I don't really get Big Bang

keyser said:
Yeah being open-minded means you can fully understand the scientific method pov, including the idea that the universe is all there is and science may be on the correct path.
Click to expand...

I can try to understand it, I appreciate the work, but it's all a may, as you said.

It's not it is, but people turn around and then say "it cannot be this", when they also say "we don't know" in the same sentence.

How can you say you don't know and discount it when our laws may not even apply in this scenario. If everything you work up to believe in doesn't apply here then nothing applies here.

It sounds all very philosophical and it is, it's the idea of trying to apply 1 set of rules (from our universe) of understanding into another, when we accept that it might not apply at all.

It's just a giant if, an educated if.
 
What I see here is a lot of people trying to fit a Square peg through a hole, not knowing what shape that hole it is. They say, base on their test it is likely to be this shape but they also say "we don't know" and we can't prove it. Except we say it must not be a circle, we can't prove it's not a circle, there is no test for it to be not a circle, it's just not.

I am saying it can be any shape...but apparently that is wrong to say that, i can however say it can be any shape, except a circle.

At the same time, in this alternate universe, there might not be shapes at all, shapes might not exist! it might be all fluid, yet people are still using Squares as their basis of understanding. As Squares is all they understand.

I am not saying it is a circle, i am saying it can be any shape, keep trying.

Is that a wrong analogy?
 
dLockers said:
You've said. The premise of your argument is entirely philosophical and can be applied to absolutely anything. Is this table holding my monitor up or is it in gods hands? Well if the rulebook has changed it could be the latter!
Click to expand...

Well, this is the law of our universe, which we know. We don't know the laws of what comes before. I am open minded about that, you are trying to force your understanding of something you admit you don't understand?

You do realise that I said you might be right, right? and that it is more probable than god...it's just i don't discount it, no matter how absurd it sounds. You are just picking on my open-mindedness, as that is wrong to believe the absurd in an alternate universe, a reality that we don't understand. Anything is absurd as another in another alternate universe, by definition, it is another universe.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the start of our universe was what happened when everything got sucked into a black hole into a point and got spit out the other side, which we call the Big Bang.
 
dLockers said:
Seriously, do yourself a favour and read the link I posted. Scientific theories are "guesses" that have been tested and then proven true or false through the collection of data. I.e. " acutal proof".
Click to expand...

A long time ago, we believed that the earth was the centre of the universe because when you look at the Polaris / North Star, it rotates around that point, so using this as evidence as that was all the evidence they can get at that point through science. We were the centre of the universe. The stars proved that we were. Until something else came along.

ZkK4UEe.jpg.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom