The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Gravage, Dec 20, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Good to have ground rules established

    My next follow up is in regards to Television

    A television station is about to broadcast s live show

    Studio is all set up and the personal are given the thumbs up the station is broadcasting

    No-one outside the station noticies anytime difference when the broadcast starts

    Some kilometres away I arrive home and do not notice anything different about the house from when I left it

    I turn on the TV and lo and behold I see on the screen the image of what is occurring in the TV studio

    How the hell did that happen?

    I can't see any mysterious stuff in the air connecting my house to the studio serveral kilometres away

    Please explain
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Do you have reading comprehension difficulties. I asked you three simple questions:
    Who was one of the last scientists to practice real science?
    What were they studying?
    When to within a year or two did this happen?

    Will you please have the courtesy to answer these. If you fail to do so I shall assume you are a troll or a fool and moved for your permanent expulsion from this board.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I'll get back to your other replies, but I just want to consider this one about tracks in the bubble chamber, quickly:
    I'm fine with your saying that we can't observe any actual particles causing the tracks in the bubble chamber. But then, the question remains: how are the tracks to be explained?

    Do we throw up our hands and say that no explanation of these tracks is possible? That they will forever remain a mystery? Because this is what you seem to be arguing for.

    What I would say is that these tracks, and how they appear to be formed, look as if something is entering the bubble and chamber and ploughing through the stuff in there leaving tracks. So, what I would do is to create an imaginary mental picture of what might be happening. Imagine, I would say, if there were tiny little particles travelling through the chamber, hitting particles already there, and via a particular string of interactions eventually producing the visible tracks we observe.

    I could go further and model these imaginary particles as having imaginary properties like electrical charge and mass. I can then test whether the model is any good by using it to predict what tracks I will see when I do a particular experiment that creates these imaginary particles. If the tracks that I see in the real experiment match what my model predicts, then the model is good at explaining the tracks. If the observed tracks are different from the prediction, then the model is bad and needs to be modified or thrown away.

    Notice that at no point above to I claim that any of the particles in my model are real. If I say something like "this track in the bubble chamber was caused by an electron", I'm not saying that electrons are real. What I'm really saying is that the imaginary model I have constructed, which contains a theoretical thing that I have called "an electron", accurately predicts the real tracks I see in the bubble chamber.

    Can you see that it doesn't actually matter whether there is a "real" electron or not, if my aim is only to understand how the bubble chamber will behave in any particular observation? The idea of an electron is just a convenient way to visualise what is happening.

    You ought to realise that it is impossible to do science without a model like this. If you try, you're just stamp collecting: here's a set of tracks in a bubble chamber; here's a different set of tracks; here's a third set of tracks, different again. Without a model, there's no unifying principle that explains how all three sets of tracks came about.

    The same kind of thing applies to virtually all important questions in science. We observe that the sky is blue and the grass is green. That's stamp collecting. But why is the sky blue, and why is the grass green? If we want a theory that explains both of those observations, we need some kind of model for light and how it behaves. Suppose we describe light as waves. If that picture can explain why the sky is blue and the grass is green, then it's a useful model - particularly if it can also explain why the sunset is red, for example. But does that mean that light is really waves? Do we care?

    Suppose you do care about how things "really" are. Suppose you want to know what really causes tracks in the bubble chamber. Perhaps you can tell me how you propose to find that out. What are you going to do to prove that electrons aren't real, and that the tracks are really caused by ... whatever it is you think causes them?

    Or are you going to insist that the tracks are forever a mystery and that we shouldn't use scientific models and we should all give up on this whole useless "science" thing and go back to good old trial and error?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    This bears repeating. Because its the sciency way.

    Whatever all these things are (particles, waves, quantum thingies, everything else) that are causing observable phenomena in our universe, we are doing well at describing what they do.

    What they are "really" is a much more philosophical question.

    Science is about making models that accurately describe what we see happening. It is not about what things "really" are.

    "Electron" is simply a label for some thing that behaves in a way we can describe and predict very well - so well we can even reproduce that behavior at-will.
  8. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Yes, you are doing well, yes, inded, but only when ti comes to creating brand new technologies , scientists are nowhere near in explaining the universe-there is no point in explain the universe if you cannot prove anything at all.
    Again, I have nothing against hypotheses, but it's 100% wrong to say that anything you mentioned here above, what other mention and what I mentioned in all of my previous posts, is proven in any way, since we can never know what is the true picture of entire reality, not just its tiniest parts that we can actually directly observe.

    If you actually believe in this, than you are wrong,, it has nothing to do with philosophy but with direct observations and how much of the reality we can actually directly observe and the answer is: almost nothing.

    Again blind scientist can never get his facts straight compared to the scientist that can actually directly observe, because his/her perception and senses are much more limited-the same problem is with scientists who are trying to "prove" that quantum mechanics is correct, honestly speaking you would need to shrink ourselves to quantum level to actually see what is the real truth, and even that does not guanrantee us anything what is truly going one on quantum level-since one way or another we cannot directly observe the entire reality the way it is.

    And that is not correct, because if you actually make models to describe about what do you see that is actually happening-that experiments like with relativity would already fail-the example is with so called "space bending" experiment-there is no such thing as gravitational influence on space-you simply do not actually observe gravitational influence on space itself-but on everything that is made of matter and energy in that space-the space itself is not affected not even the slightest-that's one example.

    Second example is with telescopes; when you are dealing with such vast distance you simply cannot know what is tru and what is false in the first place, plus those gravitational lensing direct observational evidences, again do not prove in any way not even the slightest that space is affected by gravity, again on images you only see matter and energy being directly affected by gravitational lensing-however you cannot even be sure if this is gravitational lensing or not in the first place, maybe it's electromagnetic-it's impossible to in the first place, because of such distances also I have to mention you cannot truly know what is optical illusion and what is directly observationally proven for a fact.

    Plus, scientists say that the universe is accelerating-if you actually look at it, it's based on mathematical calculations-so we cannot know what is the real true, since we cannot observe the expansion the way we should, but even if this is actually true, it is not the universe that is expanding, it is the galaxies that ate moving aways from each other-there are too many unknowns here when it comes to expansion, and in no way it is possible to directly prove what is true and what is false-wihc suhc vast distances.

    Than i quantum mechanics there is no way telling what is going on-it's just the math that is telling what is going on-again it is directly observe, yes there is detection, but detection of what exactly?????
    There is no way ever to know this.

    Again it behaves, not a single shred of evidence of anything subatomic.
    What exactly behaves?
    Plus this behaviour could also be misguided and misinterpreted, because of the fact we do not actually know what is a true behaviour of anything that is sumbatomic-level and qunatum level in the first place, since we do not have direct observations on these levels in the first place.
    We only say it is behaving the way we think it does, based on our long experiences and studiying of direct observations in our own macroworld.[/QUOTE]
  9. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Personally, I don't know who, but it was sure before Einstein in the first place-right now, Newton comes on my mind, but I'd have dig through entire history to see who was the first.

    Again, it would take the most detailed analysis and review of all scientists/physicists in the first place to actually see when the mathematical pseudo-evidences started to take over the place of real evidences.

    You are all trolls and you are all fools, if you replace real-world evidences with mathematical pseudo-evidences.
    This is not science, it's fairy tale-again I don't have nothing against hypotheses (that are not too fairy-talish), but I and everyone else should be angry when you say you have proven something to exist in the first place-because it's a pure lie.
    This is where physicists and mathematicians cannot see the difference between mathematical pseudo-evidences and directly observational real world evidences and than they all lose their boundaries-and they are presenting as something mathematical that is actually proven, when it is not; not even the slightest-scientists should analyze and interpret exactly what direct observations of experiments actually prove, not what mathematics "proves" that is beyond what experiments actually show that is actually, truly proven-facts.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2017
  10. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Again, because of limited perception, limited observations of limited pieces of reality/ealities, everything what you try to explain is simply wrong, I simply gave up explaining the universe, if you cannot see the entire reality from the loewst level to the highest level-because of the mentioned limitations, even that is directly observationally proven is wrong because it is misinterpreted, because you simply cannot see the whole picture, you only see its tiniest parts.
    Besides, I have seen those experts for the brain what they told, we can never see the reality the way it is because of our vast limitations-and that is the key point in all of my posts.
    Sure we can make hypotheses and create incredible technologies, but hypotheses behind to explain the universe are simply useless-when you are so much limited-and math does not solve anything if you cannot prove it in the first place-I mean really prove it, that you actually directly observe that it behaves, exactly the way mathematics describes it-and that was never the case, it is never the case now, and it never will never be the case in the future.

    I actually welcome this, but it doesn't change the facts-it's unprovable, again I do like hypotheses of all kinds, but none has the right to say this proven or this is disproven.

    I already explained here above why such reasoning is wrong.

    Again I explained everything above, plus here is a copy of my answer to Ophiolite:
    This is where physicists and mathematicians cannot see the difference between mathematical pseudo-evidences and directly observational real world evidences and than they all lose their boundaries-and they are presenting as something mathematical that is actually proven, when it is not; not even the slightest-scientists should analyze and interpret exactly what direct observations of experiments actually prove, not what mathematics "proves" that is beyond what experiments actually show that is actually, truly proven-facts.

    Why it would be, who says it's convenient-if you dig about something that you can never actually directly observe and experience, than everything you do with mathematics is a waste of time and money and it's misguiding people all over the world that scientists know that much, which in fact they do not know nothing, they only have unprovable matehamtical models to start with and that's about it-again the only good thing trials and error and with mathematical models are new technologies.
    And ye, mathematical models are also trials and error since they are directly unprovable on all levels, in all forms, in all ways.

    Again, just for the record, this is why I said there is no true science for a very long time, and that these models are good for technologies, but you have no right to tell people everywhere in the world, that the models are correct and directly proven with direct observations and direct studying-when none of these is actually true.
    Your models are your opinions-and that's about it, you or anyone else does not have any right to cliam to people everyhwere in the world that you have proven this or that in the first place.
    Just for the record, for me Big Bang hypothesis is truly awesome, but one thing is model and one thing is reality of evidences and what is exactly proven, plus the fac that something cannot come from nothing in the first place.

    True scientists should always be careful on what "evidences" they represent as actuall, real-world evidences-that's a true science, so yes, you should care, everyone should care in the first place-if your models cannot see the real truth and cannot prove anything concrete and real-just say it, none will be angry on you, none, just admit the damn truth about your mathematical models that are simply truly unprovable-and all upper limits on how much can actually be proven has passed long time ago.

    There is no shame in it, none would be angry on you because of all benign uses that your unprovable models have brought to society in every day life, scientists in the past should be proud of this, these today's scientists are simply working for large corporations and there is nothing good in it.

    I already answered you; everything in science and the entire science is based on trials and errors, and so are all the models and that includes all science and all scientific, hypothetical models-the very fact-that all of mathematical models are 100% unprovable (as I explained here above and in previous posts to all other posters) and yet they can be used for every day implementations absolutely proves my key points-models are unprovable and it also means they are wrong, but they are usable for implementations for every day lives.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2017
  11. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    It's called technology, but just because you have technology, it doesn't mean the explanations behind all technologies are actually correct at all in the first place-all the explanations are unprovable, everything technological us based on trials and errors, and you cannot know what exactly in the model is truly correct-the fact is, it is working, plus you cannot compare something that we experience every day with something we have never actually see either with TV thing or on qantum levels or with telescopes on distances faaaaar away from planet Earth.

    This is why I posted about the story about elephant and blind men-who have never seen or experienced elephant and none before has ever told them the existence of elephants in the first place-so when they touched elephant's ear they thought it was a leaf, not an ear-the same thing happens when scientists are trying to create models about things that they will never truly prove to exist, because of the limited perceptions, and all 5 limited senses-so the explanation of TV is also misinterpreted and unprovable in the first place.

    If you are limited with your 5 senses it means that all models that try to explain everything are simply wrong, because you can simply not directly observe the whole reality exactly the way it is.

    So this model maybe works for new technologies, but it's sure thing, it's wrong in explaining how everything truly works, since our 5 senses are so much limited-and our 5 senses can only explain and actually directly what they directly observe, however there is so much we cannot see that even those direct observations, althought correct because of our vast limitations of only 5 senses are actually wrong, because our perceptions are so much limited and cannot directly see/observe the true and entire reality behind all senses, and therefore the explanations we offer are always wrong, because we are so much limited by our 5 senses, to have more informations and more facts about the nature of the entire universe.

    If you try to explain only the tip of an iceberg what you can actually directly observe, you will always fail, because you cannot diectly observe/see 99% of the rest of entire iceberg.

    Plus there is so much of science that mathematics says it is "proven",a nd yet when you actually look at all those experiments, everything what mathematics "proves", it is not actually proven in experiments, because you actually directly observe that mathematics creates "evidences" on its own that cannot be directly observed or detected in any experiment, because it is truly unprovable with direct observations.
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    OK. I've got Gravage's number now. That didn't take long.

    He hasn't the foggiest notion what science is about. He thinks it's about proving things.

    He is tilting at an imaginary windmill-shaped strawman.

    Gravage I'll state it here, and for all time: the goal of science is not to "prove" anything.
  13. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    I'm just posting cold hard facts and nothing more and nothing else.
    If that's the case, if that truly is the case that the goal of science is not to "prove" or "disprove"anything, than this statement/post proves what I've been posting all the time, science is a form of religion-if the goal of science is not to prove anything.

    And yet you are angry on religious people, and yet science is no different than religion.
    Sure you have models and you create new technologies, but if you cannot prove or disprove anything, than it's just mere, unprovable hypotheses like everything else-the facts that I've been posting through entire thread; from the very beginning of this thread.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2017
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    You're not even posting alternative facts.
    You're posting opinion and rhetoric.

    A non-sequitur.

    There are only two options in your opinion? Prove stuff or it's religion?

    That is not fact, that is opinion.

    And, you are confirming that you don't understand the purpose of science.
  15. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    I'm posting the facts the way they are, not the way I wanted them to be, this is what you do all the time, you simply posting models, and models are opinions and nothing more and nothing else, I simply stick with cold hard facts, I, unlike yourselves, do not create hypotheses of any kind, I simply say what is the truth and what is false, I never go there on the level of unprovable.
    I simply post the way things work in a real world, not in some mathematical, abstract, non-existent pseudo-world.
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Not only do you not understand what science is, but you don't understand what a fact is.

    Fact =/= something I really, really want to think is true.
  17. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    I do know what science is and you have just proven it above.
    No, fact is not what you describe facts are things and concepts that exist in the way that they exist, not in the way you want them to exist-that's a key difference-you manipulate facts the way your models behave-not in the way they are shown-this actually seen in both quantum mechanics and in relativity as examples.
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Oh, and you don't understand what models are either.
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    You state opinions and call them facts.
    You claim models are opinions.
    You assert science is intended to prove.

    You are way out of your depth.
  20. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    The hell, I don't understand, models are approximations, and hypotheses about how something works, if it is not provable, abandon it-as simple as that-it's obvious that models twist facts.
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    It is impossible to even have a conversation with you about this subject. You have made up your own ideas about what words mean and how science works.

    You state opinions and think that they are somehow factual.

    You don't speak the same language as the world. How is it possible to even communicate with you?
  22. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Yes, models are opinions, because fo the reasonos I posted above. Plus, like I said above they are unprovable-if anything that models said ca actually be directly proven with direct observations and with correct interpretations-and that is impossible if you cannot have the insight into entire reality, as I explained above.
    Yes, science needs either to prove or disprove on what can be directly observed-and obviously science is not capable of doing this most fundamental homework.
  23. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Again, Im' stating what it is and how it is, you cannot accept the truth about models and about what it means the actual evidence of something-once you learn this, than we can move on with conversations like this, otherwise it's waste of time, to post anythign when you cannot realize and undrestand the key differences between facts, evidences, hypotheses and models that are provable and unprovable in the first place.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page