- Prev: Re: When the Universe was Dark...
- Next: Re: Krishna=LIES!!!
- Index: The Sudarsana Archive -- Date Index
- Thread: The Sudarsana Archive -- Topic Index
Date Index | Topic Index
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org
donl@physics1.physics.monash.edu.au wrote:
>(Madhudvisa dasa ) writes:
>
>> WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS DARK...
>> =============================
>If you are going to attempt to discredit western science then at least have
>the decency to understand what it is (and is not ) saying.
I know science doesn't claim to produce facts, only theories which are
always open to be revised and thrown out the window as soon as someone
can disprove them. But not everybody knows that. Some people think
scientists have "proved" the universe came about all by itself from a
big bang which happened without any cause. To my mind this is
unreasonable.
><snip>
>> One commonly held belief, developed in light of Einstein's theory
>> is the "Big Bang Theory". This theory maintains that a huge
>> explosion about 5 billion years ago created all the material in
>> the universe. The theory is there, but any good theory should be
>> backed up by practical experience. If it is a fact the universe
>> emerged from a "big bang" then we should see similar things
>> happening in nature.
>The logic of this statement defies me. The big bang is generally considered
>to be quite a special event. To talk about reproducing it on smaller scales
>appears nonsensical to me.
Why? What have you seen that only happens once and can't be reproduced
on a smaller scale?
>But I see there is an attempt to justify it below ...
>> We have recently seen one scientist, Mandelbrot, who stunned the
>> scientific world with his "fractals". He showed complex patterns
>> could be generated from fairly simple mathematical equations if
>> these equations are repeated over and over again. He made a big
>> thing out of similarity at different levels. He noticed in nature
>> things we see on a big scale are repeated on a smaller scale and
>> then on an even smaller scale and so on. There is similarity at
>> every level. He gave two examples: the coastline and the branching
>> structure of a tree. In both cases you can look at any level of
>> magnification and the structure is essentially the same.
>> If we accept this work of Mandelbrot we would expect to see the
>> process of universal creation mirrored on a smaller scale within
>> our experience.
>I do not even think Mandelbrot (or any other mathematician) suggests that
>chaos theory predicts anything like what you are saying.
It is a valid application of the theory. Why not?
>> If the hypothesis of similarity at different scales is to hold
>> true we would expect the universal creation to be similar to any
>> other creation we experience in our day-to-day lives, but the
>> Western scientists explanation of creation is completely foreign
>> to us.
>> If the universe was created by a "big bang" then why couldn't a
>> child be created by a "small bang"? A child is essentially a self-
>> contained universe so his creation should be similar to that of
>> the universal creation.
>> I challenge the scientists to prove their "big bang" theory by
>> creating anything (They should be able to create a child, but
>> failing that they could create a city, a building or even a
>> motorcar) with an explosion. The idea is actually ludicrous, we
>> have no experience anywhere of an explosion ever creating
>> anything, explosions destroy things.
>The big bang is not an explosion, at least not as you are describing it.
>Anyway energy has already been converted to matter and vice versa.
So convert some more energy to matter, you've got plenty of energy
(dynamite, nuclear bombs, etc)....
>> Instead of creating order,
>> they create disorder. This "big bang" theory can't be simply
>> accepted on the basis of sentiment, they have to give us some
>> proof.
>Order in the universe can come about from the negative entropy arising from
>the expansion of the universe (which ties back into the big bang).
Yes, yes, yes... It built the planets, populated them with such a huge
variety of living entities, created such beauty and diversity...
>In terms of proof, what do you want? For God to come down and say "Yep,
>that's the way I did it!". In its simplest terms, science is about
>observation, speculation and where possible experimentation. Nobody's ever
>said science knows all. Science is not so much a discipline as a process.
>New knowledge replaces old.
It is not impossible that God used a "big bang" to create the universe.
You have touched on the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge, "New
replaces old." While science as a process gradually leads one to real
knowledge the "knowledge" at any point in time is not perfect. I am
suggesting another source of knowledge, knowledge coming from a higher
authority. If you can find a perfect authority then you can get the
perfect knowledge immediately.
>So I challenge you to read a proper scientific text and not just use ideas
>that look like they were developed from popular expositions
These ideas are reasonable... The "proper scientific texts" suffer
from the flaw you have mentioned above, they contain a lot of
speculation. There is no perfect knowledge in them. I'd rather read the
Srimad Bhagavatam...
><SNIP>
>> It is not that the earth is the only planet inhabited by living
>> entities, the living entities are everywhere. If we apply
>> Mandelbrot's theory we would expect to find similar things on all
>> the planets.
>Again, I believe this is an improper interpretation of chaos theory.
><SNIP>
>> It is not mystical and unexplainable like a "big bang" which
>> magically creates the universe from "nothing at all". We have seen
>> a father impregnate a mother and thus produce a child, a small
>> universe, so why is it surprising that the whole universe is
>> produced as a result of the Supreme Father, Krishna, impregnating
>> the supreme mother, the mahatattva, or the material elements. In
>> the same way the father puts the living entity within the mother
>> and the living entity then develops within the mothers womb,
>> Krishna, the Supreme Father, places the living entities within the
>> womb of mother nature where they develop. It is completely
>> reasonable.
>As far as I know, the big bang is not "magical". It (mostly) comes from
>fairly well accepted ideas. Its just a little difficult to test in the lab :)
>Now admittedly, I am neither a chaos theoretician or an astrophysicist but I
>do think you are barking up the wrong tree. Are there any more knowledgeable
>people out there that can elucidate further?
Hare Krishna.
Thank you. Hare Krishna!
Madhudvisa dasa
(madhudvisa@krishna.org) /sudarsana
All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org