|
|
|
|
|
| | Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?Page 7 of 7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) |
Is there a physicist here who can explain this on my level--i.e. in idiot proof terms?
I'm no physacist but here goes.
Science owes no service to any theory and will chop and change them as readily as you change your clothes. Science simply wears what fits best.
Sometimes, people come up with new ideas that no one had ever tried out before and after a good deal of pondering, it turns out that it fits the facts beter than the old idea. The only dificulty with this is that we must take time to investigate any idea from every posible angle and so new ideas take a long time to be acepted.
So this new model of the universe could be acurate or it could not be, more work needs to be done to investigate what it predicts and what the problems with it are. As with all theories this process may cause the teory to be revised and altered, or even discounted altogther.
So my advice is, to leave a VERY open mind and listen to the evidence. Doubt everything you hear and only belive in a theory that makes absoulte sense to you. If no one can convince you of the validity of one theory over another, then simply sit on the fence for as long as you want.
And have fun with it, the orogins of our universe might NEVER be provable, so if you want to belive in FSM's then go right ahead!  | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/17/2007 11:53:41 AM |
I thought that we were discussing the difference between BBT and the new model the OP shed some light on, not this:
My appologizes Summer Teeth if my comment offended you, that was not my intent. I was merely pointing out that many people who are scientifically handicapped (if I can use that term without offending) and have a eligious background accept divinity on faith, yet ignore mountains of evidence when it comes to the BBT or evolution. Others hold onto their religious beliefs while accepting the evidence and see no conflict or challenge to their beliefs. I wasn't implying that ALL religious people don't believe in the BBT.
In Rake's defence, he has made several sound, air-tight explanations for his case, yet few are listening. Someone mentioned 'cherry-picking', but taking the word Theory out of the Big Bang Theory to make a point is exactly that. | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/17/2007 7:11:01 PM | Since it is a theory, it can't be wrong, or right. It is theoretical. If it was something that was 100% backed up by science, it would become a LAW. If it was something 100% dis proven by science, it ceases to matter (or becomes an oft repeated urban legend). In the meant time, it languishes in between fact and fiction as theory.
 | |
|
rake_
| | Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 154 | |
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/17/2007 8:20:46 PM | Since it is a theory, it can't be wrong, or right. It is theoretical. If it was something that was 100% backed up by science, it would become a LAW. If it was something 100% dis proven by science, it ceases to matter (or becomes an oft repeated urban legend). In the meant time, it languishes in between fact and fiction as theory.
I don't agree with this because scientific theories and laws:
1) are subject to the scientific method and both are required to make predictions that can be either observed or empirically tested. If a theories predictions cannot be tvalidated or falsified then it cannot be considered a scientific theory by definition. At best it can be a mathematical proof or a philosophical argument.
2) can both be subject to cases where they make predictions that are wrong. I.e. There are a special type of co-ordinate systems where Newtons 2nd law of motion make predictions that do not match observation. For these cases the theory of general relativity corrects Newton's laws using a modifier called a lorentz factor. But General Relativity itself has cases where it makes incorrect predtions. You have probably heard of a singularity. A singularity is a region of space inside a black hole where relativity predicts a gravitational field that is infinitely curved. This is wrong and an example of where relativity requires another theory to make an adjustment to get to the correct value. No such theory currently exists but superstring theory and quantum supergravity are two possible candidates that physicists are hoping will one day provide the answers.
So it's important to judge the success of a theory and a law equally. In my opinon the best way to do that is to consider the following 3 cases:
1) The cases for which it makes predictions that match observation or empirical results
2) The cases for which it makes predictions that don't
3) The cases for which it makes predictions that cannot be tested and thus cannot be validated or falsified | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/17/2007 9:59:52 PM |
My appologizes Summer Teeth if my comment offended you,
No, no! You didn't offend me at all. Now it's my turn to apologize if I made it sound that way. I just thought your question, which I quoted, was silly, since the answer seemed kind of obvious. Upon reflection, maybe your question concerning why some religious people ignore scientific evidence while accepting the tenants of religion was rhetorical; if so, then I'm silly for even commenting on a rhetorical question.
I will say, however, that some religious people who reject scientific evidence are not necessarily scientifically handicapped as far as whether or not they can understand scientific concepts intellectually; I'm sure many of them are smart enough. Instead, they reject them for stubborn, psychologically reasons, probably because of interpretive methods they apply on the Bible.
Here's a flippant comment for pure comical enjoyment: I don't believe in creationism because I don't think that God created radiators or jelly donuts. If God exists (and I believe that God exists, not that I KNOW), then God created the circumstances for existence, and we are still attempting to figure out the beginning which created these circumstances (as far as whether space-time "expands" or "contracts" or "shifts" or "bends") and all the laws that apply for things to continue to exist and for things to interact physically with one another. In a weird sort of way, IMO, trying to explain the external world is an attempt to understand a part of God, certainly a worthwhile endeavor, even if you don't have a belief in God--and want to learn more about the physical nature of the universe and how we fit into it. | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/18/2007 8:59:22 AM | Good Lord. I can almost hear the pompous fake accent.
Your definition of what is valid is subjective and will differ from mine. Please cite the points that you consider to be valid and I will comment. Characterizing my behaviour as you saw it is not going to help anyone.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
Actually, there is this terrific resource on the internet (hey, you're on here too!) about argument types. You use an array of these tools to appear like your leading the conversation, but are really undermining it. Characterizing your behavior for what it is helps people to recognize and address whether or not they really want to respond.
What goaded me was that despite the fact he brought up a valid point with the Boron, plagiarized or not, you didn't see fit to try and address that. You focused on the fact that he'd plagiarized. You could simply have dismissed his argument by showing him that his 'evidence' of problems with the BBT was well out of date, corrected it, and admitted (as most of the scientific community involved in the study of the beginnings of the universe) that the BBT is a working theory that is still publicly being modified as we learn more about it . Those of us with sound reasoning don't take the BBT as a statement of fact, but the best explanation that we have to date.
Instead, you attacked his plagiarism - and in doing that, you missed the keystones of his argument. The fact that he's misinterpreted a whole lot of history.
i.e. Observable science did not suggest the earth was flat, and the center of the universe. I do believe that was the church.
i.e. It's not similar to the BBT at all because the BBT is an evolving theory - the previous accordance with the earth being the center of the Universe was steadfast and unyielding, not to mention based on dogma and indoctrination.
i.e. How exactly does Redshift Expansion (Hubble's Law) dictate the belief that we're at the center of the universe? It simply describes the proportional distance of objects in space through light.
i.e. CMB is different from Redshift, and further supports the BBT. However, he only mentions it, but doesn't really indicate how it's relevant to his argument.
i.e. that the rest of his argument digresses into a perspective opinion - which has a higher degree of inaccuracy than the science and math behind the BBT - especially when he obviously has no idea what Copernicus stood for.
He said that the theories are all WRONG.
Made you mad, did it? That therein is the problem - The theories aren't RIGHT either. The BBT theory is not provable science - it's a mathematical theory with a growing databank of observable science to suggest possible answers - but as I've said, until we can go back in time and see it happen, we can't suggest that it is absolutely right.
Further down you lump theories and laws into the same ilk. A semantics argument your going to get, if you cross lines like that. The laws started as theories. The theory was tested, and based on the outcome of those tests, a law was created, which can lead to further theories. But there is no current way to test the big bang theory, and until there is, it's not law.
What I tried to explain to him is that if they were indeed all WRONG then global telecommunications and the information age could never have occurred.
Maybe instead ask him which laws are wrong, and why. Recognize the fact that a lot of people were comfortable with having infallible laws of a god, a creator. With that being shaken by human science making mistakes, or at least evolving, people rail against it because it's not solid, familiar or even comforting. It's not easy, and people hate 'not easy.'
What gets my goat is that you seem to be sitting with the BBT and treating it as the only possible solution the way your debating - but the truest followers of the BBT, and with the understanding of the working science around it - is that we know it's something like that - but the logistics of it haven't been ironed out yet. Simply put - It's the best answer we have thus far. | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/18/2007 9:13:47 AM |
In Rake's defence, he has made several sound, air-tight explanations for his case, yet few are listening. Someone mentioned 'cherry-picking', but taking the word Theory out of the Big Bang Theory to make a point is exactly that.
He has indeed. My issue was in the fact that he's gone from that to descending into pettier ones.
The 'Theory' was not a cherry pick. That's trying to iron out the whole black and white RIGHT/WRONG argument by reinforcing the fact that the theory is evolving. As we learn new things about the movement of the universe, energies and matter that theory changes. It would seem a lot of people have lost sight about the complexity of evolving theories, and confused them with the hard and fast structures of mathematical laws. | |
|
rake_
| | Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 158 | |
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/18/2007 5:47:43 PM | Instead, you attacked his plagiarism - and in doing that, you missed the keystones of his argument. The fact that he's misinterpreted a whole lot of history.
I addressed his arguments. I said that he didn't have any (worth addressing). I chose not to do that because he made no effort to at least glance through the material in the thread or write out his own thoughts instead of bulk copying and pasting someone elses. So then why should I use my time to consider anything that he has to say? Your response to his arguments further proves my point that they weren't really an argument to begin with because most were supported by historical inacuracies.
What gets my goat is that you seem to be sitting with the BBT and treating it as the only possible solution the way your debating
Please provide a reference to support this.
I wrote:
The BBT is full of holes....it can be assailed through argument....
The theories aren't RIGHT either. The BBT theory is not provable science - it's a mathematical theory with a growing databank of observable science to suggest possible answers
Many theories are not provable. This does not mean that they cannot be composed of individual theoretical constructs that can and do make testable predictions. Newton's Law of Gravity or General Relativity for that matter do not prove the existence of a gravitational field or its messenger particles. However, when these theories predict the motion of falling apples and planetary bodies to a startling degree of accuracy then proving the existence of gravity is not a requirement for it to be considered scientific law or theory. Many theories start out with hypothesis that cannot be proven. Quantization of photons is another one but no one disputes Plancks Law of radiation. There are many that fit this category if you look.
Here is a wiki definition of scientific theory. Hope it helps.
"In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Now if I've misunderstood what you're trying to say then I apologize. The other possiblity of course is that you are saying that the Big Bang event cannot be proven. But of course this is obvious. It can't be proven any more than Darwinian Evolution of Man but no one disputes the various mechanisms surroungin selection and gene mutation....etc...
Made you mad, did it?
Im not sure how you can possibly attest to my state of mind  | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/19/2007 11:25:51 AM | 3penny, a big and hardy thank you and a well wishes to you for actually reading my material, answering the question and at least considering the possibilities.
However....
I think that the point of my article was missed. The point I was trying to make is that if you are a scientist and you come up with a new theory, regardless of if it is right or wrong...
If it does not support current main line thinking.
If it is a radical change to current theory
If it means changing all the books
If your an individual that is not well liked
If you are considered odd or out of step
If it means someone loses their job that is in high regard
And a multitude of other things resulting from vanity
Then your not going to find a career in the scientific community, you won’t get the grants needed to prove your theory and you may be shunned and put out to field and considered a crack pot.
Take Rake for example...
He totally dismissed the very first post I put out about DVD players, even though it supported what he was saying in the first place. It showed that I understood the theories about light and Doppler effect and seen how it has worked its way into our technology, but he immediately dismissed me as a crack pot and went out of his way to try and make me look like a fool, probably because I wear a cowboy hat and I am an Iron worker. After that why would I avail upon you what I really think?
This is a perfect example of how the scientific community works and is why I believe we are a millennia away from knowing how the universe really works. If people like rake would stop worrying about their own vanity and take others a little more seriously then perhaps we would get a little farther along in a shorter amount of time.
All you seem to me Rake is just another skim reader...
But then, we are not scientist here, are we rake, LOL
Now, I have better things to do.... | |
|
rake_
| | Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 160 | |
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/19/2007 11:57:36 AM | Rake for example.....All you seem to me Rake is just another skim reader...but then, we are not scientist here, are we rake, LOL
Now, I have better things to do....
No were not palerider....and I can't say that I don't know how you really feel cheers | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/6/2008 2:16:37 PM | | I wouldn't call the theory wrong -- just that there's a possibility of more than one Big Bang. Every time the cycle begins anew, it's the Big Bang. The question would remain, however, as to how matter came into existence in the first place, and would there have been a first cycle? Perhaps, many trillions of years ago, there was nothing (or just energy), then something, then the cycle began. | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/6/2008 7:59:21 PM | Nope, the Big Bang is alive and well and thriving as only a good theory can do. It is supported by evidence that is all but incontrovertible. Of course the question of what came "before" remains a mystery that will likely never be truly solved until we can find a way to leave our universe without ceasing to exist.
In the meantime, a bunch of really smart people doing maths I couldn't even begin to comprehend work away at ever increasingly complex formulae to model the universe and other universes that might exist. Oh, to be that smart. | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/6/2008 8:39:23 PM |
Of course the question of what came "before" remains a mystery that will likely never be truly solved until we can find a way to leave our universe without ceasing to exist.
How about this... "Once upon a time, there was infinite potential energy!"
:D | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/16/2008 2:38:23 PM | | The Big Bang Theory is based on the observed back ground radiation. That it matches the theoretcial predicted values. And the observable expansion of our universe. And the farther out into space we observe, the farther back in time we are observing. It appears that there was a point in time, in the distant past, in which our observed universe came into being. I believe there is a mathamatical bases to suppose there was never any singularity. So that would support a seemingly expanding and collapsing universe. Right know, I think, the universe could really be in a collapse, with the illusion of expansion. The local universe seemingly expanding faster than in the distant past. The geometery of our universe is weird. The center of the universe is at what see and think is its outer edges. It is like being in side the event horizon of a so-called black hole. The whole universe being inside its own event horizon. | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/16/2008 10:10:17 PM | | Coach Andrew be careful. You can drive yourself mad thinking about questions like that. My father and i had the how can the univerise be infinite conversation a few years back. And the ,well if it is not infinite then what is there question. Dammit man now i am going to be up all night thinking about that crap. Sure the hell glad the army gave me night night drugs. | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/18/2008 9:12:39 AM |
How about this... "Once upon a time, there was infinite potential energy!"
That works. The only energies which can be measured are differences in energy, so the infinity can't have any physical meaning. | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/18/2008 9:41:44 AM |
The Big Bang Theory is based on the observed back ground radiation. That it matches the theoretcial predicted values. And the observable expansion of our universe. And the farther out into space we observe, the farther back in time we are observing. It appears that there was a point in time, in the distant past, in which our observed universe came into being. I believe there is a mathamatical bases to suppose there was never any singularity.
The only theory of space and time which is supported by any physical evidence is general relativity. General relativity is the mathematical basis for presuming the initial singularity.
So that would support a seemingly expanding and collapsing universe. Right know, I think, the universe could really be in a collapse, with the illusion of expansion. The local universe seemingly expanding faster than in the distant past.
The actual data indicate the expansion is accelerating, so both theory and data contradict the expansion/collapse idea. Any revision will require a quantum theory of gravity.
The geometery of our universe is weird. The center of the universe is at what see and think is its outer edges. It is like being in side the event horizon of a so-called black hole. The whole universe being inside its own event horizon.
The universe has no edges. That is a general property of the geometry. The singularity which produces the event horizon of a black hole is completely different from the singularity of the big bang. After crossing the event horizon of a black hole, the universe outside remains visible, since light from the outside continues to fall across the horizon and reach you. If you lived long enough to reach the singularity, you would get to observe what was the entire future of the universe until you decided to plummet into the black hole. Inside the hole, time ends at the singularity and the singularity occupies all of space. The singularity is called spacelike. The singularity is not observable. The singularity of a black hole is always in your future, so observing it would be like observing tomorrow. The interior solution in schwartzchild coordinates shows that the time coordinate is along the radius. R is no a spatial coordinate inside the horizon. Similarly, T becomes a spatial coordinate inside. (Remember - coordinates are just labels for things. The distinction between time and space is not, so what matters is the relative signs of the coordinates in the metric.)
(If the +--- convention is used, the coordinate with the + sign is the time direction, regardless of what the labels are. This convention is typically used by particle physicists. If the convention being used is -+++, the minus sign designates the time direction. This is used mainly by gravitational theorists.)
The singularity of the big-bang is observable, since the distant objects used to measure the rate of expansion are in our past. | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 11/18/2008 11:28:56 AM | interesting
cyclic or expansion and contraction dark matter and dark energy - there is allegedly both ;) working very mischievously)
in my lifetime there is a few theories put forth other than the big pop but iam no really buying this crackpot quote sorry :(...yet not ruling out my first paragraph which unwittingly agrees with these mischief makers
totter of party guest bbiab :p | |
|
| |
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 12/30/2008 2:22:39 AM | | I have no idea who these guys are but the Big Bang Theory isn't totally wrong. My idea on the subject is that the Big Bang Theory is only incorrect because we're looking at it as though it was the beginning of our universe, when in fact it is really the end of it that we're theorizing. | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/8/2012 3:32:40 AM | Thought I'd revive this thread as a BBT does seem to be getting a bit silly.
To justify it we must theorise about things we can't see and things we can't detect.
Anyone here have any knowledge about the plasma cosmology theory? Has it been debunked? | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/9/2012 5:15:04 AM |
To justify it we must theorise about things we can't see and things we can't detect.
No "justification" needed. The basis of the BBT still remains recessional velocities of galaxies. Dark energy and dark matter are observed effects. The specific mechanism is not yet known.
Anyone here have any knowledge about the plasma cosmology theory? Has it been debunked?
I watched a video about it. It's an hour and a half I'll never get back! But yeah, it's debunked. There is absolutely NO observational evidence beyond anecdotes to support it. One of its failed "observations:" Comets are actually "attracting" material to them. Which is demonstrably WRONG! | |
|
| Is the Big Bang Theory wrong?
Posted: 5/9/2012 3:54:14 PM | | I don't know if anyone's covered this, but another piece of evidence for it is the relative abundance of the various elements in the Universe. It's pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a big bang hypothesis to a high degree of accuracy. I don't know any other hypothesis that can explain this. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
7
of
7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)
|
|
Home
login 
