I don't really get Big Bang

~>Dg<~ said:
this is the worst thing ever posted. space and science is at best guess work. many theories later on even if hundreds of years later get proven false. the truth is we have no way of knowing or even understanding what happened yet. we are to basic and make up theories to suit our own interlect.
Click to expand...

Worst thing ever posted? :D

I wasn't entirely serious :p
 
RxR said:
I liked these fresh words on
physics recently(from the BBC)

"Prof Carlos Frenk, of Durham University, who was one of the scientists that built on the work of Albert Einstein and others to develop the current cosmological theory, said he had mixed emotions on hearing the news.

"I spent my life working on this theory and my heart tells me I don't want to see it collapse. But my brain tells me that the measurements were correct, and we have to look at the possibility of new physics," said Prof Frenk.

"Then my stomach cringes, because we have no solid grounds to explore because we have no theory of physics to guide us. It makes me very nervous and fearful, because we are entering a completely unknown domain and who knows what we are going to find.""

Src:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57244708
Click to expand...
Yup its interesting times, although there hasn't been a big discovery since the standard model and QED which is 40 odd years. But physicists always knew this theory is incomplete (there is no gravity in the equations for one thing). That article also says:

But others, such as Prof Ofer Lahav, of University College London, have a more conservative view.

"The big question is whether Einstein's theory is perfect. It seems to pass every test but with some deviations here and there. Maybe the astrophysics of the galaxies just needs some tweaks. In the history of cosmology there are examples where problems went away, but also examples when the thinking shifted. It will be fascinating to see if the current 'tension' in Cosmology will lead to a new paradigm shift," he said.
Click to expand...
This is science, they debate this back and forth all the time.
 
Mr Jack said:
Again you put words in my mouth. It's not about the existence of god, it's about the failure of god as an explanation.

I'm not going to reply to you again to repeat this simple point.
Click to expand...
How am i putting words into your mouth? You're literally saying "It's not about the existence of god, it's about the failure of god as an explanation" when all (afaik) the alternative theories have exactly the same amount of supporting evidence, none.

Why do you think an all powerful being having created the conditions for the big bang is less plausible that something like string theory, multiverse, or the big bounce? AFAIK those theories have just as much supporting evidence as Danny the interdimensional space tomato having farted in the wrong direction.
 
Murphy said:
How am i putting words into your mouth? You're literally saying "It's not about the existence of god, it's about the failure of god as an explanation" when all (afaik) the alternative theories have exactly the same amount of supporting evidence, none.

Why do you think an all powerful being having created the conditions for the big bang is less plausible that something like string theory, multiverse, or the big bounce? AFAIK those theories have just as much supporting evidence as Danny the interdimensional space tomato having farted in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...
Are you a theist, is that why this point is so important to you?
 
No, i would've thought someone saying we don't know would be anything but a theist.

If i had to label myself I'd say I'm agnostic.
 
Right, well to summarise, a make belief all powerful individual is not explainable by any existing scientific construct (theory or 'scientific fact'). It is exactly that, make belief. It has no academic basis or reason to be studied further other than some nut case came up with a (relatively basic, easy to digest) idea.

Theories that get us so far to explain the origins of the universe are supported (either partially or in full) by other theories, which are in turn supported by either scientific fact or theory.

So the weighting to suggest it is not a make belief God character is far more acceptable than something that has absolutely zero basis in any field of science.

Continually arguing otherwise just makes you sound like some religious crack pot and detracts from progression where it could be made.

Yes it could be god. But then you're done with your academic paper. GJ.
 
Can we cut to the intermission and dLockers reminds me who he is/was pre name change? I'm struggling to deal with that let alone the wider content of this *checks notes* enlightening thread.

:mad:
 
dLockers said:
Right, well to summarise, a make belief all powerful individual is not explainable by any existing scientific construct (theory or 'scientific fact'). It is exactly that, make belief. It has no academic basis or reason to be studied further other than some nut case came up with a (relatively basic, easy to digest) idea.

Theories that get us so far to explain the origins of the universe are supported (either partially or in full) by other theories, which are in turn supported by either scientific fact or theory.

So the weighting to suggest it is not a make belief God character is far more acceptable than something that has absolutely zero basis in any field of science.

Continually arguing otherwise just makes you sound like some religious crack pot and detracts from progression where it could be made.

Yes it could be god. But then you're done with your academic paper. GJ.
Click to expand...

I see this point, however, this point is purely based on our current understanding of the existing level of science in this universe. It would be like writing a science paper about Neutrons before Neutrons was discovered. We don't know all the science and we certainly don't know the science outside our universe.

Science and our understanding of it shifts. It would be arrogant to say we understand everything, nobody is saying God created it, I am saying that since nothing is proven, and that our laws of understanding of science don't really apply here, or that we don't know that it does, it could be anything and nothing is off the table.

I know I am not smart enough to come up with THE answer, I am also not stupid enough to suggest "I know this, it must be this, watch this video and you are a crackpot for not following this hypothesis".

If I am a fool to be open-minded about the fact that science is a moving target and that we are learning every day, I carry that label with pride.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I see this point, however, this point is purely based on our current understanding of the existing level of science in this universe. It would be like writing a science paper about Neutrons before Neutrons was discovered. We don't know all the science and we certainly don't know the science outside our universe.

Science and our understanding of it shifts. It would be arrogant to say we understand everything, nobody is saying God created it, I am saying that since nothing is proven, and that our laws of understanding of science don't really apply here, or that we don't know that it does, it could be anything and nothing is off the table.

I know I am not smart enough to come up with THE answer, I am also not stupid enough to suggest "I know this, it must be this, watch this video and you are a crackpot for not following this hypothesis".

If I am a fool to be open-minded about the fact that science is a moving target and that we are learning every day, I carry that label with pride.
Click to expand...
You're being a bit melodramatic. It is perfectly plausible to be open minded but (as of today and likely to be far into the future) dismiss claims such as the universe was created by a make belief character.

As you rightly said though, things change daily, and 20 years ago I wouldn't have believed 100mbit speeds on my mobile phone would ever be possible. How did I get confidence that was a plausible reality? Wireless Comms began to hit mainstream and websites grew fatter. It seemed plausible if not a distant reality.

Make belief character creating the universe? Show me someone/something that exhibits traits that prove an ounce of what you are suggesting and I'm sure the world will accept it as a 'not bad' idea.

If you can't, then it is just science fiction and resolved to the big screen/books and has no place in academia.
 
dLockers said:
You're being a bit melodramatic. It is perfectly plausible to be open minded but (as of today and likely to be far into the future) dismiss claims such as the universe was created by a make belief character.

As you rightly said though, things change daily, and 20 years ago I wouldn't have believed 100mbit speeds on my mobile phone would ever be possible. How did I get confidence that was a plausible reality? Wireless Comms began to hit mainstream and websites grew fatter. It seemed plausible if not a distant reality.

Make belief character creating the universe? Show me someone/something that exhibits traits that prove an ounce of what you are suggesting and I'm sure the world will accept it as a 'not bad' idea.

If you can't, then it is just science fiction and resolved to the big screen/books and has no place in academia.
Click to expand...

That is just full of contradictions. I am not being melodramatic, i didn't use the word crackpot, I am being open-minded on the subject.

If you allow the idea that science is moving and that our laws of science do not or may not apply before plank time or whatever name the next poster wants to call it. Then how can you confidently say that our current science is pointing in the right direction? If our science may not apply at all.

Again, i am not pointing at one single point of answer or a set of it (like you and some people are), i am saying, don't discount them, however silly it might sound.

As for science fiction...much of it has become reality. Didn't we teleport an electron not long ago?
 
Raymond Lin said:
That is just full of contradictions. I am not being melodramatic, I am being open-minded on the subject.

If you allow the idea that science is moving and that our laws of science do not or may not apply before plank time or whatever name the next poster wants to call it. Then how can you confidently say that our current science is pointing in the right direction? If our science may not apply at all.
Click to expand...
Because to make progress you have to take (or make) decisions. Living in a fairytale where any and all ideas are accepted is not how the large hadron collider came about, or the Hubble telescope. You're welcome to accept all ideas as daft and as pointless as they are, but most folk have a filter to ensure they don't waste their time. And you know what? Maybe sometimes you'll be right. But odds are, you won't be. It's why peer reviewing to get into scientific journals is a critical step in the process.

May I now refer to the US president who proposed bleach to kill Corona virus? Yeah, that's why we filter out bad ideas even if they are not explicitly proven nonesense.
 
dLockers said:
Because to make progress you have to take (or make) decisions. Living in a fairytale where any and all ideas are accepted is not how the large hadron collider came about, or the Hubble telescope. You're welcome to accept all ideas as daft and as pointless as they are, but most folk have a filter to ensure they don't waste their time. And you know what? Maybe sometimes you'll be right. But odds are, you won't be. It's why peer reviewing to get into scientific journals is a critical step in the process.

May I now refer to the US president who proposed bleach to kill Corona virus? Yeah, that's why we filter out bad ideas even if they are not explicitly proven nonesense.
Click to expand...

You make decision to progress a theory, until that theory hits a dead end, then someone else start another theory.

Like whats his name said earlier, "we don't know", to say that you do is being dishonest.

You seem to forget that our science doesn't apply in this other universe too or there is a big chance that it is an altered version, which you keep applying. It's like trying to force a square through a triangle.

The US president bleach thing...it's all this universe, we understand it. He is the idiot for suggesting that.

Before the big bang moment, we don't understand it, we are hypothesising, all of us. You and I included. I am not even saying you are wrong, I think you are right, but I don't discount anything.

Like i said, call me a fool if you want.
 
Raymond Lin said:
You make decision to progress a theory, until that theory hits a dead end, then someone else start another theory.

Like whats his name said earlier, "we don't know", to say that you do is being dishonest.

You seem to forget that our science doesn't apply in this other universe too or there is a big chance that it is an altered version, which you keep applying.
Click to expand...
You've mistaken fail fast for progressive build. No one is throwing away theories and starting an adjacent one. They fork and evolve.

You can use the 'we don't know' as a gotcha and you're entirely right to. It doesn't mean we are closed minded because a make belief creator isn't high on our priority list to disprove, prove, or even explore a second further.
 
dLockers said:
You've mistaken fail fast for progressive build. No one is throwing away theories and starting an adjacent one. They fork and evolve.

You can use the 'we don't know' as a gotcha and you're entirely right to. It doesn't mean we are closed minded because a make belief creator isn't high on our priority list to disprove, prove, or even explore a second further.
Click to expand...

I am not calling you close minded, I am saying I am MORE open minded than you are. Certainly not discounting anything, even the absurd. I even realise the absurdity of it, I think I mentioned I don't believe in God? like 20 times?

But I am open to the idea, not discounting anything, even the absurd.

Why? because the simple reason that our laws or understanding of science simply may not apply then, if the laws change then everything can.
 
dLockers said:
Right, well to summarise, a make belief all powerful individual is not explainable by any existing scientific construct (theory or 'scientific fact'). It is exactly that, make belief. It has no academic basis or reason to be studied further other than some nut case came up with a (relatively basic, easy to digest) idea.

Theories that get us so far to explain the origins of the universe are supported (either partially or in full) by other theories, which are in turn supported by either scientific fact or theory.

So the weighting to suggest it is not a make belief God character is far more acceptable than something that has absolutely zero basis in any field of science.

Continually arguing otherwise just makes you sound like some religious crack pot and detracts from progression where it could be made.

Yes it could be god. But then you're done with your academic paper. GJ.
Click to expand...
Neither (afaik) are any of the other theories of what was before the big bang such as string theory, multiverse, the big bounce, or any of the other theories of what existed before the known universe.

To argue otherwise when there's no empirical evidence (afaik) in support of any theory is asinine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom