Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?

  1. #1 Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    That's the title of an Horizon (BBC) TV programme I just watched on BBC4. One hour. It's available on iPlayer to watch or you can download it on Pirate Bay (1.73 GB).

    It points out much of which I said on another thread, about the many weaknesses in the big bang idea. The people it interviews who have doubts, who are sometimes not believers even though they teach it, are experts from British Universities.

    The programme mentioned a few times about a new generation of cosmologists who have doubts and are questioning the standard model which was shown to be wrong on a number of accounts, and that the maths too was wrong with recent discoveries.

    Before the Usual Suspects decide to rant here, watch the programme first and listen to what the experts say.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    I will watch it if I can find it. Maybe it is on Youtube? Wait, here it is:
    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/is-ev...niverse-wrong/

    Oops, they blocked it there. Oh well, we'll find it.

    But I'm not one of the one's who needs to watch it, lol. Seeing your threads makes me worry that my thread about preconditions to the Big Bang, to which you kindly posted will get nowhere .

    Link to “What Happened Before the Big Bang”, the BBC Horizon 2010 series:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg

    Everyone who wants to be somewhat up to date should view the six episodes there too.

    Oops, now that is gone too, darn.


    Last edited by Dark Speculator; October 11th, 2011 at 10:32 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    It would have been easier had I given links:


    BBC iPlayer to watch it:

    BBC iPlayer - Horizon: 2009-2010: Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?


    Pirate Bay to download it:

    BBC Horizon Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong HDTV (download torrent) - TPB


    As expected from Horizon, the programme does try for balance and has Alan Guth speaking about inflation.


    As to he big bang, the infinite point is not credible for reasons I have given elsewhere.

    Some now believe the universe came from literally nothing (as in +1 and -1 = 0 as does +trillion and -trillion = 0, with matter and energy among the positives and gravity among the negatives.)

    Imagine "nothing" becoming unravelled as it tries to balance out a stable particle that has appeared (after maybe trillions of years of particles and energy popping into existence and vanishing again) and it will not go away. Instead of a single ultra-dense point, we have the equivalent of a "wildfire" of fundamental particles and energy springing into existence away from a central point.

    Before the BB is speculation so it does not hurt to air ideas. Such ideas are rarely right first time so have to be prodded and pushed, and added to over years, even decades as new knowledge comes about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Brighton UK
    Posts
    114
    What shook me in that program was that radioactive dating methods were configured using two theories, whereas a theory is not a fact. Wow! Is science up the paddle without a creek … see Amazon/books/ReverseTheory
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,395
    Really? you did not just say "theory is not fact". Please please take the time to learn the difference between the vernacular "Theory" and the scientific meaning of Theory.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Really? you did not just say "theory is not fact". Please please take the time to learn the difference between the vernacular "Theory" and the scientific meaning of Theory.
    I know what you are getting at but you seem to express disdain on the one hand and then irresponsibility on the other. When you rip someone about some little thing that indicates you are an authority don't you usually try to lift them up to your level and give them the missing link, link being meant literally?
    Here, I'll expect more from you in the future, lol:
    Google
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,395
    The terseness of my comment is due to prior interaction with Christopher on several threads.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    I believe you, and my seeming rudeness is just my way of being friendly. No lols, and no smiles and then you can tell it goes beyond friendliness, lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,395
    Ahhhh, lol
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    I'll keep checking for it on the web but right now I get this: Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you.
    As expected from Horizon, the programme does try for balance and has Alan Guth speaking about inflation.

    As to he big bang, the infinite point is not credible for reasons I have given elsewhere.

    Some now believe the universe came from literally nothing (as in +1 and -1 = 0 as does +trillion and -trillion = 0, with matter and energy among the positives and gravity among the negatives.)

    Imagine "nothing" becoming unravelled as it tries to balance out a stable particle that has appeared (after maybe trillions of years of particles and energy popping into existence and vanishing again) and it will not go away. Instead of a single ultra-dense point, we have the equivalent of a "wildfire" of fundamental particles and energy springing into existence away from a central point.

    Before the BB is speculation so it does not hurt to air ideas. Such ideas are rarely right first time so have to be prodded and pushed, and added to over years, even decades as new knowledge comes about.
    You have a good attitude about it. Can I chalk you up for "something from nothing" then?

    There seems to be three very general explanations for the existence of the universe: "God did it" which violates the scientific method though if true that kind of supersedes the Method , "something from nothing" where I put BBT, and then my favorite, "the universe had no beginning, it has always existed". I'll probably have a thread on that topic but I have to get use to the rules here. I don't suppose The Science Forum allows speculation in the cosmology forum does it? That would be the logical place but I have a hunch that the BBT believers have this place firmly under control, lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Ball View Post
    What shook me in that program was that radioactive dating methods were configured using two theories, whereas a theory is not a fact. Wow! Is science up the paddle without a creek … see Amazon/books/ReverseTheory
    Have you read Reverse Theory? I can guess some about it or read the reviews but I am more interested in what you got out of it in 100 words or less since you mentioned it, lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,395
    Actually he is the author of the book! :-)
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    OMG, lol. Amazon.com: RT: The Reverse Theory (9780956476104): Christopher Way Ball: Books

    So Mr Bell should be able to give me that 100 word review with no trouble.

    Or maybe he wrote the one review that is on Amazon:

    This review is from: RT: The Reverse Theory (Paperback)
    If you persevere, Christopher Way Ball's self-published book is available at a reasonable price by doing a google search, in which case buy it if you are open minded and enjoy being shown a different way to look at things. (Why make it look like a National Geographic publication, though?)

    The author says outright that he is not very well schooled but he does seem reasonably well self-educated in areas that interest him. He openly gives credit to a friend of his for transforming his first crude attempts into a readable book. The book uses up the first 30 pages just preparing you for the "amazingly" contrary theories, which I found tedious but understandable, given that the back of the book lists over 100 publishers in over a decade who rejected this book. I found this rather surprising as far worse books have been published, with much more far-out claims.

    The author also repeatedly claims that some current "scientific" views are wrong because scientists (and others involved) are just mistaken, without considering (or perhaps not daring to touch on?) the possibility that facts have deliberately been reversed at a basic level. For evidence of this claim, you only have to read a few of the many, many books about the outrageous lies of so many "authorities" and those in authority. Examples are listed in the comments section as so many people (rightly) ask for these but they are not really relevant for the review of this book.

    Since I treasure anything that helps me to see the world differently, this book gets 5 stars for showing how the reverse of some "received wisdom" is more likely to be the truth but has been allocated 3 stars because very little effort has been made to back up its claims. Therefore it reads much like a coffee-shop discussion might. In this, as well as both his creative/original thinking and his lack of schooling (and there may well be a link between these), there is some similarity to "Earth, Man, and Devolution" by Pilotte.

    Reader's eyes are opened to the likelihood that tides do not pound rocks into sand but that a reverse, and pearl-like, process is actually at work and also that limestone was actually much softer and lighter just a few thousand years ago and therefore the pyramids were far easier to build than currently believed. [Later note: A cutting-edge book on alternative physics "The Source Field Investigations" by Wilcock, since published, provides evidence that limestone becomes harder and more polished with time and weather, unlike marble - think about the gorgeous stalactites and stalagmites of limestone you can find in underground caves.] These are well-observed and explained, especially compared to a few more theories in the second half of the book that seem far more far-fetched and unrealistic (these disappointments also contribute to the 3 star rating).

    A lightweight but very interesting book, at least in part.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    No, we know a lot, but will never know it all. It's baby steps, With the multi-verse and understanding that infinity is relative, there will be more to learn.

    From the redneck theoretical physicist

    Our Energy Future: Hydrogen: Orphan Photons? Are They Dark Energy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    No, we know a lot, but will never know it all. It's baby steps, With the multi-verse and understanding that infinity is relative, there will be more to learn.

    From the redneck theoretical physicist

    Our Energy Future: Hydrogen: Orphan Photons? Are They Dark Energy?
    OK, I'm an easy touch, I read it. It is too jaunty and metaphoric for my taste. I prefer to be more direct in my delusions, lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    No, we know a lot, but will never know it all. It's baby steps, With the multi-verse and understanding that infinity is relative, there will be more to learn.

    From the redneck theoretical physicist

    Our Energy Future: Hydrogen: Orphan Photons? Are They Dark Energy?
    OK, I'm an easy touch, I read it. It is too jaunty and metaphoric for my taste. I prefer to be more direct in my delusions, lol.
    LOL, I about fell over when I heard about the acceleration. I was working on some chaos theory stuff and reading about Georg Cantor and his infinity of infinities. It is hard to tell if the universe is an illusion or a delusion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    LOL, I about fell over when I heard about the acceleration. I was working on some chaos theory stuff and reading about Georg Cantor and his infinity of infinities. It is hard to tell if the universe is an illusion or a delusion
    Thanks for the lols and smiles. Now let me get this straight. You just heard about the acceleration? I mean, you are not talking about the acceleration of the rate of expansion are you because that has been around for quite awhile. So I'll ask, which acceleration is it you are talking about? Link? And a link to George Cantor? We can get into chaos theory later, lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    LOL, I about fell over when I heard about the acceleration. I was working on some chaos theory stuff and reading about Georg Cantor and his infinity of infinities. It is hard to tell if the universe is an illusion or a delusion
    Thanks for the lols and smiles. Now let me get this straight. You just heard about the acceleration? I mean, you are not talking about the acceleration of the rate of expansion are you because that has been around for quite awhile. So I'll ask, which acceleration is it you are talking about? Link? And a link to George Cantor? We can get into chaos theory later, lol.

    No, the acceleration of the acceleration, is what I heard, Kinda odd that? I was reminded by the Noble prizes. I have been a fan of the multi-verse since college, a long time ago. I am dabbling with a little relativistic heat conduction problem and trying to figure how exactly opacity and effective emissivity are related to determine effective surface emissivity of the infant Earth, pre GHGs. Since my results don't exactly agree with consensus opinion, I am stuck with another whacked out theory which I have to back track to the right point to begin with a more acceptable explanation. It is not like it is a huge disagreement, only 95Wm-2.

    And don't hurt me on chaos theory, I am a beginner, still trying to determine if the climate system is really ergodic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor
    Last edited by captdallas; October 12th, 2011 at 11:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by captdallas View Post
    No, the acceleration of the acceleration, is what I heard, Kinda odd that? I was reminded by the Noble prizes. I have been a fan of the multi-verse since college, a long time ago. I am dabbling with a little relativistic heat conduction problem and trying to figure how exactly opacity and effective emissivity are related to determine effective surface emissivity of the infant Earth, pre GHGs. Since my results don't exactly agree with consensus opinion, I am stuck with another whacked out theory which I have to back track to the right point to begin with a more acceptable explanation. It is not like it is a huge disagreement, only 95Wm-2.

    And don't hurt me on chaos theory, I am a beginner, still trying to determine if the climate system is really ergodic.

    Georg Cantor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Well I take back any concern about you being behind on the news, lol. It sounds like you are actually busy having fun doing all that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Dark Speculator.
    You have a good attitude about it. Can I chalk you up for "something from nothing" then?
    I am not wholly happy with it but it's the best of a bad bunch. If something better comes along, I'll take it.

    I don't suppose The Science Forum allows speculation in the cosmology forum does it? That would be the logical place but I have a hunch that the BBT believers have this place firmly under control, lol.
    The big bang idea is the only speculation allowed in the cosmology. I talk about it here because that is it's proper place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Dark Speculator.
    I'll keep checking for it on the web but right now I get this: Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you.
    I'm on the Costa del Sol till late next year so I can't get it either on iPlayer. I do however have British terrestrial TV channels here.

    I don't have very fast internet but it downloaded OK from the Pirate Bay overnight. Then you can play it on any player on your computer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    Dark Speculator.
    You have a good attitude about it. Can I chalk you up for "something from nothing" then?
    I am not wholly happy with it but it's the best of a bad bunch. If something better comes along, I'll take it.
    Let me just ask why you consider "something from nothing" as a last resort vs my favorite ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator

    ...and then my favorite, "the universe had no beginning, it has always existed".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    Dark Speculator.
    I'll keep checking for it on the web but right now I get this: Currently BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only, but all BBC iPlayer Radio programmes are available to you.
    I'm on the Costa del Sol till late next year so I can't get it either on iPlayer. I do however have British terrestrial TV channels here.

    I don't have very fast internet but it downloaded OK from the Pirate Bay overnight. Then you can play it on any player on your computer.
    I might try it form Pirate Bay. I prefer to go to a link and watch instead of downloading so if it doesn't show up somewhere that I can just click and watch I may have to download it .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Any serious and fruitful discussion about what really happens if t->0 in a cosmic sense can only take place once we have a well established and well understood theory of quantum gravity. Unfortunately we are not quite there yet...at the moment all discussion about the Big Bang point of origin ( or any physical singularity for that matter ) is at best "educated guesses".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7
    In a sense everything we know is wrong. But everything an individual truely believes is right. Such reasoning explains paradoxes. Have faith in what you believe and in death the power of creation through your own dimension of time will be revealed to you. Such is the key to a happy life.And don't be illogical. Don't kill yourself to speed up the process. Just wait it out like everyone else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,395
    huh, that was an odd bit of word salad.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    608
    Be nice if these "scientists" would actually figure something this important out for sure, before teaching and preaching so feverently to accepting audiences, and even grading on an outdated idea. Total lack of responsibility. What's really so bad, is that there is big money involved many times. They will just latch on to some hypothesis, turn it into a common belief theory and try to teach it as fact, with inconsideration to the great amount of variables and obvious inconsistancies in their approach. Makes you wonder, who all they are and how much did these "discoverers" profit from this, "oops, we weren't right". You think that will change their game? No, way! That's the way it's played. Too bad they won't use all that time and money on important, practical issues. People can't or won't even make a good attempt to work out our real problems, before playing in pseudoscience, although it is fun to wonder, but that's all it is, "wondering" with no strong proof, and as of the present no practical way to prove any of these theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong? Instead the article should be called "Is everything we think we know about the universe wrong?"

    The correct answer is, NOT EVERTHING

    I read the article and watched the video and was not impressed. We have been informed about the dark flow for nearly 2 1/2 years so its very old news to those of us that follow such things. Some of their proposed hypothesis to explain the dark flow are even more ridiculous than the BB model itself, in my opinion.

    "Dark Flow" Discovered at Edge of the Universe: Hundreds of Millions of Stars Racing Towards a Cosmic Hotspot

    That being said, I think that the BB model is almost entirely wrong but not for the reasons discussed in the article or video.

    I think the beginning of eventually irrefutable evidence against the BB model will begin in the next decade after the James Webb goes up. At that time I believe they will continue seeing the same kinds of galaxies as far back as they can look, that we are presently observing with the Hubble telescope and our Long Baseline radio-scopes and infra-red scopes, and which we can see in our local neighborhood and in the same proportions. At that time the only reason to list other problems with the BB model will involve analyzing possible replacement models.
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 28th, 2011 at 10:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 15th, 2009, 07:23 PM
  2. Spirit of the Universe and the Substantiated Universe
    By zhang zhi qiang in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 17th, 2008, 10:49 PM
  3. 1$ = 1c... what's wrong?
    By william in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 20th, 2006, 10:20 PM
  4. What if we have it wrong....
    By Grizlore in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 9th, 2006, 12:22 PM
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
  •