Started By
Message
re: Do you accept the notion of the Big Bang as the origin of our universe?
Posted on 1/5/18 at 6:03 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 1/5/18 at 6:03 pm to Kentucker
Aren't there many scientists who find fault with the Big Bang Theory? I know I'm not as up to date as you on matters of science, but one has only to goggle: "respected astrophysicists who dispute the big bang theory," or "problems with the big bang theory" to find numerous articles and reports from the scientific community asserting the debate is far from settled.
Also, considering the rate that new discoveries are made, and the vastness of the universe, there has to be many discoveries in physics yet to be made. These discoveries would probably have an impact on theories concerning the origin of the universe.
I just think it's premature to definitively say Big Bang Theory has been proven. Honestly, if scientists are even close in their estimation of the age of the universe, I don't think we'll ever definitively know exactly how the universe came into being.
Can we even contemplate an amount of time that vast? I mean supposedly, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. An inconceivable amount of time for us to comprehend. Double that number and add it to the earth's age and we're supposedly approaching the age of the universe!
Might the laws of physics change over such vast lengths of time? Might the laws of physics have been different in the past, or change in the future? Are there areas in the vastness of the universe were the laws of physics are different? Is it out of the realm of possibility for this to be true? (I know, I ask a lot of questions)
Modern astrophysics as a science is only 200 years old. Can we presume to say we have 13 billion years of history ascertained after so short a time?
Plus, I just don't trust scientists. I'm sorry, but there's too much grant money at stake. Too much pride. Too many egos. More than a few have been known to skew or interpret data a certain way to support a preferred conclusion. Faulty data means faulty conclusions.
Based on the evidence, BBT is probably the leading explanation for the origin of the universe. I just think there's more evidence out there. Plus, time is against us. We have only a limited amount of time to study the universe before humanity's time is done.
I don't think science has all the answers. I think there are answers science cant provide. I think scientists feel the absolute need to explain everything, and are resistant to admitting there are mysteries in the universe that cant be explained, or ever will be. There are just some questions we won't get answers for in this life.
Also, considering the rate that new discoveries are made, and the vastness of the universe, there has to be many discoveries in physics yet to be made. These discoveries would probably have an impact on theories concerning the origin of the universe.
I just think it's premature to definitively say Big Bang Theory has been proven. Honestly, if scientists are even close in their estimation of the age of the universe, I don't think we'll ever definitively know exactly how the universe came into being.
Can we even contemplate an amount of time that vast? I mean supposedly, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. An inconceivable amount of time for us to comprehend. Double that number and add it to the earth's age and we're supposedly approaching the age of the universe!
Might the laws of physics change over such vast lengths of time? Might the laws of physics have been different in the past, or change in the future? Are there areas in the vastness of the universe were the laws of physics are different? Is it out of the realm of possibility for this to be true? (I know, I ask a lot of questions)
Modern astrophysics as a science is only 200 years old. Can we presume to say we have 13 billion years of history ascertained after so short a time?
Plus, I just don't trust scientists. I'm sorry, but there's too much grant money at stake. Too much pride. Too many egos. More than a few have been known to skew or interpret data a certain way to support a preferred conclusion. Faulty data means faulty conclusions.
Based on the evidence, BBT is probably the leading explanation for the origin of the universe. I just think there's more evidence out there. Plus, time is against us. We have only a limited amount of time to study the universe before humanity's time is done.
I don't think science has all the answers. I think there are answers science cant provide. I think scientists feel the absolute need to explain everything, and are resistant to admitting there are mysteries in the universe that cant be explained, or ever will be. There are just some questions we won't get answers for in this life.
3
Posted on 1/5/18 at 6:39 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
Plus, I just don't trust scientists. I'm sorry, but there's too much grant money at stake. Too much pride. Too many egos. More than a few have been known to skew or interpret data a certain way to support a preferred conclusion. Faulty data means faulty conclusions.
I say this while full knowing that scientists actually developed the invention that permits me to share my idea here, as I take a sip of water cleaned with filters developed by scientists. I then ask my wife what time it is, to which she responds with an exact number which are determined with mathematical accuracy, thanks to Scientists. After I discuss just how little I like those egomaniacs, I get in my car (the engine was in fact designed by scientists) to drive to work, wherein I will no doubt eat food scientifically altered to be clean and sufficient. Fortunately, having lived in a world designed by scientists, I will not have died from hundreds of different illnesses thanks to the scientists who developed the vaccinations that eradicated most viruses that have an abnormally high kill rate -- and when I am sick, I can take various medicine that will of course, cure me over time.
Now I'm going to watch television, where, thankfully scientists have developed satellites so I can watch Honey Boo Boo Child act a fool.
Stupid scientists with their stupid big heads.
This post was edited on 1/5/18 at 6:42 pm
Posted on 1/5/18 at 6:41 pm to Perfect Circle
I like the skeptical spirit of your post, PC.
I don't know that we will ever have all the answers, my friend. We have our limitations and the Universe is extraordinarily vast and complex. I do, however, believe it's more reasonable to at least assume a natural explanation for everything until there is indisputable evidence otherwise.
I also think it's okay to say, "I don't know."
Then maybe you can understand my distrust of theists and all their contradictory views. At least science offers a lot of tangibility and general agreement across cultures on a great many things.
I don't know that we will ever have all the answers, my friend. We have our limitations and the Universe is extraordinarily vast and complex. I do, however, believe it's more reasonable to at least assume a natural explanation for everything until there is indisputable evidence otherwise.
I also think it's okay to say, "I don't know."
quote:
Plus, I just don't trust scientists. I'm sorry, but there's too much grant money at stake. Too much pride. Too many egos. More than a few have been known to skew or interpret data a certain way to support a preferred conclusion. Faulty data means faulty conclusions.
Then maybe you can understand my distrust of theists and all their contradictory views. At least science offers a lot of tangibility and general agreement across cultures on a great many things.
Posted on 1/5/18 at 7:31 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:
Aren't there many scientists who find fault with the Big Bang Theory?
Not really. There are a few competing theories but the BBT is, for all intents and purposes, universally accepted. That's because there's so much evidence for it.
quote:
Also, considering the rate that new discoveries are made, and the vastness of the universe, there has to be many discoveries in physics yet to be made.
Goodness yes, there is much more that we don't yet know than we do understand. That's why we say that when one question about nature is answered, another 100 questions arise.
quote:
These discoveries would probably have an impact on theories concerning the origin of the universe.
Yes! That the nature of scientific Theories. They all stand, are modified or fall based on evidence. New discoveries frequently force scientists to alter the way they think about and approach directions of studies, or Theories. Recall that a Theory is a system of ideas. One part could be wrong but that wouldn't negate the entire Theory. New evidence might enhance a part of the system or cause another part to be thrown out.
quote:
I just think it's premature to definitively say Big Bang Theory has been proven
Yes, of course it's too soon to say that. However, every new discovery seems to be adding to the already significant evidence that the BB happened.
quote:
Can we even contemplate an amount of time that vast? I mean supposedly, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. An inconceivable amount of time for us to comprehend. Double that number and add it to the earth's age and we're supposedly approaching the age of the universe!
Our insignificance is certainly magnified when we ponder the age and size of the Universe. However, we are equipped with a quantum computer that sits on our shoulders and it has great abilities.
quote:
Might the laws of physics change over such vast lengths of time? Might the laws of physics have been different in the past, or change in the future? Are there areas in the vastness of the universe were the laws of physics are different? Is it out of the realm of possibility for this to be true?
Yes and no. Yes it's possible because we haven't completely explored even the part of our Universe that we can see. And no, because our Universe originated as a homogeneous plasma soup that expanded into space from a common point. So the laws of physics should be the same everywhere in our Universe. Now, if the multiverse Theory is correct, we can definitely expect different laws of physics inother universes.
quote:
Modern astrophysics as a science is only 200 years old. Can we presume to say we have 13 billion years of history ascertained after so short a time?
Well, consider the study of the cosmos to be similar to paleontology. In effect we're studying fossil light and drawing conclusions from what we see in much the same way a paleontologist studies the fossils he digs out of the earth.
quote:
Plus, I just don't trust scientists. I'm sorry, but there's too much grant money at stake. Too much pride. Too many egos. More than a few have been known to skew or interpret data a certain way to support a preferred conclusion. Faulty data means faulty conclusions.
Scientists don't trust each other.
That's why peer review is so important. The consequences for publishing fraudulent data or conclusions are so high in the scientific community that a sort of "death penalty" is automatically applied to anyone who cheats. Believe me, it's effective. quote:
Based on the evidence, BBT is probably the leading explanation for the origin of the universe. I just think there's more evidence out there. Plus, time is against us. We have only a limited amount of time to study the universe before humanity's time is done.
Humanity is just one stage of intelligent life. I see humanity's main responsibility as being the birth of artificial intelligence. It will be a new species and will succeed us.
quote:
I don't think science has all the answers. I think there are answers science cant provide. I think scientists feel the absolute need to explain everything, and are resistant to admitting there are mysteries in the universe that cant be explained, or ever will be.
Science doesn't attempt to provide "all the answers." Science is reductionism and attempts to understand how nature works. Nothing more and nothing less. The "why" of existence is beyond the scope or interest of science. Scientists are interested only in "how" nature works.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News