Notices

View Poll Results: do you think my hypothesis is right?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 36.36%
  • No

    7 63.64%
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Big Bang might not be the origin of the universe

  1. #1 Big Bang might not be the origin of the universe 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4
    I just thought that big bang might not have occured. An explosion can't take place without the presence of gas. In space there is vaccum.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    This indicates a failure to understand the basics of the rapid expansion theory. It wasn't an explosion. If you really hope to contend with the most intelligent physicists and cosmologists in the world, your reposte will need to be a little better than that.


    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    This indicates a failure to understand the basics of the rapid expansion theory. It wasn't an explosion. If you really hope to contend with the most intelligent physicists and cosmologists in the world, your reposte will need to be a little better than that.
    thanks for your reply. can u please explain the big bang properly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Once up on a time.....I feel I should say that because of what follows:

    The big bang is said to have come from a singularity. This in turn was originally said to have come from two branes colliding in another universe. As this was realised to be complete nonsense, the idea has been quietly dropped. However the material for the singularity is now said to come from elsewhere a multiverse (a number of universes, so preserving total matter and energy), which then just puts the real origin back one step.

    The singularity is a magical black hole. The whole universe is concentrated in a very tiny area (originally a point source but again people realised this was dumb and since then the singularity has been growing in size). We know that black holes cannot expand which is why this singularity is magic because it can expand, totally ignoring the laws of gravity.

    So we have near infinite density and near infinite temperature in a tiny area and by magic, it suddenly decides to inflate. This is an unproven idea to explain why the CMB is "smooth". Inflation means that somehow the universe expands from virtually nothing to cricket ball size almost instantly. A speed of 10^20 (20 noughts) times light speed was originally given but this has been dropped because it is obviously rubbish.

    Then magic again and inflation changes to expansion (which is like when you blow up a balloon rather than an explosion). Since expansion was said to have accelerated several billion years ago due to the magical dark energy, expansion was originally much slower than now.

    At about 10^-32 of a second (32 noughts of a second), matter first appeared. This is where magic overcomes the law of gravity. If you have the whole universe in a very tiny area, common-sense says it should turn into a black hole and stay that way forever, but magic allows it to continue expanding which according to dogma it is still doing. The singularity supposedly contained all space too (ultra-density with space. Doh!) but since space is literally nothing, that too is rubbish.

    But as I said, it was magic so it isn't getting larger in a normal way. Imagine putting dots on a balloon and blowing it up. Think of those dots as galaxies and they are all moving away from each other. The magic is that it is a four physical dimension expansion where the surface of the balloon represents the 3D universe we live in.

    Expansion (if you still believe it) has currently accelerated to about 15 miles per second over a million light years (local gravity keeps galaxies together so the stars don't float apart) so if you have an even slower speed originally, after 3 minutes, your cricket ball is going to be about the same size because it is so slow. But expansion being magic, in just 3 minutes, that cricket ball has expanded to bigger than our solar system because every single bit is moving apart from every other bit. In just 13.7 billion years, the universe is said to be from 96 to 158 billion light years across.

    And supposedly learned people actually believe this trash.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Hi Cyberia!

    Can you please at least try not to hijack each and every thread with your crusade? It is getting boring and annoying. There are enough threads already here, where the validity of the Big Bang hypothesis is discussed at large. Or are you afraid that your hegemony might be missed by someone who hasn't read all your other posts?

    Thanks.
    Dishmaster
    (Moderator)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    He asked for an explanation of the big bang. If he wanted the standard version, he only has to check out the wikipedia, which he has not done.

    As we get new people join, I hope to get someone to challenge me on points. I do my best thinking with such challenges, like a runner needs a pacer. Just criticism doesn't work.

    So when is it OK for me to bring up my version of the BB, just so I'll know in future?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia

    And supposedly learned people actually believe this trash.
    You must have an incredibly high opinion of your own views if you can dismiss a theory accepted by the vast majority of astronomers/scientists, as by far the best available fit for the existing facts, as "trash".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia

    And supposedly learned people actually believe this trash.
    You must have an incredibly high opinion of your own views if you can dismiss a theory accepted by the vast majority of astronomers/scientists, as by far the best available fit for the existing facts, as "trash".
    Truth is not a democracy.

    I just chuckle at people when they adamantly believe in the Big Bang, because I think they lack creativity. The BBT theory has captured a lot of physicists imaginations because of the sheer wonderment it's predictions evoke. Adding mathematic models to it seems to give it a certain credibility, but only differs slightly from the logic built up around other cosmological views of the past, including those which we now categorize as "religions".

    At the core, no seriously compelling evidence has ever been discovered beyond the Hubble Redshift, and the CMBR. Every time a contradiction has emerged in the logic, it has simply been re rationalized with things like "Dark Energy", to bring the model back into consistency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia

    And supposedly learned people actually believe this trash.
    You must have an incredibly high opinion of your own views if you can dismiss a theory accepted by the vast majority of astronomers/scientists, as by far the best available fit for the existing facts, as "trash".
    Truth is not a democracy.

    I just chuckle at people when they adamantly believe in the Big Bang, because I think they lack creativity. The BBT theory has captured a lot of physicists imaginations because of the sheer wonderment it's predictions evoke. Adding mathematic models to it seems to give it a certain credibility, but only differs slightly from the logic built up around other cosmological views of the past, including those which we now categorize as "religions".

    At the core, no seriously compelling evidence has ever been discovered beyond the Hubble Redshift, and the CMBR. Every time a contradiction has emerged in the logic, it has simply been re rationalized with things like "Dark Energy", to bring the model back into consistency.
    I certainly don't believe that you simply have to count the votes to reach the truth , but if I have to cross a bridge every day and 9 civil engineers tell me the structure is unsafe, whilst 1 engineer tells me everything is fine, I suspect I would soon be looking for another crossing.
    Also, I don't believe the BBT is the last word on anything, but it is accepted by a large majority of scientists and many of these individuals have exceptionally fine minds. Given that, my post was a reaction against someone who feels able to simply dismiss the BBT as "trash". I feel there is a fair amount of arrogance behind such a remark and I have pretty much the same attitude towards someone who feels able to "chuckle at people" who believe the BBT to be, by far, the best explanation we have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    You must have an incredibly high opinion of your own views if you can dismiss a theory accepted by the vast majority of astronomers/scientists, as by far the best available fit for the existing facts, as "trash".

    I know it can be very difficult to put theories together and so easy to shoot them down. I don't believe in the BB for some of the reasons I have given. Search the internet and you'll find lots and lots more. People accept the BB because there is little to replace it and they have become comfortable with it.

    I have been against the BB for many years and when I give reasons, the answers I get (other than insults) often amount to the theory is correct so you're wrong. In other words, nothing. Feel free to explain where I am wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    You must have an incredibly high opinion of your own views if you can dismiss a theory accepted by the vast majority of astronomers/scientists, as by far the best available fit for the existing facts, as "trash".

    I know it can be very difficult to put theories together and so easy to shoot them down. I don't believe in the BB for some of the reasons I have given. Search the internet and you'll find lots and lots more. People accept the BB because there is little to replace it and they have become comfortable with it.

    I have been against the BB for many years and when I give reasons, the answers I get (other than insults) often amount to the theory is correct so you're wrong. In other words, nothing. Feel free to explain where I am wrong.
    I can only offer a layperson's explanation and that would only be a simplified and, almost certainly, less accurate version of facts already put forward by individuals, with a far deeper knowledge of astronomy than myself, supporting the BBT.
    It is not just "people" who accept the BBT but the vast majority of working astronomers and others in linked scientific fields. These are the technical experts who have convinced me and these are the "people" you should aim to convert.
    Simply offering an insult, by calling the BBT "trash", won't work.
    I should add that I find the BBT philosophically more satisfying than any version of the SST, but that is purely a personal preference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 same as always 
    Forum Sophomore GrowlingDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    At the gates of Sto-vo-kor
    Posts
    181
    I used to frequent these forums ages ago but over time i became more and more dissapointed by them. A lot of religious diatribe and wild theories with no data to back them up at all.
    Now, on my 1st visit back to the forums in over 12 months and the VERY 1st post i decide to read, i see a poll asking if I believe in the BBT and i also see nothing has changed.
    It seems the posts are flooded with people still disputing popular scientific opinion, yet offering no valid theories of their own, no data, no formulas for us to look over and dispute just, "It's all trash".
    "Scientific" forum seems to be a fantasy here as there is little if any scientific evidence or even conjecture to show how someone that opposes the masses (1000's of scientists that i dare say would never come here to get an opinion or to learn about astronomy) believe they are right and all others are wrong.
    If, like Halliday says you (Ciberia) do not agree with all the other engineers, then the onus is on YOU to prove them wrong not the other way around.
    I too have many question regarding the BBT theory but it is blatantly apparent this is not the place to discuss them and get anything resembling an intelligent, scientific debate going.
    I will look elsewhere i think as it seems ppl like Ciberia still rule the roost in the forums here and prove nothing, say nothing and add nothing to any real scientific debate.
    Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    You must have an incredibly high opinion of your own views if you can dismiss a theory accepted by the vast majority of astronomers/scientists, as by far the best available fit for the existing facts, as "trash".
    I know it can be very difficult to put theories together and so easy to shoot them down. I don't believe in the BB for some of the reasons I have given. Search the internet and you'll find lots and lots more. People accept the BB because there is little to replace it and they have become comfortable with it.
    Wrong. The BB theory is widely accepted, because it is the best explanation for the scientific results.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    I have been against the BB for many years and when I give reasons, the answers I get (other than insults) often amount to the theory is correct so you're wrong. In other words, nothing. Feel free to explain where I am wrong.
    I am also against gravity, because it prevents me from flying by myself. But does that help? At least in this forum, you never got the answer you are quoting. The consistent answer was always that BB has the best explanations compared to all the other alternatives. That does not mean it is true, but it is the best we have. Maybe you just like to be against the mainstream so much that you oppose an established theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: same as always 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by GrowlingDog
    I used to frequent these forums ages ago but over time i became more and more dissapointed by them. A lot of religious diatribe and wild theories with no data to back them up at all.
    Now, on my 1st visit back to the forums in over 12 months and the VERY 1st post i decide to read, i see a poll asking if I believe in the BBT and i also see nothing has changed.
    It seems the posts are flooded with people still disputing popular scientific opinion, yet offering no valid theories of their own, no data, no formulas for us to look over and dispute just, "It's all trash".
    "Scientific" forum seems to be a fantasy here as there is little if any scientific evidence or even conjecture to show how someone that opposes the masses (1000's of scientists that i dare say would never come here to get an opinion or to learn about astronomy) believe they are right and all others are wrong.
    If, like Halliday says you (Ciberia) do not agree with all the other engineers, then the onus is on YOU to prove them wrong not the other way around.
    I too have many question regarding the BBT theory but it is blatantly apparent this is not the place to discuss them and get anything resembling an intelligent, scientific debate going.
    I will look elsewhere i think as it seems ppl like Ciberia still rule the roost in the forums here and prove nothing, say nothing and add nothing to any real scientific debate.
    It's not so bad. This is a discussion forum and not the holy church that uses inquisition and silences opinions other than its own. You just cannot tell people to shut up. We, the moderators and administrators, try to root out the most pathological opinions. There are many threads that deal with the more accepted science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: same as always 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by GrowlingDog
    I used to frequent these forums ages ago but over time i became more and more dissapointed by them. A lot of religious diatribe and wild theories with no data to back them up at all.
    Now, on my 1st visit back to the forums in over 12 months and the VERY 1st post i decide to read, i see a poll asking if I believe in the BBT and i also see nothing has changed.
    It seems the posts are flooded with people still disputing popular scientific opinion, yet offering no valid theories of their own, no data, no formulas for us to look over and dispute just, "It's all trash".
    "Scientific" forum seems to be a fantasy here as there is little if any scientific evidence or even conjecture to show how someone that opposes the masses (1000's of scientists that i dare say would never come here to get an opinion or to learn about astronomy) believe they are right and all others are wrong.
    If, like Halliday says you (Ciberia) do not agree with all the other engineers, then the onus is on YOU to prove them wrong not the other way around.
    I too have many question regarding the BBT theory but it is blatantly apparent this is not the place to discuss them and get anything resembling an intelligent, scientific debate going.
    I will look elsewhere i think as it seems ppl like Ciberia still rule the roost in the forums here and prove nothing, say nothing and add nothing to any real scientific debate.
    we r not disrespecting any great scientist. we r just putting forward our opinion to enrich our knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    35
    so much trouble for wad the more u discover the more things u find is nonsense or more things u wont understand it is endless unless the big bang it self sms u n told u wad happen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff1244
    so much trouble for wad the more u discover the more things u find is nonsense or more things u wont understand it is endless unless the big bang it self sms u n told u wad happen
    Can you please write correctly? This is not Twitter or any SMS forum. It is all about knowledge and understanding the other's arguments. So, please do not impede this by using a sloppy writing style.

    Thanks,
    Dishmaster
    (Moderator)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    8
    On a side note, here's a great Wikipedia article which taught me all I know about the Big Bang (at least, what happened during it).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    51
    I'm a first time poster. The BB is the most accepted theory out there for a reason. We don't have a better explanation yet. It doesn't mean that is the correct theory of everything. I've read a lot about the subject and I believe that I understand the concept. Having said that, I find a lot of things with the theory troubling. I came up with a new concept, which I've never heard or read before. I never put it down on paper. So I do not try to explain it here and now until I fully refine it. It is very hard to explain it because I have to use a lot of "analogies" and parenthesis for words to describe in context this "theory" It's very far fetched but as I said never heard it before. I will write the paper then I will post it here. For now, my two cent worth is this. Einstein thought that he wasn't quiet correct with his famous equation when he tried to ad a universal constant to it and he dropped the idea as his biggest "blunder". I think that it wasn't a mistake and the formula is not "complete". The universe has to be fractal (Yes , I heard this before) not because eliminating the infinite and finite from equations but because it make sense.
    Any theory that is so complex that is hard to comprehend can't be right. Nature is simpler and more elegant. Now, I do not think that there are multiple universes. What we have here is a well balanced "structure" running on simple "rules" rather then laws. It probably has other dimensions ( my guess is 8 ) but they are not "curled up”, they are part of the "balancing" act. BB is not necessarily is what "appears" to be. The universe is three dimensional + time for a very good reason. Matter is essential and is "created" by purpose so is space to "hold" the matter. Massive black holes are nothing but recycling factories, they do "disappear". They revert back to the "structure" where no matter is needed, no space and no time hence the size is irrelevant. Gravity is not really a "force", rather a manifestation stability of the system. Weak and strong forces are only needed in creation of matter. Electro-magnetic forces are there to move and hold matter together. I got a little long with my two cent worth. It does suffice right now and I welcome any comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Jeff1244, PLEASE, PLEASE listen to Dishmaster.

    varadinum, you are welcome to post your hypothesis, but we have a section specifically for that, the New Hypothesis and Ideas section.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    varadinum, you are welcome to post your hypothesis, but we have a section specifically for that, the New Hypothesis and Ideas section.

    Good call.

    Varadinum, I can move it there, if you want.

    Dishmaster
    (Moderator)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    51
    Thanks, but I've already posted a more elaborate article under the title:
    My thoughts on the big bang and GUT theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    You must have an incredibly high opinion of your own views if you can dismiss a theory accepted by the vast majority of astronomers/scientists, as by far the best available fit for the existing facts, as "trash".

    I know it can be very difficult to put theories together and so easy to shoot them down. I don't believe in the BB for some of the reasons I have given. Search the internet and you'll find lots and lots more. People accept the BB because there is little to replace it and they have become comfortable with it.

    I have been against the BB for many years and when I give reasons, the answers I get (other than insults) often amount to the theory is correct so you're wrong. In other words, nothing. Feel free to explain where I am wrong.
    I can only offer a layperson's explanation and that would only be a simplified and, almost certainly, less accurate version of facts already put forward by individuals, with a far deeper knowledge of astronomy than myself, supporting the BBT.
    It is not just "people" who accept the BBT but the vast majority of working astronomers and others in linked scientific fields. These are the technical experts who have convinced me and these are the "people" you should aim to convert.
    Simply offering an insult, by calling the BBT "trash", won't work.
    I should add that I find the BBT philosophically more satisfying than any version of the SST, but that is purely a personal preference.
    Trusting in a person instead of the person's evidence is ok if you fully classify yourself as a non-scientist. Religion is about who tells us to believe something, and science is about what tells us to believe something.

    I think the BBT is exactly like Copernicus's theory of the Solar system. Just like his model, it makes fairly accurate predictions if you allow for some fudge factors, and don't ask anyone to explain what's causing the weird parts. Galileo hasn't arrived yet, unfortunately, so we'll just have to wait for him. In the meantime, I see nothing wrong with questioning, or even mocking the current model. The less we believe it, the more ready we'll be for it to be replaced.

    The Catholic Church had a lot of erudite monks and scholars who had spent large portions of their lives researching Copernicus's Heliocentric universe when Galileo came along. We chide them now for forcing him to recant, but he was just one guy, telling thousands of very smart people that they were all wrong. Are we going to make a similar mistake when the time comes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Trusting in a person instead of the person's evidence is ok if you fully classify yourself as a non-scientist. Religion is about who tells us to believe something, and science is about what tells us to believe something.
    You are wrong. Science is not about belief. It is about searching for evidence that speaks either for or against a hypothesis. Religion just accepts an idea without questioning it or looking for answers based on reason. You cannot accuse science, just because we haven't found the final answer yet. It is an ongoing process. The final answer is not yet carved in stone, regardless of what some popular articles might tell you.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I think the BBT is exactly like Copernicus's theory of the Solar system. Just like his model, it makes fairly accurate predictions if you allow for some fudge factors, and don't ask anyone to explain what's causing the weird parts. Galileo hasn't arrived yet, unfortunately, so we'll just have to wait for him. In the meantime, I see nothing wrong with questioning, or even mocking the current model. The less we believe it, the more ready we'll be for it to be replaced.

    The Catholic Church had a lot of erudite monks and scholars who had spent large portions of their lives researching Copernicus's Heliocentric universe when Galileo came along. We chide them now for forcing him to recant, but he was just one guy, telling thousands of very smart people that they were all wrong. Are we going to make a similar mistake when the time comes?
    This is a bad example, just because of the reason I already mentioned: Science is an ongoing process. Eventually, Galileo's, Copernicus' and Kepler's ideas prevailed. Right? It is also not entirely correct that Galileo was denied because of religious reasons alone. The (naive) heliocentric model was at that time less consistent with the scientific results than the geocentric model. Only Kepler showing that the orbits are ellipses - not circles - could finally falsify the old model. So, I ask you to have faith in science in finding the answers in time. None claims that the Big Bang theory is the final answer. It is just currently the most consisting answer we have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax


    The Catholic Church had a lot of erudite monks and scholars who had spent large portions of their lives researching Copernicus's Heliocentric universe when Galileo came along. We chide them now for forcing him to recant, but he was just one guy, telling thousands of very smart people that they were all wrong. Are we going to make a similar mistake when the time comes?
    Altho' I'm not an expert on the history of the Catholic Church I don't find it difficult to believe the Church "had a lot of erudite monks and scholars".
    I do find it difficult to believe they were searching for the objective truth, using the scientific method, about the position of the earth in the universe. I would have thought there was a considerable amount of pressure put on these individuals to accept the teachings of the Church on this matter. If one of these people came out against the official view, without clear and absolute proof, the penalties could be severe.
    The opponents of the BBT do not have to face the Inquisition. Listening to some of them one might think they had to!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    The Catholic Church had a lot of erudite monks and scholars who had spent large portions of their lives researching Copernicus's Heliocentric universe when Galileo came along. We chide them now for forcing him to recant, but he was just one guy, telling thousands of very smart people that they were all wrong. Are we going to make a similar mistake when the time comes?
    This is a bad example, just because of the reason I already mentioned: Science is an ongoing process. Eventually, Galileo's, Copernicus' and Kepler's ideas prevailed. Right? It is also not entirely correct that Galileo was denied because of religious reasons alone. The (naive) heliocentric model was at that time less consistent with the scientific results than the geocentric model. Only Kepler showing that the orbits are ellipses - not circles - could finally falsify the old model. So, I ask you to have faith in science in finding the answers in time. None claims that the Big Bang theory is the final answer. It is just currently the most consisting answer we have.
    What frustrates me is the reluctance to even entertain new theories until they've been overwhelmingly confirmed. If you wait to consider something until it's already been proven, then how would you ever find proof of it in the first place?

    It's a catch 22. It's like buying a DVD player that comes with installation instructions on a DVD. If you could install it, then you could watch the DVD to get instructions on how to install it.

    We're lucky that Kepler, acting alone, ever found any observational evidence at all to help him discover those elipses. He had to all but steal Tycho Brahe's notes, because nobody was going to give serious funding to a project that opposed the current thinking of the time, and Brahe was convinced of the Copernican model. How much time on the Hubble telescope do you think a modern Kepler would be able to get?

    If we don't look for evidence to help us construct alternative theories, then how do we expect to find them? .... and yet... we pretty much know we need a new theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •