the big bang

13567

Comments

  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Unless you have either a reason why the current ideas don't work, or a plausible alternative, statements like
    GiantMike wrote:
    There may be something else causing the red-shift.
    GiantMike wrote:
    Maybe distances in space don't follow the same rules as they do in Leicestershire.
    have no scientific content.
    GiantMike wrote:
    many assumptions are likely to wrong when closely examined.
    Any scientific proposal must be falsifiable. Disregarding unfalsifiable ideas such as those you have put forward is not the same as making assumptions.
    GiantMike wrote:
    as science becomes less observational and more theoretical, less can be 'proven'.
    What makes you think science is becoming more theoretical and less observational?
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Unless you have either a reason why the current ideas don't work, or a plausible alternative, statements like
    GiantMike wrote:
    There may be something else causing the red-shift.
    GiantMike wrote:
    Maybe distances in space don't follow the same rules as they do in Leicestershire.
    have no scientific content.
    I never said they were scientifically robust arguments and are obviously examples of how an argument based on assumptions may be flawed. In fact I explicitly said that I don't have all the answers. My point is that nobody has all the answers.
    Tom Dean wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    many assumptions are likely to wrong when closely examined.
    Any scientific proposal must be falsifiable. Disregarding unfalsifiable ideas such as those you have put forward is not the same as making assumptions.
    Many assumption are likely to be wrong when closely examined. The definition of an assumption is 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof' [OED]. If it were proven, it wouldn't be an assumption.
    Tom Dean wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    as science becomes less observational and more theoretical, less can be 'proven'.
    What makes you think science is becoming more theoretical and less observational?
    What makes you think it isn't?
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    GiantMike wrote:
    As I say, if I had all the answers I'd be very rich. I'm not saying I have all or even any of the answers but I am saying that many assumptions are likely to wrong when closely examined. I'm also saying that our knowledge isn't that good and that as science becomes less observational and more theoretical, less can be 'proven'.
    In other words - We don't know.

    Pross had as likely theory and it was more entertaining. :wink:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    GiantMike wrote:
    One would be that red-shifted light is red-shifted because the source is travelling away from the point of observation. This may not always be true, but it is an assumption about a physical distance based on a measured wavelength. There may be something else causing the red-shift.
    Do you have an alternative explanation and more importantly is there a wealth of evidence supporting the alternatives?
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    GiantMike I'm not sure what you think science is. What you describe as assumptions that scientists make are things like 'we assume there is not another unknown effect causing these results'. No one can say this is not true, but it is unfalsifiable and as such, of no practical use.

    No one claimed to have all the answers, our understanding improves as we make new discoveries, as I said earlier.

    At what point are you able to accept a scientific theory without coming up with random unfalsifiable objections? Are you sceptical about electromagnetism for example?
    GiantMike wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    as science becomes less observational and more theoretical, less can be 'proven'.
    What makes you think science is becoming more theoretical and less observational?
    What makes you think it isn't?
    Well, maybe it isn't, actually I'm not sure I understand the point. Lots of theoretical work is done but no 'theory' is accepted unless it is supported by observation. You are the one who are theorising things that have no basis in observed reality.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Daz555 wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    One would be that red-shifted light is red-shifted because the source is travelling away from the point of observation. This may not always be true, but it is an assumption about a physical distance based on a measured wavelength. There may be something else causing the red-shift.
    Do you have an alternative explanation and more importantly is there a wealth of evidence supporting the alternatives?

    Easy Daz. Mind you don't get run over by the bandwagon.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Dean wrote:
    At what point are you able to accept a scientific theory without coming up with random unfalsifiable objections? Are you sceptical about electromagnetism for example?

    Are you purposely trying to misunderstand me? I accept that the big bang theory is a theory. I accept that there are alternative theories too. I accept a theory as true when it is repeatable and observable and the results can be shown that they do not happen by chance. I have never said that the big bang theory or any other theory is wrong. All I have said is that theories are based on assumption, and assumptions are not always true. There are enough words in my mouth already without you trying to put more in there.
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Lots of theoretical work is done but no 'theory' is accepted unless it is supported by observation. You are the one who are theorising things that have no basis in observed reality.

    I wasn't theorising. I was offering a possible scenario where an assumption could lead to an incorrect conclusion in answer to a previous question from you. I wasn't saying that I believed that, for example, red-shifted light happened for a reason other than a star moving away from the observation point and I didn't theorise on what else had caused it.

    Have you had a bad day or something? You're acting like Lord Science and purposely misunderstanding what I have written. Now, be a good scientist and re-observe the reality of what I have written in previous posts. I think you'll find that we actually agree on a lot of points.
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    Science is as closed a mindset as religion in my opinion.

    Anyway one of my hobbies - among others - is measuring galactic distance using supernovae (I've worked out its longer than 30m cos thats the length of my B&Q tape measure) - anyway I, and my scientist friends, use an assumed absolute magnitude of the intensity of light from a distant object.

    by the way, notice how this sentence

    "I, and my scientist friends, use an assumed absolute magnitude of the intensity of light from a distant object."

    the blue makes the word seem further away - hope that settles the dispute.
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • meursault
    meursault Posts: 1,433
    I get mildly irritated by TV scientists, on things like Horizon and Wonders of the Universe, where they say "After the big bang..." Like it's a fact. They should say after the big bang theory.

    I suppose it's because I can't envisage there wasn't anything, anywhere, at any time that became everything. I know people have posted, it wasn't actually nothing, but a small dense point, in pre time blah blah, but to me, it's all the same.

    It doesn't fit with the logic, of what we perceive as reality. Cause and effect.

    Also this

    I accept a theory as true when it is repeatable and observable and the results can be shown that they do not happen by chance.

    The quantum side of science leans heavily towrads chance. It's almost all it is. The scientific method is something, that I think also needs reviewing, and some sort of reality check.

    Disclaimer:-

    I obviously do not have, or know all the answers.
    Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

    Voltaire
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    GiantMike wrote:
    All I have said is that theories are based on assumption, and assumptions are not always true.
    Ok if that's all you have said. What do we learn from this? Nothing. It's all about evidence and this is not evidence for or against anything, even if it's true. (I'm afraid the examples you have given are garbage.)

    Your criteria for accepting a theory make no sense. Do you need to see a repeat of the universe before you accept this one? As for 'chance', there are random processes that are described scientifically.

    Do you think your statement on its own is enough to reject the rigorously researched and measured idea of an expanding universe? Or do you have some other reason as well?
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    Science is as closed a mindset as religion in my opinion.
    Serious? :?
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Dean wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    All I have said is that theories are based on assumption, and assumptions are not always true.
    Ok if that's all you have said. What do we learn from this? Nothing. It's all about evidence and this is not evidence for or against anything, even if it's true. (I'm afraid the examples you have given are garbage.)
    When have I said it was evidence? Why are you continuing to put words into my mouth?
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Your criteria for accepting a theory make no sense. Do you need to see a repeat of the universe before you accept this one? As for 'chance', there are random processes that are described scientifically.
    For me, something is true when it is proven and predictable. Until then, it's plausible, possible, likely, unlikely etc. If you have a different criteria, that's up to you.
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Do you think your statement on its own is enough to reject the rigorously researched and measured idea of an expanding universe? Or do you have some other reason as well?

    LORD SCIENCE, WHERE DO I SAY I REJECT THE THEORY OF AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE? As a scientist you're ignoring a lot of evidence and even adding your own.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    GiantMike wrote:
    ....LORD SCIENCE, WHERE DO I SAY I REJECT THE THEORY OF AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE? As a scientist you're ignoring a lot of evidence and even adding your own.
    Ahem......
    GiantMike wrote:
    ....It all depends on your reference point and assumptions. Expanding in distance or spacetime? There must be a reference point which shows the universe is neither expanding nor contracting, but in equilibrium.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    daviesee wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    ....LORD SCIENCE, WHERE DO I SAY I REJECT THE THEORY OF AN EXPANDING UNIVERSE? As a scientist you're ignoring a lot of evidence and even adding your own.
    Ahem......
    GiantMike wrote:
    ....It all depends on your reference point and assumptions. Expanding in distance or spacetime? There must be a reference point which shows the universe is neither expanding nor contracting, but in equilibrium.

    Where do I say I reject the theory of an expanding universe? I say that there is a reference point from where the universe will be neither expanding nor expanding, but in the context of an argument about assumptions and their inherent inaccuracies, I have not rejected the theory of an expanding universe.
    GiantMike wrote:
    For me, something is true when it is proven and predictable. Until then, it's plausible, possible, likely, unlikely etc.
    It is possible to believe that 2 (or more) opposing theories could be correct. The universe may be expanding. The universe may be contracting. Either could be correct.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    OK here's an example.

    1. London is closer to New York than it is to Ramsgate. (if you assume you will only navigate in a westerly direction)
    2. London is closer to Ramsgate than it is to New York. (if you do not constrain the direction you take)

    Both are correct depending on the assumptions in the model.
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    GiantMike wrote:
    It is possible to believe that 2 (or more) opposing theories could be correct. The universe may be expanding. The universe may be contracting. Either could be correct.
    Except that there is no theory that gives credence to the idea that the universe is contracting.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Daz555 wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    It is possible to believe that 2 (or more) opposing theories could be correct. The universe may be expanding. The universe may be contracting. Either could be correct.
    Except that there is no theory that gives credence to the idea that the universe is contracting.

    Really? Is that a fact that there is no theory of a contracting universe? Are you categorically saying that no credible theory exists?

    Here's one

    When you disprove it I'll take your point that this theory is incredible. To me, and consistent with everything I've said above, it's plausible, possible etc.

    There's an interesting comment in the conclusion about Einstein's actions when he theorised about the General Theory of Relativity.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    GiantMike wrote:
    OK here's an example.

    1. London is closer to New York than it is to Ramsgate. (if you assume you will only navigate in a westerly direction)
    2. London is closer to Ramsgate than it is to New York. (if you do not constrain the direction you take)

    Both are correct depending on the assumptions in the model.
    Wrong. The distances do not change because you take a longer route. There are errors in measurement of course, as in Cleat's example, but they can be quantified and taken account of.
    GiantMike wrote:
    All I have said is that theories are based on assumption, and assumptions are not always true.
    Again, ok if this is all you have said. There is no useful information here.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    Here is the dedication from the article GiantMike linked:
    This paper is dedicated to the memory of my uncle, John Raynar, and his wife, Elspeth, who led me to faith in the only Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the summer of 1996
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Wrong. The distances do not change because you take a longer route. There are errors in measurement of course, as in Cleat's example, but they can be quantified and taken account of.
    I disagree. If I flew westward I'd get to New York first. If a constraint is that aircraft can only sail westward, New York is closer. It's your assumption about the definition of 'closer' that make you discount the first possibility.
    Tom Dean wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    All I have said is that theories are based on assumption, and assumptions are not always true.
    Again, ok if this is all you have said. There is no useful information here.
    Again, your subjective view about its value, but you agree with my viewpoint then? Despite the pages of trying to put words into my mouth you actually agree with my viewpoint?
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    edited October 2012
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Here is the dedication from the article GiantMike linked:
    This paper is dedicated to the memory of my uncle, John Raynar, and his wife, Elspeth, who led me to faith in the only Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the summer of 1996
    Have you made assumptions about the scientific scrutiny of the theory based on the dedication? Tut tut. :roll:
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    GiantMike wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Wrong. The distances do not change because you take a longer route. There are errors in measurement of course, as in Cleat's example, but they can be quantified and taken account of.
    I disagree. If I flew westward I'd get to New York first. If a constraint is that aircraft can only sail westward, New York is closer. It's your assumption about the definition of 'closer' that make you discount the first possibility.
    Your method of measurement does not change the FACT of the distance.
    GiantMike wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    All I have said is that theories are based on assumption, and assumptions are not always true.
    Again, ok if this is all you have said. There is no useful information here.
    Again, your subjective view about its value, but you agree with my viewpoint then? Despite the pages of trying to put words into my mouth you actually agree with my viewpoint?
    The statement in itself is banal. I was interested why you thought it was profound in this context. Now, 5 pages in we begin to see your motivation.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Dean wrote:
    The statement in itself is banal. I was interested why you thought it was profound in this context. Now, 5 pages in we begin to see your motivation.
    Profound? Where did I say that?

    What is my motivation? Interesting that your argument has now reduced to the banality of a statement and my motivation, all the time putting even more words into my mouth.

    Let me make my position clear. I said that scientists make assumptions and that these assumptions may be wrong. In the context of a discussion about the big bang and an expanding universe these are important to remember. I have said that it is possible to believe that 2 opposing theories could be correct. That's pretty much all I have said.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    GiantMike wrote:
    Have you made assumptions about the scientific scrutiny of the theory based on the dedication? Tut tut. :roll:
    No. The validity of the article is for the peer review process to decide, to which it has not been submitted. The author is not part of e.g. a university. What are his credentials? He cites a meagre two references to 'support' his ideas.

    As far as I can tell, the unmeasurability of the hypothesis is inherent in the hypothesis. How convenient. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
    GiantMike wrote:
    When you disprove it I'll take your point that this theory is incredible.
    That's not how it works.
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    edited October 2012
    GiantMike wrote:
    Daz555 wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    It is possible to believe that 2 (or more) opposing theories could be correct. The universe may be expanding. The universe may be contracting. Either could be correct.
    Except that there is no theory that gives credence to the idea that the universe is contracting.
    Really? Is that a fact that there is no theory of a contracting universe? Are you categorically saying that no credible theory exists?

    Here's one

    When you disprove it I'll take your point that this theory is incredible. To me, and consistent with everything I've said above, it's plausible, possible etc.

    There's an interesting comment in the conclusion about Einstein's actions when he theorised about the General Theory of Relativity.
    It seems you have read the document and yet still claim it is a theory. It is nothing of the sort - it is a hypothesis and this is stated in the conclusion also. Also not sure what the random ramblings of some bloke on the Interwebs has to do with science.

    Like I said, there is no theory which lends credence to the idea of a contracting universe.
    GiantMike wrote:
    Are you categorically saying that no credible theory exists?
    Yep. And I will hold this position until I see evidence to the contrary.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    GiantMike wrote:
    Tom Dean wrote:
    The statement in itself is banal. I was interested why you thought it was profound in this context. Now, 5 pages in we begin to see your motivation.
    Profound? Where did I say that?

    What is my motivation? Interesting that your argument has now reduced to the banality of a statement and my motivation, all the time putting even more words into my mouth.
    Good grief. Sorry to keep putting words in your mouth. apparently I can't infer ANYTHING from your statements. So much for their value in that case.
    GiantMike wrote:
    Let me make my position clear. I said that scientists make assumptions and that these assumptions may be wrong. In the context of a discussion about the big bang and an expanding universe these are important to remember. I have said that it is possible to believe that 2 opposing theories could be correct. That's pretty much all I have said.
    It is possible to believe anything, What matters is the evidence. If you think the idea of an expanding universe, supported by observation, and the idea in Raynar's article hold equal weight, you do not understand science or you have non-scientific reasons for believing so.
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    Interestingly on the idea of distance, well interesting to me - I read the Egyptian Creation Myths earlier this year and it mentions an ancient unit of measurement (it was an anoo or an uddu or something), anyway it was a standard distance and it was defined, iirc, as the distance some one travels in a day. Isnt that a great idea.

    Also more poetically dickens wrote

    "And can it be that in a world so full and busy the loss of one creature makes a void so wide and deep that nothing but the width and depth of eternity can fill it up!". Not scientific but i'm sure thats more readily understandable by many than the seemingly incomprehensible definition of a light year.

    :D
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Dean wrote:
    Good grief. Sorry to keep putting words in your mouth. apparently I can't infer ANYTHING from your statements. So much for their value in that case.
    You can infer whatever you like. But you can't make out I said something and then hold it against me, as you have above and exactly as you have below.....
    Tom Dean wrote:
    If you think the idea of an expanding universe, supported by observation, and the idea in Raynar's article hold equal weight, you do not understand science or you have non-scientific reasons for believing so.
    Again, putting words into my mouth. I only offered the alternative theory in answer to an incorrect statement elsewhere. Did I say I thought they carried equal weight? Where did I say I believe either or both of them? If you want to make your own statements, make them. You don't need to make out I said something so you can counter it. Have courage and make your own way in the world.

    Right, I'm bored of this now. I'm off to Norway for 2 weeks, but feel free to keep this argument going by putting words into my mouth and misrepresenting what I have said. By the time I get back no doubt you'll be saying I'm a gravity denier!
  • Tom Dean
    Tom Dean Posts: 1,723
    If you want to cast doubt on the scientific process, you will need some justification. You have not provided any.

    Enjoy your holiday :D
  • pb21
    pb21 Posts: 2,171
    In his own words...
    GiantMike wrote:
    I'm a gravity denier!
    Mañana

Categories