The Big Bang Theory - Religion disguised as Science?

[dumbest man on earth]

Important Note : I recently came across this Essay : Link - http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php -

Reading and re-reading it in its entirety numerous times, the author "seems" to present a coherent and thoroughly researched logical and rational composition for his arguments/beliefs/conclusions.

As I am only minimally educated in the Sciences/Disciplines involved in The Big Bang Theory, I thought that perhaps I would Post the Link to the Essay.

The authors arguments/beliefs/conclusions are not my own, dumbest man on earth, and I only Post in the interest of sparking a hopefully enlightening discussion.


- quote -
"THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

by Michael Rivero

Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was this guy named Aristotle. Pretty sharp fellow; he thought up a lot of good things. But, occasionally he made a mistake.

One mistake he made was to toss an orange up in the air and watch it come straight back down to his hand. Aristotle reasoned that if he was moving, the orange would have flown off to one side as soon as it left his hand. Because the orange did not do so, Aristotle concluded he was not moving. On the basis of this one observed fact, and the assumption that there was no other explanation for what he observed, Aristotle concluded that the Earth does not move and that therefore the rest of the universe had to move around it.

Aristotle was a very sharp guy, but the fact is that there was another explanation for why the orange fell back into his hand, and it would wait about another 2000 years before another smart man, Sir Isaac Newton, explained just what it was Aristotle had overlooked, set forth in Newton's laws of motion."
- end quote - From : http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php

I would like to have some feedback from other users of this Forum. I only ask that the link is read in its entirety, prior to commenting, and that any comments be logical, rational and at least minimally intelligent in the nature of their content.

Although I am aware that this may be a touchy/personal subject for some people - I humbly ask for restraint in Posting flaming/trolling/extremely biased or otherwise unnecessary comments.

Thanks for your time, and I hope to be enlightened further on the subject in question.

dmoe

 

[Russ_Watters]

No.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I mean honestly: are you even familiar with the concept of a reliable source?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

No.

I mean honestly: are you even familiar with the concept of a reliable source?

Russ_Watters, thank you kindly for your logical, rational and at least minimally intelligent response.

Yes, Russ_Watters, I am "familiar with the concept of a reliable source".
Would you be so kind as to clarify, "honestly", why you ask that question?
Would you be so kind as to clarify, "honestly", why "the concept of a reliable source" is more important than the reliability/validity of the data/information/content supplied by any "source"?

Russ_Watters, again, thank you for your "enlightening" response to my OP.

 

[origin]

I looked through most of the article and it is mostly bull shit.

 

[paddoboy]

I would just like to add three scientific quotes that appeal to me, and sum up its position quite admirably.......

""The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.""
Isaac Asimov


"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."
Albert Einstein



"Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact."
Thomas Huxley




From my own point of view, the further we see and achieve in science, the less important and relevant religion becomes.

 

[origin]

From my own point of view, the further we see and achieve in science, the less important and relevant religion becomes.

That makes sense to me. God was used to fill in the gaps in our understanding of the world. The more we understand the world the smaller the gaps become so the smaller the role of God becomes. We will never know everthing so people will always be able to look to a God for the answers to the unknown if they chose.

 

[paddoboy]

I looked through most of the article and it is mostly bull shit.

I didn't read the article, just answered the question as is.

Science is what we know: Philosophy/Religion is what we don't know.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@Russ_Watters

@origin

@paddoboy

I only ask that the link is read in its entirety, prior to commenting, and that any comments be logical, rational and at least minimally intelligent in the nature of their content. dmoe

Thank you for your responses.

May all of you and your loved ones have a Happy Holiday Season

 

[origin]

May all of you and your loved ones have a Happy Holiday Season

And the same to you.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

And the same to you.

Grok'd!

 

[Boris2]

Would you be so kind as to clarify, "honestly", why "the concept of a reliable source" is more important than the reliability/validity of the data/information/content supplied by any "source"?

it isn't always. i think the main reason is that for people who may not be up with the science then a reliable source is the best place to go. for instance in this case, while i know a bit about cosmology, i researched the author and found that he looks rather dubious. which leads me to the conclusion, either right or wrong, that his article is wrong. now, he may be on to something but to someone who actually knows i doubt it. it is better for the "beginner" to go to a reliable source where they know that the information will be as correct as the current science can tell.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

it isn't always. i think the main reason is that for people who may not be up with the science then a reliable source is the best place to go. for instance in this case, while i know a bit about cosmology, i researched the author and found that he looks rather dubious. which leads me to the conclusion, either right or wrong, that his article is wrong. now, he may be on to something but to someone who actually knows i doubt it. it is better for the "beginner" to go to a reliable source where they know that the information will be as correct as the current science can tell.

Boris2, thank you for your reply. The reasons stated in your Post are why I Posted the OP.

Recognizing that the author was maybe no more of an authority on the subject than myself, I thought that other Forum users who indeed might be, would actually READ the essay and consider its merits - regardless of the source!

It has been my experience on this planet that a verifiable fact can come from an Unreliable Source, just as a lie/misinformation/disinformation can come from a Reliable Source.

I am still researching the information in the essay - and so far, it is basically sound in comparing it to Science Sites. There are indeed, it seems, a lot of "Fudge Factors" inserted into the different attempted Proofs of the Big Bang Theory.

BTW - it is still referred to as "The Big Bang Theory", is it not?
I could find no reference to it being "The Big Bang Fact", so...just wondering and hoping for enlightening discussion.

Thanks again, Boris2, for your honest reply to the OP.

May you and yours have a Happy Holiday Season!

 

[paddoboy]

BTW - it is still referred to as "The Big Bang Theory", is it not?
I could find no reference to it being "The Big Bang Fact", so...just wondering and hoping for enlightening discussion.

Many people make this mistake...A theory as defined in general by a lay person refers to something that is uncertain and speculative. The scientific theory is an explanation stemming from an hypothesis, that is backed by continuious observations and experimentations and is always open for falsification, modification and/or change. The longer a scientific theory has been confirmed, the more concrete it becomes.
Newtonian mechanics is pretty certain. We still are confident that if we jump up off the ground, we will come back down due to gravity....SR/GR are continually being confirmed by experimental results......The BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution is another that is well supported.

 

[paddoboy]

Oh, and a very merry and safe Chrissy and New Year to you also.

 

[paddoboy]

It has been my experience on this planet that a verifiable fact can come from an Unreliable Source, just as a lie/misinformation/disinformation can come from a Reliable Source.

Sure enough that is true. But we must remember that in this technilogical advanced age we live in, the chances of a Galileo or Einstein coming from left field is rather remote. The real scientists, the real orginisations, like NASA/ESA and others, have access to incredible technical equipement, that an ordinary run of the mill old bum like you or me, could never access.

 

[paddoboy]

I am still researching the information in the essay - and so far, it is basically sound in comparing it to Science Sites. There are indeed, it seems, a lot of "Fudge Factors" inserted into the different attempted Proofs of the Big Bang Theory.

Alan Guth's Inflationary epoch addition to the BB, was to explain the observed homegenity and Isotropy of the Universe.....DM was instigated to explain anomolous rates of rotations of the outer edges of galaxies...Einstein invoked the CC to allow a static Universe, the standard belief of the day.
All of those "fudge factors" have now been indicated as very probable due to new observations of late.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Alan Guth's Inflationary opoch addition to the BB, was to explain the observed homegenity and Isotropy of the Universe.....DM was instigated to explain anomolous rates of rotations of the outer edges of galaxies...Einstein invoked the CC to allow a static Universe, the standard belief of the day.
All of those "fudge factors" have now been indicated as very probable due to new observations of late.

paddoboy, after 6 Posts in this thread - have you still not read the article I linked in the OP?

I clearly stated :

I only ask that the link is read in its entirety, prior to commenting, and that any comments be logical, rational and at least minimally intelligent in the nature of their content. dmoe

You stated earlier that you "didn't read the article, just answered the question as is" - so, have you, as yet read the article?

paddoboy, I read and consider all Posts thoroughly - usually at least twice, if not multiple times - before replying to any Posts. This includes numerous Posts of your own that I have responded to. Is it somehow wrong or unnatural for me to follow that discipline?

paddoboy, I only ask because you seem to say quite a lot of things and are able to parrot/repeat a lot of information...and excuse me for saying this...but honestly, to me...you do not seem to be adding any truly personal consideration or insight to this discussion.

paddoboy, I hope you do not take this wrong - but I am earnestly trying to further my knowledge and understanding of Science on these Forums. If I was only interested in the "status quo" - I could just peruse "google" or "wiki" or "youtube".

paddoboy, you once mentioned "standing on the shoulders of giants" to go further - if all one does is repeat the words of those who preceded us, or quote their accomplishments - is that not kneeling before them, instead of using their support as steps to higher realms?


Meh!...I'm just ranting...

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy, after 6 Posts in this thread - have you still not read the article I linked in the OP?

I clearly stated :

You stated earlier that you "didn't read the article, just answered the question as is" - so, have you, as yet read the article?

paddoboy, I read and consider all Posts thoroughly - usually at least twice, if not multiple times - before replying to any Posts. This includes numerous Posts of your own that I have responded to. Is it somehow wrong or unnatural for me to follow that discipline?

paddoboy, I only ask because you seem to say quite a lot of things and are able to parrot/repeat a lot of information...and excuse me for saying this...but honestly, to me...you do not seem to be adding any truly personal consideration or insight to this discussion.

paddoboy, I hope you do not take this wrong - but I am earnestly trying to further my knowledge and understanding of Science on these Forums. If I was only interested in the "status quo" - I could just peruse "google" or "wiki" or "youtube".

paddoboy, you once mentioned "standing on the shoulders of giants" to go further - if all one does is repeat the words of those who preceded us, or quote their accomplishments - is that not kneeling before them, instead of using their support as steps to higher realms?


Meh!...I'm just ranting...

I havn't as yet read your link, but I intend to....I have a busy schedule the mrs/better half/boss has laid out for me to follow.
I will certainly do it though, maybe this evening.
My comments were given in response to some of your comments, particularly the inference that "Ah well, it's just a theory"
You need to check out what a scientific theory is...My comment was to show you that.
The other point, re the status quo, and kneeling before the giants of the past.......It's great to think for ones self, but please don't be so open minded, and prepared to listen to anything, so much so that you may appear as just opposing mainstream science for the sake of opposition.
I have on a few occasions argued the point with established scientists and astronomers on interpretations, and am never afraid to not take some scenario on face value.

But please read all I have said.....your inference about the BB being "just a theory" is wrong. I wanted to point that out.
The fudge factors that scientists have introduced to a theory to make it align more with what we have observed, is also true....but in the cases I have mentioned, those fudge factors have turned out to more likely then not, as our abilities to use more technological equipment and see further grows.
These maybe status quo facts, but facts they are [or at least good scientific theory]

If you check out other threads I have started, you will find also that I am quite interested in speculation, especially about B'H singularities and the BB singularity, but I realise that what I propose is just that...speculation, and as yet, we have no real inkling, as to what was at the BB, and before time as we know it began, nor do we know the condition of space/time matter/energy at a BB singularity.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

paddoboy, I saw no reason to quote your whole Post.

My statements were not an "inference that "Ah well, it's just a theory" "! I stated that it is indeed called The Big Bang Theory- because it is just exactly that - The Big Bang Theory!
True, mainstream science uses it as the working hypothesis/model at the base of the current view of the workings of the observable universe - but I have yet to hear one scientist or read one article where it is called anything other than The Big Bang Theory!
There was no inference - make no mistake about that - I, dmoe, do honestly believe with every last neuron/synapse/cell in my brain that it is The Big Bang Theory!
So...paddoboy, please do not repeat that I am wrong about that fact unless you can provide Peer Reviewed and fully evidenced Proof that it is indeed anything other than The Big Bang Theory!
Heck, you, paddoboy, yourself, even stated : "These maybe status quo facts, but facts they are [or at least good scientific theory]"!

Meh!...I'm just ranting...again...