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

[DaveC426913]

Yes, models are opinions,

Models are predictions.

I drop an apple; it falls to the ground. I do that often enough and I can build a model that something draws objects to the centre of the Earth.
I notice that, if I generalize the model, it can also predict the Moon going around the Earth.
Turns out I cn do that rpetty well with my model.
As long as that prediction is reliable, I have a pretty good model.

When we looked at the bending of light around massive objects, we see our basic model is no longer entirely predictive.
We modify our model to one of bending spacetime.
Our model is now far more predictive. It still has problems.

At no time does not model declare what is "really" happening. And at no time does it ever declare anything is proven.

 

[Gravage]

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.

Forst of all it's fact, because you believe in something without giving any true evidence for it, again you believe in unprovable hypotheses/models.
If that's the prupose of science, than that's definitely not science.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

Except you do not speak facts or truth or how things are. You speak ignorance.

You are at the bottom of a very tall, narrow bucket, and you describe the entire world as round and smooth and high above your head. These are your facts - your "truth" - because you lack knowledge of what is outside your bucket.

 

[Gravage]

Models are predictions.

I drop an apple; it falls to the ground. I do that often enough and I can build a model that something draws objects to the centre of the Earth.
I notice that, if I generalize the model, it can also predict the Moon going around the Earth.
Turns out I cn do that rpetty well with my model.
As long as that prediction is reliable, I have a pretty good model.

Well, the difference is you can actually now directly observe both moon and Earth, to prove of disprove, while this is not the case with quantum mechanics, for example.

When we looked at the bending of light around massive objects, we see our basic model is no longer entirely predictive.
We modify our model to one of bending spacetime.
Our model is now far more predictive. It still has problems.

But there is flaw in this completely wrong thinking: in every experiment you did not see space bending at all never, not even once, what you actually directly observe is the differenc ebetween distances and trajectories of all objects, matter and energy, nothing more-it's so obviously wrong to say that space is bending when it is not.
In all experiments and observational evidences with telescopes the only thing that is truly shown and proven is that matter and energy are affected by other matter and energy/gravity, but it proves that space is totally static and does not move/bend at all, the only things that bends and stretches are everything that is made of matter and energy in energy fields.

Where there is no matter, no energy and no energy fields there is no gravitational influence on anything-sinc ethere is no matter and no energy to affect in the first place, and space is not energy or matter and space is not made of anything at all.

At no time does not model declare what is "really" happening. And at no time does it ever declare anything is proven.

How it is not declaring if anything is proven-if you make an experiment-what really this is all about is misiniterpretation in the first place, as always.

 

[DaveC426913]

But there is flaw in this completely wrong thinking: in every experiment you did not see space bending at all never, not even once, what you actually directly observe is the differenc ebetween distances and trajectories of all objects, matter and energy, nothing more-it's so obviously wrong to say that space is bending when it is not.

From the bottom of your bucket, you have no idea what anyone saw.

This is why your world seems so self-consistent, because it's so small. The world is much bigger than you know. Your opinions will fall apart once you immerse yourself in it.

 

[Gravage]

Except you do not speak facts or truth or how things are. You speak ignorance.

Yes, I speak the way things are, the things we can know for sure on our own level where people live-I'm not speaking about "the facts" that are sold in models are proven facts.
As well as the fact that if you cannot see the entire reality only one small piece of it, than models are wrong-this has been proven time and time again.
If you don't directly observe what models describe it, than the models are not proven-these are facts based on real-world evidences, it is who who accept models without evidences and facts.

You are at the bottom of a very tall, narrow bucket, and you describe the entire world as round and smooth and high above your head. These are your facts, because you lack knowledge of what is outside your bucket.

It seems to me that you don't understand the difference on what it is and how it is with what you want to be-just like with the models.

 

[DaveC426913]

When I was young, I too thought it all made sense. I too was in a bucket of naivete.
The only antidotes are time and real-world experience.

First, learn what the words mean that everyone else uses: fact, opinion, rhetoric, model, hypothesis, theory, proof, scientific method.

 

[Gravage]

From the bottom of your bucket, you have no idea what anyone saw.

This is why your world seems so self-consistent, because it's so small. The world is much bigger than you know. Your opinions will fall apart once you immerse yourself in it.

Did you actually read my posts above you obviously did not:
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 what we see 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", and 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.

So, what we see it does exist, however, the interpretation of what we is wrong, because our senses are faaaaar too limited to see the the entire reality the way it is.

 

[Gravage]

When I was young, I too thought it all made sense. I too was in a bucket of naivete.
The only antidotes are time and real-world experience.

You obviously cannot accept all those facts I wrote above and what is actually direct observation and interpretation.

 

[DaveC426913]

...unprovable...
...the whole reality exactly the way it is.
...how everything truly works
...there is so much of science that mathematics says it is "proven"...
...everything what mathematics "proves", it is not actually proven in experiments...

These are all extant examples of naivete.
These are your words; this is what you think we are talking about.

We are not. None of this is science.

 

[DaveC426913]

You obviously cannot accept all those facts I wrote above .

Homework item #1. Learn what a fact is and what it is not.

As before, there cannot even be a conversation here as long as you do not understand the words you are using.

 

[Gravage]

Homework item #1. Learn what a fact is and what it is not.

As before, there cannot even be a conversation here as long as you do not understand the words you are using.

You should look what is fact, not me, facts is simply accepting and interpreting the evidences the way they are, not in the way you want them to be in the first place.

 

[Gravage]

These are all extant examples of naivete.
These are your words; this is what you think we are talking about.

We are not. None of this is science.

I'm just stating facts, deal with them, or run into your bed, you just don't want to read something that is actually factual, you run away from it, you have to first face it, than accept it/accept reality of evidences and their interpretations the way they are-thats is true science, not the science in the way you want it to be in the first place, like in the form of mathematics and its pseudo-evidences that are not shown exist in experiments and do not exist at all in experiments, than we can move on.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm just stating facts.

Learn what a fact is.

Learn what theories are. Models. Proof. Science.

It can be said that someone who keeps needing to declare that what they say is fact, is most certainly not speaking factually.

 

[Gravage]

Learn what a fact is.

You should learn it, not me. I can see the word fact misused and raped all over ths world, the same thing is what you do all the time.
I cannot help you if you at all, don't understand or you simply do not want to understand the words that I'm saying/posting in this thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

You should learn it, not me. I can see the word fact misused and raped all over ths world, the same thing is what you do all the time.

Yes, it's a conspiracy.
You know the correct use of the English language, the rest of the English-speaking world misuses it.
If only the rest of the world would adopt the same language you have, all would be well.

When you're in a bucket, the walls seem like the whole world.

It's also why this conversation is going nowhere. You have nothing but rhetoric - only your own thoughts that self-reinforce.

There is no communication happening here. I can't teach you all of critical thinking and scientific method in a forum post.

 

[Gravage]

Yes, it's a conspiracy.
You know the correct use of the English language, the rest of the English-speaking world misuses it.
If only the rest of the world would adopt the same language you have, all would be well.

When you're in a bucket, the walls seem like the whole world.

I'ts obvious you lost your reason, it's obvious you don't know the what fact means, that you bend it in your own way the way you want it, there is no point to continue if you don't understand anything I say/post.
This is what happens when people trust too much to models.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'ts obvious you lost your reason, it's obvious you don't know the what fact means, that you bend it in your own way the way you want it, there is no point to continue if you don't understand anything I say/post.

Yes, me and the rest of the world have collectively lost our minds.

 

[Gravage]

Yes, me and the rest of the world have collectively lost our minds.

Well, scientists have always been that crazy, their crazyiness comes from their inability to truly understand the world, and their inability to accept that mathematics cannot solve and cannot explain everything and also that mathematics cannot be proven-however when they realize that, they suffer from mental breakdowns when they face with the cold, hard facts.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, scientists have always been that crazy, their crazyiness comes from their inability to truly understand the world,

Correct, all good work is done by undereducated internet posters on pseudoscience forums. That's where the world is truly understood. Not in, you know, labs.

That's why they call it pseudo-science. 'Pseudo' means 'fact', doncha know.

and inability to accept that mathematics cannot solve and cannot explain everything.

Correct, and everybody knows that mathematics (which is abstract and does contain proofs) is meant to explain the world - not physics, (which is concrete and does not contain proofs).

Add mathematics versus physics to your reading list.