I don't really get Big Bang

Personally I'd make a distinction between a theory and having a theory accepted, only because there's often many theories before the evidence overwhelmingly favours one or another.
 
Where did all the information come from to create everything? All that complex information has to come from somewhere?
 
Raymond Lin said:
I can also picture it as people trying to guess the final score of a game, basing on the team's recent form, how good their players are on both sides, they are predicting what the score is going to be. It may be 2-1, it may be 3-4 or even 9-2. What it can't be is 120 - 22.

Except though, it's all fine if we are talking about the same sport (Football/soccer is you are American), you would be very close to the answer, but we don't even know what sport they are playing, we can't see, we are assuming, guessing, hypothesising they are playing the same sport as us. If they are not, like if it's Basketball they are playing, then the likelihood swings the other way.

We are using what we understand, to fit into something that may be completely different, with a different set of rules. Sure it's all played with a ball, we can confirm there is a ball, we may confirm that there is 1 ball, but it's a completely different game. It seems to me unless we can confirm that we are still talking about the same sport (or same universe), we can't be certain of our hypothesis, and therefore, it can be silly scoreline, a score line that isn't possible in our version of the game.
Click to expand...

to summerize we dont understand fully so we make our own explanation to suit our own needs. as we become more clever we might actually get somewhere with proven theory that shows actual results which you can present to the human race.
 
We don't even know what most the universe is made up of and of the 5% which we can detect as normal matter we don't even know what this is as it behaves as particles when we observe it and waves when we don't.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
no it exists because someone made a theory which people except to be truth. no proof. just it works for whats believed. its exactly the same as religion once you go down that route. if you believe in what you told. its just religion.
Click to expand...

While you're technically correct about proof, you're taking the scientific meaning of the word and applying it to the common usage of the word and that's a mistake.

In a scientific sense and speaking very strictly, it is fundamentally impossible to prove anything true other than whether or not a piece of maths is correct and then only as long as you don't apply that maths to anything. A scientific theory might be tested a billion times in a million different ways by a million different people and pass every test every time and match all existing evidence and have a perfect success rate in predicting outcomes and that could have continued to be true for a thousand years, but strictly speaking it is not proven true, never will be proven true and never can be proven true.

In common usage, the standard of proof is vastly lower. The word is the same, but the meaning is absolutely different. We really should be using two different words, but we don't.

Saying that a scientific theory which numerous experts have tried to prove false and failed and which has an abundance of evidence supporting it and which has always correctly predicted what would happen is merely belief exactly the same as religion is a mistake based on conflating the two very different meanings of the word 'proof'. It's much worse than, for example, saying that determining the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime by flipping a coin is exactly the same as doing so by a meticulous investigation and a fair trial because they're both a test.
 
Murphy said:
Personally I'd make a distinction between a theory and having a theory accepted, only because there's often many theories before the evidence overwhelmingly favours one or another.
Click to expand...

I think you need to re-read the previous post that you've replied to, you're perhaps thinking of a hypothesis.
 
so theyre both a test = same. simplified its comes down to a case of do you believe in god then you back religion if you dont believe in god your a science backer.

personal preference designed the universe.
 
All we know (currently) is that nearly everything we can see originated at a point in space time that appears to be where everything began. Most of it is moving away faster than we'd like, some of it less cooperative.

What happened before the big bang isn't known by anyone and likely never will. The crazy folk will somehow justify knowing the mind of "God" and say "God did it" (which God, who knows, there's been over a thousand). The rational people will say "let's try and test it"
 
I guess he assumes a blueprint is required for everything to be. Which then leads on to the stupid concept of God(s) and a manufactured universe. Which is about as likely opening a packet of frozen peas workout spilling some where they are not wanted.
 
The problem is that human thinking needs something or an explanation. What came before the Big Bang could be as simple as nothing.
 
Penfold101 said:
It's actually even better than that - the scientific use of the word 'theory' is the pinnacle of achievement, it's what every hypothesis dreams of being. When enough of them are proven right and a large collection of facts are known about it (expansion, cosmic microwave backround etc) they are all grouped together as the Big Bang Theory.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that this is a highly idealised version of how things work that is taught in school, but doesn't actually reflect how real scientists use these words. Certainly, I've never encountered them being used that way in any lab I've worked in, nor at any conference, nor found examples of that happening anywhere in all the hundreds of scientific papers and books that I've read. You only have to look at "string theory" to realise that the term "theory" is getting thrown around without going through this process (in this case, because it reflects the use of the word "theory" in mathematics).
 
MOOGLEYS said:
The problem is that human thinking needs something or an explanation. What came before the Big Bang could be as simple as nothing.
Click to expand...

Nope, only people interested in the subject care, i would say 80% of the world couldn't give a toss.
 
multiverse , string theory. which is right ? i think the best way to look at the topic is not look at whats right but whats plausable or possible. as i said earlier in the thread is we just arent smart enough to think on the terms needed to comprehend what is possibly true and just use theory to try and make sense of what we dont understand. physics and maths you can make anything suit if you want. doesnt mean just cause it adds up its the actual answer.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
...as i said earlier in the thread is we just arent smart enough to think on the terms needed to comprehend what is possibly true and ...
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself, if you think "physics and maths you can make anything suit" and that people "just use theory to try and make sense of what we dont understand" then it probably explains why you think others "arent smart enough to think on the terms needed to comprehend what is possibly true".
 
~>Dg<~ said:
multiverse , string theory. which is right ? i think the best way to look at the topic is not look at whats right but whats plausable or possible. as i said earlier in the thread is we just arent smart enough to think on the terms needed to comprehend what is possibly true and just use theory to try and make sense of what we dont understand. physics and maths you can make anything suit if you want. doesnt mean just cause it adds up its the actual answer.
Click to expand...
lol, what hippy dippy nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom