[Buffy]

Originally Posted by New Science

Anyway, you do not need to hear an effect. If you see a fallen tree, that is an effect. You can deduce the cause by what you see. Whether it was a storm or a diseased tree.

Not necessarily! It could be entirely inconclusive: there simply may not be enough data to determine the actual cause. And as a result, the logic you are using would still insist that because its inconclusive it did not happen.

In normal science, its fine to say the tree fell--or the big bang happened--but we don't know why.

Conclusions,
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by New Science

Anyway, you do not need to hear an effect. If you see a fallen tree, that is an effect. You can deduce the cause by what you see.
Whether it was a storm or a diseased tree.

What if it WAS a storm, AND the tree was diseased when it fell, but it was transported by a helicopter owned by the logging company to the hill nearby, then an elephant nudged it and it rolled down the hill where you found it? I'm just sayin...

Science is about trying to understand how things happen, coming up with proposals and testing them, and refining the understanding as new information comes in.

If it were all cause and effect, there would be no such thing as quantum physics and entanglement.

[jackson33]

the tree fell....apparently still there and all the evidence shows all trees will fall at some point, for a number of reasons. you have that tree and all the others as evidence to make a judgment.

the universe is what we see. we see a continues process of all matter and energy from the suspected trillions of formations and demise of matter over times we cannot measure. we base BBT on many things which are not backed up. theologians, no less guilty, say God has always existed. its easy to analog this with the tree just fell. on the other hand something has to be because our time line is now 14.2 bya (previously down to 4bya), some exotic energy is present in all we know and by all means gives credence to some kind of creation.

i would agree science is an ongoing process of determinations, especially with so many unknowns or lots of X's in the formula. my argument is just how many unknowns does it take to allow an alternative, logical and plausible theory to enter the discussion....if nothing else give the new folks getting interested, keep some imaginable solution which allows visionary or plausible questioning of whats seemingly an immovable theory...

side note; if every year one solar system forms, our known universe alone would be how old...? speaking of inconsistencies!!!

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by infinite

#42
If it were all cause and effect, there would be no such thing as quantum physics and entanglement.

Before Quantum physics, it was presumed that light was a contiuous wave.

Two previous attempts to explain the light spectrum were incomplete.
Wiens formula explained the high energy side while the Rayleigh/Jeans formulas explained the low energy side.

When Planck reduced light to a 'pulse', his formula explained the entire spectrum. So he discovered the nature of light as a pulse.

Then Bohr provided the solution to the way the hydrogen atom radiates light as pulsations at different energy levels.

So these scientists were all searching for the causes of why light is what it is.

NS

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by New Science

So these scientists were all searching for the causes of why light is what it is.

Perhaps, but that does not mean that science itself is a search for causes.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Perhaps, but that does not mean that science itself is a search for causes.

If you want to substitute 'curiousity' for effect, then that is OK too.

Does religion promote curiousity?

NS

[Moontanman]

Is anyone familiar with brane theory? If I understand it correctly what we perceive as the big bang didn't occur. Instead two infinite brane's collided in eleven dimensional space and the big bang was every where all at once. when the two brane's collide they are immediately propelled away from each other by the energy release and when they get to a certain distance apart gravity (yes gravity which is the only force that extends out into higher dimensions) starts to pull them together again. From our stand point our universe is infinite but from a 11 dimensional perspective it is a finite 4 dimensional sheet. think of it as being like two wrinkled bed sheets hung out to dry on a clothesline. when they collide the wrinkles become points of collision those become big bangs. as the two universes come together from any one point it appears as single explosion but if you could stand out side our universe it would appear to be many big bangs occurring along the two brane's.

Michael