[SuperPrincipia]

It fails.  If you had stated that 'describing nature in the simplest form possible, was key motivator of science I would have agreed with you.
Since you were arguing that generations of scientists somehow support your case that the modern 'standard model' should be thrown out on the grounds of over-complexity then this is extremely important.

This is what I call bullying, you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing, and do not appear to be seeking intelligent discussion or understanding.  What I stated is, When you study all of the great physicists throughout history, those that we still discuss today. They all state that the concepts and mathematics of nature should be simple. I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple.

I am not arguing that the "Standard Model" should be thrown out, in fact I agree with most of it. What I am arguing or adding to the Isaac Newton Scientific Method, is that for a scientific theory to be valid at least three different methods are required to be tested for true validity; mathematical or experimental. And if one of the three turns out to be simpler or displays some sort of beauty, the simple more beautiful one has preeminence or the other two. The other two results are still correct they are not to be discarded; but I believe that over time the simpler on is the one that will move forward in time!

Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).

No, this is bigger than repeating the experiment. For example consider Galileo's uniform acceleration experiment; rolling balls down incline planes, and dropping balls off of the leaning tower of Pisa. Then forty four (44) years later Newton validated this experiment with his Universal Gravitation Theory. Then some three hundred (300) years later, we put satellites in orbit to validate this experiment even more. Three different experiments which predict the same thing; and hence three slightly different mathematics can be used to calculate those things.

And please do not ask me to provide the mathematics, I believe that you get my point! I do not want to continue along these reasonings!

Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.

Your statements validate my point. This is my point of an additional requirement to the Scientific Method.

[peppercorn]

It fails.  If you had stated that 'describing nature in the simplest form possible, was key motivator of science I would have agreed with you.
Since you were arguing that generations of scientists somehow support your case that the modern 'standard model' should be thrown out on the grounds of over-complexity then this is extremely important.

This is what I call bullying, you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing, and do not appear to be seeking intelligent discussion or understanding.

Not at all.  - To point out that you failed to support your original assertion is not bullying. It isn't my fault your quotes were not supportive of the statement that 'nature should be simple'.
I do, however, apologies if I made the incorrect assumption about you dumping the Standard Model in its completeness.

"I believe that this is a fundamental principle for nature and the universe that the origin of all things and beauty are simple." - You can have this belief if you want, but where's the evidence?
NB. Be very careful, here - I don't see the point in another anecdote along the lines of Occam's Razor. There is no overwhelming evidence anywhere that at nature's very heart lays simplicity.  Sure many of the greatest leaps in understanding the physical world through science's history have come about by some truly beautiful equations, but this doesn't prove your belief.

[peppercorn]

Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).

No, this is bigger than repeating the experiment. For example consider Galileo's uniform acceleration experiment; rolling balls down incline planes, and dropping balls off of the leaning tower of Pisa. Then forty four (44) years later Newton validated this experiment with his Universal Gravitation Theory. Then some three hundred (300) years later, we put satellites in orbit to validate this experiment even more. Three different experiments which predict the same thing; and hence three slightly different mathematics can be used to calculate those things.

I think you are confused about the meanings and process of validation.
The most powerful think about the scientific method is its ability to fine-tune our understanding of reality.  Previous to this approach theorems fell into favour with no particular need to include what was already 'known'.  What about the four Greek elements - utterly arbitrary and with no way to test or measure or predict.
Jumping forward... By the time of Newton's theories he wasn;t so much validating Galileo's work as encompassing it in a more exact mathematical model.  Validation of a theory happens by it's testing with experiment - ideally as many times as possible (done well).   If you're saying (& excuse me if I misunderstand) that writing you equations (proofs) in several different ways adds some solidity to them - you are mistaken.  If they are valid first in the written form - they are always.  Of course,they may be 'spun around' to apply them better to a certain problem, but this changes them not.

Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.

Your statements validate my point. This is my point of an additional requirement to the Scientific Method.

No it doesn;t. See above.

[Ron Hughes]

This thread has moved away from the main issue. Do you think that any explanation of matter would also explain what created the matter and why times arrow is one directional?

[Ethos]

This thread has moved away from the main issue. Do you think that any explanation of matter would also explain what created the matter and why times arrow is one directional?

I agree Ron..........
I've had a thought about matter creation for many years now that I can't seem to get an answer for.

If one is to believe in the Big Bang, and that all the forces of nature were all rolled up into one superforce before they split off into the four we now recognize, one has to accept that gravity along with the other 3 were present before the formation of matter. According to present understanding, one must have an accumulation of matter to activate the force of gravity.

So here is my question:

With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

My speculation:

Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe gravity, which must be part of the universal field, creates matter?

...............Ethos

[peppercorn]

With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.

[Ethos]

With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.

Then you agree, gravity creates matter?

[peppercorn]

With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.

Then you agree, gravity creates matter?

Does it look like I agree?!

[Ethos]

Yes,,,,,,it looks like you agree!

[Ethos]

With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?

I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce.   The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.

Then you agree, gravity creates matter?

Does it look like I agree?!

Would you care to commit, one way or the other my friend?

[peppercorn]

Yes,,,,,,it looks like you agree!

I'm genuinely surprised that you could think so from reading my post. ... Just to be clear: No I do not agree.

[Ron Hughes]

The mainstream has theorized that time and space began at the BB. That assumes nothing exists outside our Universe. Since we know nothing about where the energy came from to create our Universe, and it had to come from someplace, we can't claim to know anything past the fact that something supplied that energy. Since we know that certain collisions of EM creates matter why wouldn't we think the energy was electromagnetic in nature? I think it must have been an electric field compressed into a field density that would turn into protons and electrons. The field would then start decompressing, (pointing the arrow of time in only one direction) and start an expanding Universe that would appear to an observer in this Universe to be an accelerated expansion. If it was a compressed electric field where did it come from? We can never test any idea that would explain it but we can imagine scenarios that fit what I propose.

The flow rate of time with respect to an observer is not constant. It slows to a crawl near a black hole. It slows when in motion with respect to an observer. The point is that there does not appear to be any limit on how fast or slow time can move. Suppose there was another Universe where it's electrons were trillions and trillions of times larger than our entire Universe. Suppose again that two particles with the same charge inside one of that Universe's stars collides with enough energy to create the compressed electric field I referred to above. Suppose again that some entity in that larger Universe wearing a watch on it's wrist could look at that collision. The entity would see our Universe be born and die in a millionth of one of his seconds. This idea would imply there are an infinite number of Universes larger than ours and an infinite number smaller than ours.

[JP]

The mainstream has theorized that time and space began at the BB. That assumes nothing exists outside our Universe.

That's incorrect.  Theorizing that time and space began, for our universe, at the big bang, doesn't mean that nothing could exist outside of our universe.

[Ron Hughes]

I agree jp, that was one point of my post.

[JP]

But it's still incorrect to claim that mainstream science says that there isn't anything outside of the universe, which is how you started your post.

[Ethos]

But it's still incorrect to claim that mainstream science says that there isn't anything outside of the universe, which is how you started your post.

That may be true today but not so long ago, that view was quite popular.................Ethos

[JP]

Do you have a source for that claim?

I'm fairly sure that view was never popular within science, as there has never been scientific evidence or a theory that claims to answer the question of what could exist outside the universe...

[Ron Hughes]

jp, Duh, it's just an idea.

[JP]

But your argument was "the mainstream is wrong because it claims this," when in fact it doesn't claim that at all...

[Geezer]

I wonder what "the mainstream" even is? I've never known anyone who claimed to be a mainstream scientist.

I did know of a chap who claimed to be a theoretical botanist, but I think that was just a line he used to chat-up ladies.