Sorry but I can't let this go---you have no idea what you're talking about. Saying ``the big bang is just a theory'' is pretty assinine. Every cosmological observation we make tells us that the universe tends to a very hot, dense initial state.
indignation (skinwalker)
- Thread starter outlandish
- Start date
Sorry but I can't let this go---you have no idea what you're talking about. Saying ``the big bang is just a theory'' is pretty assinine. Every cosmological observation we make tells us that the universe tends to a very hot, dense initial state.
no,thinking that you know conclusively beyond any doubt exactly how the universe came into being is asinine. no scientist has made, or will ever make such a claim, all thesis' and postulations regarding this matter are theoretical.
observations don't equate to conclusive knowledge, the sum of all the observations made and conclusions put forward are dwarfed by that which is not known about the universe.
ben, do you know exactly how the universe came into exsistence?
can you prove concluslively how the universe came into exsistence? and if so, do you know what exsisted before it???
Last edited:
thankyou.
common sense tells us that it should be hotter at the orbit of mercury than at saturn. the voyager probes shown us that isn't the case.
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
BenTheMan said:
Hi, Outlandish. I guess Ben knows that no scientist would would seriously claim that we know beyond doubt how the Universe was formed. I think what he was objecting to was the word just - just a theory.
I think in science it doesn't get any more definite than a theory. A theory is at the pinnacle of scientific understanding. It isn't a speculation, or a wild idea, or a partially formulated hypothesis, or even a hypothesis that has been validated by a handful of observations. Instead it has been investigated by many persons, from many perspectives and found to match observation in a consistent way. It has been repeatedly tested and found to be valid on each occassion. It is as close to fact as science will ever allow itself to come.
So referrring to it as just a theory, is a little like saying Bill Gates is not really rich, he is just a billionaire. It may have been rude of Ben to describe your remark as assinine, but wouldn't you agree that it was misleading?
or even better is:
he just has some money.
outlandish---
All observations EVER made point to the fact that the big bang occured 13.7 ish billion years ago. This is somehting which has been studied for almost 100 years.
You are obviously ignorant about how science actually works, so I will take this opportunity to key you in. You can thank me when your kids don't grow up and bomb abortion clinics.
First, we MAKE a theory. This theory is based on some physical observation or insight into nature. We calculate things with this theory, and make explicit predictions.
Then we TEST the theory. This involves building billion dollar, multi-national sattelites and sending them into space to take data for ten years. We then analyze the data and see how well the data fit with the prediction of the theory.
If the data confirm the theory, then it is ``right'' inasmuch as anything can be ``right''. In this sense, the matter is proved, untill a better theory comes along which explains the data better (read: more simply) and makes new predictions that the old theory didn't make. Note that the new theory typically MUST be consistent with the old theory. During this time, it is the usurper's duty to prove it's worth---we don't throw out years of scientific progress just because a few crackpot christians want to learn science from a bunch of Jewish folk tales.
So, yes, I can prove how the universe started. I can prove there was a big bang by looking at the SDSS red-shift data (which shows the universe is expanding uniformly in every direction), the relative abundances of light nuclei (which prove Big Bang Nucleosynthesis), and finally (and most conclusively) the CMB, which is flat and isotropic in every direction. All observations made by humans that don't involve reading a bible or pulling conclusions out of your ass have confirmed the fact that there was a big bang.
I can prove the Big Bang happened. The question is, can you prove otherwise?
Dick.
All observations EVER made point to the fact that the big bang occured 13.7 ish billion years ago. This is somehting which has been studied for almost 100 years.
You are obviously ignorant about how science actually works, so I will take this opportunity to key you in. You can thank me when your kids don't grow up and bomb abortion clinics.
First, we MAKE a theory. This theory is based on some physical observation or insight into nature. We calculate things with this theory, and make explicit predictions.
Then we TEST the theory. This involves building billion dollar, multi-national sattelites and sending them into space to take data for ten years. We then analyze the data and see how well the data fit with the prediction of the theory.
If the data confirm the theory, then it is ``right'' inasmuch as anything can be ``right''. In this sense, the matter is proved, untill a better theory comes along which explains the data better (read: more simply) and makes new predictions that the old theory didn't make. Note that the new theory typically MUST be consistent with the old theory. During this time, it is the usurper's duty to prove it's worth---we don't throw out years of scientific progress just because a few crackpot christians want to learn science from a bunch of Jewish folk tales.
So, yes, I can prove how the universe started. I can prove there was a big bang by looking at the SDSS red-shift data (which shows the universe is expanding uniformly in every direction), the relative abundances of light nuclei (which prove Big Bang Nucleosynthesis), and finally (and most conclusively) the CMB, which is flat and isotropic in every direction. All observations made by humans that don't involve reading a bible or pulling conclusions out of your ass have confirmed the fact that there was a big bang.
I can prove the Big Bang happened. The question is, can you prove otherwise?
Dick.
Yes, you DID instigate the flaming. You did not give me a taste of my own medicine; because before your big post with all the obscenities and calling me names, I did not once call you any names, or shout a bunch of bratty knee-jerk responses, in that thread BEFORE YOU posted what you posted. I wasn't even talking to you when I made my post. I should not have lost my cool and even dignified your immature post with a response but unfortunately I did.
And I also got a warning from SW about it. Guess what I did? I PMed him and apologized for losing my cool. I did not start an immature thread, like yours here, and rant and whine a bitch about it.
Why don't you do like I did and have a nice tall glass of 'get over it' and go on about your business?
True, even though I think that post of his was a staunch overreaction and blatantly uncalled for, I also know that my nasty post that was in response to his was no better.
But I took my warning, made my apologies to the mod, and got on with my life. I did not make a thread later on whining and crying about any injustices that were bestowed upon me (which none were).
I'm sorry you think that I ruined your thread, outlandish, with a simple question(that wasn't even directed towards you) that you misinterpreted as trolling. :shrug:
all observations ever made point to the fact that life does not come from non life but you will argue otherwise till the cows come home.
a good example of my point.
a number of scientists have been highly critical of abiogenesis, among them are:
fred hoyle.
hubert yockey.
harold urey. (surely you recognize him)
stanley miller. ( he was one of the scientists that did the original experiments into abiogenesis.)
francis crick. (co discoverer of the structure of DNA)
leslie orgel
1)firstly the figure of 13.7 is an approxiamtion, not conclusive fact, you seem to have a problem with semntics.
2)secondly my questions to you did not pertain to when the universe came into exsistence.
3)my questions to you pertained directly to thenature of the universe, and the nature of that which exsisted before it.
knowing when x occoured does not equate to knowledge of the nature of x, the two concepts are clearly separate and distinguishable.
irrelevant.
but am wise enough to acknowledge the fact that the knowledge of exactly what the universe is, how it came into exsistence completely transends that which we are able to comprehend and rationalise.
only the completely beligerent and arrogant will try to attempt to dispute this quite clearly fundemental concept.
.
This theory is based on some physical observation or insight into nature.[/quote]
some insight into the nature of x doesnt equate to conclusive knoowledge about the complete nature of x
as above.
no, all this shows is that the data concludes the parameters established by the theory.
what you fail to acknowledge is that any theory postulated by man is limited by his ability of comprehension and rationilisation. this is self eveident, since it is impossible to rationalise something outside of our rationilisation, and similarly it is impossible to comprehend something that transends our comprehension. so hence any thoery will be inherently limited, thus as will be any subsequent conclusions drawn.
then prove it.
not the same as conclusive knowledge of the nature of the bigbang.
you cant. you can regurgitate data, but you cant prove that you have conclusive knowledge as to the exact nature of the universe, the exact nature of how the universe came into being, and the exact nature of what exsisted before it.
Ben ....
I just wanted to stick two cents in as a reminder: It's true, in the end, that the Big Bang is "just" a theory, much like evolution, gravity, and sexual reproduction. One of the burdens, however, that the minimizers seem privileged to elude, is the burden of practicality. There comes a point when the most fundamental realities in the Universe can be cast into doubt. At that point, however, existence becomes a nihilistic argument by which we would be equally served through suicide. After all, if nothing is real, then nothing really matters. And while that's fine, it doesn't do much good for any of us who acknowledge the apparent reality that the assertion of reality we experience every day is the one we're stuck with.
That's what you're up against: people who resent this assertion of reality, but who are also reluctant--even obstinately unwilling--to provide a coherent explanation of the alternative. One wonders is such an explanation is possible. (Really, if I come up with one, I'll let people know. In the meantime, I'm as sure as reality allows that the Earth goes 'round the sun, the sky is blue, my blood is red, and that I will, in fact, someday die. Life goes on.)
I just wanted to stick two cents in as a reminder: It's true, in the end, that the Big Bang is "just" a theory, much like evolution, gravity, and sexual reproduction. One of the burdens, however, that the minimizers seem privileged to elude, is the burden of practicality. There comes a point when the most fundamental realities in the Universe can be cast into doubt. At that point, however, existence becomes a nihilistic argument by which we would be equally served through suicide. After all, if nothing is real, then nothing really matters. And while that's fine, it doesn't do much good for any of us who acknowledge the apparent reality that the assertion of reality we experience every day is the one we're stuck with.
That's what you're up against: people who resent this assertion of reality, but who are also reluctant--even obstinately unwilling--to provide a coherent explanation of the alternative. One wonders is such an explanation is possible. (Really, if I come up with one, I'll let people know. In the meantime, I'm as sure as reality allows that the Earth goes 'round the sun, the sky is blue, my blood is red, and that I will, in fact, someday die. Life goes on.)
Why do you call most of the bullshit posted in these forums philosophy? It is no more philosophy than pseudoscience is science. Most is idle speculation born of ignorance, not philosophy.
Outlandish, can you explain the difference between idle speculation, hypothesis, and theory? A statement such as 'It is my theory dat duh moon is made of chalk' is neither a theory nor philosophy, it is merely bullshit speculation that arises from the individual's ignorance. It carries no weight and will not be given any 'respect' by more knowledgable posters. It is not the scientists' responsibility to prove the statement false, it is the responsibility of the poster to support his statement with actual evidence, mathematics, or coherent philosophical logic.
I will let you draw your own conclusions
Perhaps I should start using ``bullshit'' to describe anti-scientific thought. I would have no problems with this.In general, though, I will assume (despite all evidence to the contrary) that outlandish is not a dumbass, and can at least motivate his thoughts with something other than his own foolishness.
Sure, I think I agree with this. I think I object to people like outlandish classifying these things as ``just thoeries'' because it reduces my profession to just a bunch of guys in lab coats masturbating each other's minds. One can always ask ``Why'', and it is a good question. However, the question is only of limited utility---at some point, we should seek to understand what we know already, instead of the things that we don't know, or can't hope to ever know. If people like outlandish were left in charge, we would never USE science for anything.
Sure, evolution is JUST a theory, but for some reason the people who claim that it is wrong don't have any problems getting a flu shot every year.