Question About The Origin Of The Solar System

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
When you talk about anyone stating something as fact, what is your source? If you don't read the books they publish then you are reading an article published by a 3rd person, not the scientists direct words. Things do get distorted in this process.

If a theory is stated as such up front, then it is OK to talk about it as fact presenting it. Semantically it is a lot easier to write in this approach. It doesn't not keep critics and skeptics from bringing up questions and pointing out flaws. With Phds people have to defend their thesis as part of the process.

There are certain truths that are still argued by people with a different agenda. I am certain that the earth is round. I am certain the earth orbits the sun. I am fairly certain E=MC², the Earth is many Billions of years old, and evolution and DNA exist.. I do not confuse science with religion.
How does one "defend a thesis" without claiming your point of view to be the truth?
True, few would argue accepted truths like the age of the Earth,oops, no, there are even people who argue that point, aren't there. :) Would you list the big bang theory (Primordial Atom) as a truth? Have you not heard others who claim it is true? If the Pope signs off on it does that make it true if you are a Catholic?
Is your religious beliefs truths?
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,465
You really do strike me as someone with a different agenda that has nothing to do with science. You are trying to argue that which can not be argued. My impression is to support an alternate view, probably a religious one.

You ever seen a debate? You answer questions, you acknowledge weaknesses, you state why you think this hypothesis covers more facts than the competitors. You defend your concepts and why you have them. It is really simple, why are you having trouble wrapping your head around it? You want there to be an ultimate truth. There isn't such a thing, but I have a feeling you think you know it and are sideways arguing straw men to satisfy your own needs.

Science does not claim to have an ultimate truth. It tries to answer specific questions, many of the proposed answers to which will contradict religious dogma. If the proposed solution fails at some date it is dropped and a better one found.

I am done here. I will continue pointing obvious flaws when people state them, but I detest philosophy and the endless debate. I prefer real knowledge and experiments (which come close to being the same thing).
 
Last edited:

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
You really do strike me as someone with a different agenda that has nothing to do with science. You are trying to argue that which can not be argued. My impression is to support an alternate view, probably a religious one.

You ever seen a debate? You answer questions, you acknowledge weaknesses, you state why you think this hypothesis covers more facts than the competitors. You defend your concepts and why you have them. It is really simple, why are you having trouble wrapping your head around it? You want there to be an ultimate truth. There isn't such a thing, but I have a feeling you think you know it and are sideways arguing straw men to satisfy your own needs.

Science does not claim to have an ultimate truth. It tries to answer specific questions, many of the proposed answers to which will contradict religious dogma. If the proposed solution fails at some date it is dropped and a better one found.

I am done here. I will continue pointing obvious flaws when people state them, but I detest philosophy and the endless debate. I prefer real knowledge and experiments (which come close to being the same thing).
Your view of science and scientists is correct I think. Not all people who have opinions are scientists. Very little of the public are such scientists. You take the exception and hold it to be the common trait. I don't see that it is. The popular trait is failed human reasoning. Religion and similar pseudo-science, is far more popular than proper scientists.
 

sailorjoe

Joined Jun 4, 2013
363
o


Re: " He has decided that God does not exist, and that the universe does not require a God for its very existence."

Isn't that stating his theory is equal to fact? Not that I disagree with his conclusion, but a proper "scientist" might conclude that the bible is just myth but that does not prove there is no god. Science cannot pass judgment on something it cannot observe or test. The conclusion might be that man does not know god. A god by some other definition than the bible suggests. A god of creation, a causal force behind the universe since we don't have another theory about where it all comes from. The fact that there is a universe suggests a causal force. Do we have another word for this but god (small g to contrast from the biblical big G, invisible personal friend).
No, I don't think he is stating that his theory about God is equal to fact, more just a personal choice. Hawking is deeply driven to find the ultimate equation that explains the universe, but to do that he has to leave God or god out of it. Also, Stephen is a theoretician, so his inclination is to use mathematics to extend what we know into the unknown. Einstein did the same thing with his theories of relativity. Later, evidence was found that validates Einstein's theories. Stephen hopes that someday his theories will be validated as well. In the meantime, they are just theories based in math, awaiting an observation. But when you read his books you find his arguments very strong, well reasoned, and deeply insightful. So he argues strongly for his theories. Wouldn't you? That don't make them facts, just his opinions.
As to the existence of God, there's only one way to find out....even for Stephen!
And just for grins, I read a physics paper last year from a group of graduate researchers in China, that showed the differential equations that describe how the universe could be created from the quantum fluctuations in the nothingness before space-time came to be. One of those things that make you go "Hmmmmm".
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
Darn!!!
Looks like I opened up a real can of worms with my initial post about a supernova explosion and the formation of the solar system. :mad:

However, anything related to the Big Bang, the formation of galaxies, the solar system, sunspots, the evolution of life, etc. inevitably winds up taking a turn into a debate over science VS theology.

Sometimes, the debate can get really heated and people should be checked if they're carrying firearms, blunt objects, or sharp instruments. o_O
 

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
Darn!!!
Looks like I opened up a real can of worms with my initial post about a supernova explosion and the formation of the solar system. :mad:

However, anything related to the Big Bang, the formation of galaxies, the solar system, sunspots, the evolution of life, etc. inevitably winds up taking a turn into a debate over science VS theology.

Sometimes, the debate can get really heated and people should be checked if they're carrying firearms, blunt objects, or sharp instruments. o_O

Getting back to the original question ... why do you imagine our solar system was the result of a single supernova? Many supernovas unknown light years away over billions of years.
There may have been numerous universes proceeding the one in which we live, and numerous universes to follow.
Mind candy. An interesting story, without proof?
Why would you consider these other universes and not just other parts of this universe?
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,465
Which you said you didn't read and haven't had time to read and am not interested in reading. It is available for online reading.
 

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
Which you said you didn't read and haven't had time to read and am not interested in reading. It is available for online reading.
That one I read when it first came out and was what soured his future works for me. I decided he was probably great at math but not reasoning. His reversing time vector story was senseless.
I guess some people will believe anything if it is said with authority.
 

hp1729

Joined Nov 23, 2015
2,304
The iron core of our planet, and all the other materials on the earth. That are only formed when old stars die.
Well that's not quite right. Elements heavier than iron are formed by exploding stars but that gives no evidence of previous universes. Previous suns? Yes.
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
Well that's not quite right. Elements heavier than iron are formed by exploding stars but that gives no evidence of previous universes. Previous suns? Yes.
There is some evidence of elements that may have been existed prior to the process that is commonly referred to as the "creation" of the universe.

I've previously asked the question about the origin of "dust" clouds seen in images from the Hubble telescope. There's a common statement that stars are formed by "Collapsing clouds of dust and gases". However on the other hand, elements (that form the dust clouds) are created when stars explode.

So there is a convoluted proposition like which came first - the chicken or the egg or the stars and the dust clouds that form stars?
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
Getting back to the original question ... why do you imagine our solar system was the result of a single supernova? Many supernovas unknown light years away over billions of years.


Mind candy. An interesting story, without proof?
Why would you consider these other universes and not just other parts of this universe?
I wasn't implying that the solar system came from a single supernova. I was questioning if anyone has observed that there was a general direction from which the material of the supernova(s) came.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
hp1729 said:
Lemaitre thought he had the truth with his Primordial Atom story when he convinced the Pope to sign off on it. Apparently not all "scientists" are "good scientists".

Einstein thought Lemaitre had the truth, and published a public endorsement of it. The theory remains the heart of mainstream scientific thought on the beginning of the universe.

So, what's not good about his science?
Re: "Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into thinking something is true that is not, or that something is not true that is.

Good words. But you do realize this is how Islamists speak of their "truth" also.
What's your point? Islam isn't science and isn't done anywhere similar to science. Why compare two thing that arn't related in any way, shape for form?
 
Top