edited: