Author Topic: Help to understand the Big Bang  (Read 8109 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 798
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2019, 02:42:02 am »
That is also why saying that there was no spacetime before the big bang is bogus, since there is no evidence of that,
So then you must have some evidence that it's bogus ...
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2019, 03:05:19 am »
That is also why saying that there was no spacetime before the big bang is bogus, since there is no evidence of that,
So then you must have some evidence that it's bogus ...
Nope. Whoever claims that needs some evidence to support the idea or else it's just metaphysics (which might still be fun and interesting to speculate about, but that is not science).
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 798
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #77 on: February 12, 2019, 03:12:00 am »
Whoever claims that needs some evidence to support the idea.

It seems to me that whatever was before the big bang is pretty up in the air right now. Since you are so convinced that it happened a certain way, then you must have some really conclusive evidence to support your idea mate.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #78 on: February 12, 2019, 03:19:37 am »
Whoever claims that needs some evidence to support the idea.

It seems to me that whatever was before the big bang is pretty up in the air right now. Since you are so convinced that it happened a certain way, then you must have some really conclusive evidence to support your idea mate.
Not sure what gave you that idea? What I wrote was that:
all we know is that it appears that the universe was once very very dense and very very hot, but whatever happened before that is a complete mystery and will likely remain so for a very very long time.
I.e. data indicates that the universe started with a big bang, but we don't know what started it or what was before. Maybe there was no spacetime, maybe there was, no one knows. Anyone who says it was one way or another is making a bogus claim.
 

Offline srce

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: gb
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #79 on: February 12, 2019, 09:43:22 am »
Whoever claims that needs some evidence to support the idea.

It seems to me that whatever was before the big bang is pretty up in the air right now. Since you are so convinced that it happened a certain way, then you must have some really conclusive evidence to support your idea mate.
It depends what you mean by the big bang - there are two loose definitions in use: One where it refers to what is believed to have occurred after inflation - and one before. There is some (but not conclusive) evidence that inflation occurred (See figure 1.5 - http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/db275/TEACHING/INFLATION/Lectures.pdf), but just speculation for what might have happened before that.
 

Offline srce

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: gb
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #80 on: February 12, 2019, 10:02:23 am »
block holes (we haven't actually directly observed one yet)
What will you accept as being directly observed, for something that doesn't emit light (other than via Hawking radiation)?

The gravitational effects have been observed: http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/10/scientists-confirm-the-milky-way-has-a-supermassive-black-hole




 

Offline mrpackethead

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2831
  • Country: nz
  • D Size Cell
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #81 on: February 12, 2019, 10:06:11 am »
I just finisehd reading Steven hawkings last book,  Breif answers to the big questions..  A chapter is dedicated to the Big Bang, ( but he does talk about it a lot in other chapters ) and he explains it very well.  Well worth reading the book.

The answer, he said, is simultaneously simple and incredibly complex: There was nothing.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 10:23:42 am by mrpackethead »
On a quest to find increasingly complicated ways to blink things
 

Offline RoGeorge

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1782
  • Country: ro
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #82 on: February 12, 2019, 10:15:22 am »
It depends what you mean by the big bang - there are two loose definitions in use: One where it refers to what is believed to have occurred after inflation - and one before.

Big Bang theory is not two definition, it is only one theory and it never tried to explain what was before the Big Bang.

I would be curious to read about "the second definition", can you post the exact sources for it, please?

Offline srce

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: gb
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #83 on: February 12, 2019, 10:34:34 am »
It depends what you mean by the big bang - there are two loose definitions in use: One where it refers to what is believed to have occurred after inflation - and one before.

Big Bang theory is not two definition, it is only one theory and it never tried to explain what was before the Big Bang.

I would be curious to read about "the second definition", can you post the exact sources for it, please?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N3mHJlxA3PcC&pg=PA223&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/01/12/q-a-did-inflation-happen-befor
 

Offline sainbablo

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • Country: pk
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #84 on: February 12, 2019, 05:45:29 pm »
Are Newtons Laws of Motion applicable to entire  spectrum of  ingredients like waves, gases and solids of the   Big Bang ? Has any one attempted  to understand the beginning and end of  Big Bang time  framework? I mean  what actually happened?  ?
 

Offline srce

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Country: gb
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #85 on: February 12, 2019, 07:13:01 pm »
Are Newtons Laws of Motion applicable to entire  spectrum of  ingredients like waves, gases and solids of the   Big Bang ?
No - Einstein showed that Newton's Laws are inaccurate when things are moving close to the speed of light and in strong gravitational fields.

Even Einstein's relativity doesn't quite work either when we get very close to the start of the big bang.

Has any one attempted  to understand the beginning and end of  Big Bang time  framework? I mean  what actually happened?  ?
Yes! Quite a bit is believed to be understood from a fraction of a second onwards (i.e. something like 10^-30seconds). Before that, not so much.

At CERN, they have actually recreated the quark-gluon-plasma state of matter that existed a nanosecond or so after the big bang.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 07:20:08 pm by srce »
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8169
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #86 on: February 12, 2019, 07:24:15 pm »
Not sure what gave you that idea? What I wrote was that:
all we know is that it appears that the universe was once very very dense and very very hot, but whatever happened before that is a complete mystery and will likely remain so for a very very long time.
I.e. data indicates that the universe started with a big bang, but we don't know what started it or what was before. Maybe there was no spacetime, maybe there was, no one knows. Anyone who says it was one way or another is making a bogus claim.
We do know the universe i.e. space-time is expanding and was likely "compressed" into a point or very small area. There's no reason to assume it was anything like we know now before.
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9209
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #87 on: February 12, 2019, 07:40:11 pm »
I just finisehd reading Steven hawkings last book,  Breif answers to the big questions..  A chapter is dedicated to the Big Bang, ( but he does talk about it a lot in other chapters ) and he explains it very well.  Well worth reading the book.
congratulation. sooner or later, when somebody else proved his mistake, you just spent few hours of your time did just that. no disrespect but the book just only to made him lived longer or made him occupied, like every body else, or worse when someone giving lecture about crap like cosmological selection.

there is no hard ground about something near (black hole) how can he claimed he understand something so far and greater. cut to the end, in short... any place with laws (read as anything non random) like a law of a country to make people in harmony... must have creator... simple induction, i believe similar methodology used by many of them when writing such book or giving lecture, based on what they already know (read as observed or sensed) so far, but failed to see the end conclusion/consequence to all of this after lifetime of learning. they are correct though on several aspect, like.... this world is an illusion, what we see actually not what we think they are. its been stated thousand years before, and i will bet on that statement for eternity.

btw, to bablo.. you are wasting your time asking such question in applied science forum. better go ask the man or simply just let them do their homework peacefully, and err, influence others by their so called expertise or respectable position. as sagan said, extraordinary statement needs extraordinary proof, but sadly some of them violate that rule.

At CERN, they have actually recreated the quark-gluon-plasma state of matter that existed a nanosecond or so after the big bang.
as said, just an induction from what they already know. but without actually seeing it, it just a nice simulation... but many tend to believe that as real thing which is pretty ironic to me.

anyway, when i have free or boring time, watching such science induced documentaries is quite fullfilling, much better than watching a hero throwing few bad guys few blocks away and later start dancing in colorful dressing with girls.
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 798
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #88 on: February 12, 2019, 08:09:56 pm »
any place with laws ... must have creator ... you are wasting your time asking such question in applied science forum.

It sounds to me like you're trying to preach religion in a science forum.  :horse:
 

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3348
  • Country: ca
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #89 on: February 12, 2019, 09:49:28 pm »
Here is a great 7 hours on the subject, well, 3.5 hours if you watch it at 2x speed:

















« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 09:52:01 pm by BrianHG »
__________
BrianHG.
 
The following users thanked this post: timelessbeing, edavid, hamster_nz

Offline BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3348
  • Country: ca
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #90 on: February 12, 2019, 09:55:26 pm »
Episodes 4 through 8 get really good.  The interviews are thorough.
The first are a little slow, but the OP did say:
Help to understand the Big Bang
This cannot be done in a paragraph of text, and we don't know everything, so these 8 docus put together some of the leading ideas.

(Ok, I admit this may confuse the shit out of him.....)  ;)

« Last Edit: February 12, 2019, 10:07:01 pm by BrianHG »
__________
BrianHG.
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8169
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #91 on: February 13, 2019, 12:18:10 am »
congratulation. sooner or later, when somebody else proved his mistake, you just spent few hours of your time did just that. no disrespect but the book just only to made him lived longer or made him occupied, like every body else, or worse when someone giving lecture about crap like cosmological selection.

there is no hard ground about something near (black hole) how can he claimed he understand something so far and greater. cut to the end, in short... any place with laws (read as anything non random) like a law of a country to make people in harmony... must have creator... simple induction, i believe similar methodology used by many of them when writing such book or giving lecture, based on what they already know (read as observed or sensed) so far, but failed to see the end conclusion/consequence to all of this after lifetime of learning. they are correct though on several aspect, like.... this world is an illusion, what we see actually not what we think they are. its been stated thousand years before, and i will bet on that statement for eternity.

btw, to bablo.. you are wasting your time asking such question in applied science forum. better go ask the man or simply just let them do their homework peacefully, and err, influence others by their so called expertise or respectable position. as sagan said, extraordinary statement needs extraordinary proof, but sadly some of them violate that rule.

as said, just an induction from what they already know. but without actually seeing it, it just a nice simulation... but many tend to believe that as real thing which is pretty ironic to me.

anyway, when i have free or boring time, watching such science induced documentaries is quite fullfilling, much better than watching a hero throwing few bad guys few blocks away and later start dancing in colorful dressing with girls.
You keep hinting at what's clearly a theological explanation, even if you're unwilling to explicitly call it that because you know you'll get blown cleanly out of the water with sound science. You keep referring to scientific evidence which supposedly wouldn't prove anything, while it's the hardest and most real thing we have. Don't make the mistake of thinking that hard science isn't hard because there's a boundary of uncertainty where we haven't figured things out yet and need to test various possibilities to discover which hold water, or because you don't fully comprehend the subject at hand. Not understanding the body of evidence and how the scientific community reached the conclusions it did does not invalidate any of it. Nor does a lack of imagination about the natural processes involved, many of which are happening at time scales, distances or energies vastly beyond typical human experience and comprehension. The fact that our monkey brains have trouble understanding what a light year really means or how many atoms the Earth consists of or how much time has truly passed since the dinosaurs roamed the Earth doesn't mean any of them aren't real. It just means that our brains evolved to deal with a much more narrow bandwidth of experiences. We obviously have tremendous trouble wrapping our heads around phenomena like black holes, as they're completely outside of any of our experiences.

Just call your beliefs what they are and accept they're separated from fact or even plausible conjecture. Nobody will attack a personal belief if it's presented as such.
 
The following users thanked this post: timelessbeing

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1668
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #92 on: February 13, 2019, 02:52:02 am »
Well put Mr. Scram.

That is kind of why I think it was important to point out that any discussion about what happened before big bang (or to be precise, from about 10−12 s after the big bang) is just speculation, while what happened after is supported by evidence and can be considered facts.

It's fine to speculate about such things but it's important to make it clear it is just speculation (and not likely to be correct) otherwise the line between scientific fact and speculation becomes blurred. Even if it is very sophisticated speculation (like that by Hawking or Penrose) it's still only speculation.

It's my impression that this distinction is not clear to many people. Too often popular science tv-shows and books don't explain what is supported by evidence (like most of quantum physics and relativity for example) and what is only speculation (like string theory and much of cosmology). The risk is that they undermine peoples trust in physics and natural science. There are lots of tv-shows that talk about multiverses for example, which is a cool idea, but it's just speculation, yet it's presented as a fact. While at the same time there are lots of shows that implies that quantum physics and relativity are weird and paradoxical (which they are not, for the most part, they are really on very solid experimental ground and well understood theoretically).
 

Offline Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9209
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #93 on: February 13, 2019, 02:52:24 am »
You keep hinting at what's clearly a theological explanation, even if you're unwilling to explicitly call it that because you know you'll get blown cleanly out of the water with sound science.
no. because the landlord of eevblog has a heavy sided on unreligious clan. just an example, there is no noise when there is youtube video link slipping in "unreligious there is no god involved" blabber bullsheet. so i have to keep it as close as possible to science related but... i will fire ;) in my own way.

if you or others (i know they asked earlier but i choosed to ignore as it will not go anywhere) still in "confucious" mind what i was talking about, watch back the video i quoted the first time i entered this thread by Lawrence Krouss, throughout the length of the video there are religious hatred statements in many places i dont know what is his problem, a great scientist with some personality problem. he claimed universe made astronomers, a crappiest statement from a scientist we can get, i wont bother searching timeline when he said that on the presentation screen, but he did. he simply wont be able to present a hard proof on that i can bet. a way of saying that atheists usually point to religious people of how they talked, now a scientist talked in the same way, no hard proof just out of an arse hole (now i say it plainly). whats he's right tough is yes, there is no god involved in the equation, but what he is missing why is, of course there is no observable god, because god not even in the universe, God is the one who created the big bang from the "outside", by energy by mass or whatever it was who knows. God is in different reality, different dimension, the higher dimension (good luck finding it) not even bound by any law that scientists have ever formulated or observed. if he's thinking god was created by the big bang and quest for searching god shows nothing hence there is no god concluded, then he is just a f*cking lunatic. he dont even understand ( or got the twisted or wrong idea) the concept and definition of god (even if let say God is just in theory).

thats why i keep asking about black hole, dont ask what is big bang if you (scientists, i'm talking to great scientists here, who think they are) cant define black hole because big bang was black holes, matters anti matters dark or not dark energies in one single point. dont tell me big bang if you cant describe how a black holes can shrink to one single point, just forget it (the attempt to convince people). dont show me sweet simulation as if its a real thing. you dont even know for certain what was going on 1500 years ago on earth. this is billions years worth of historic event the farthest away known to man, only can be traced from afterglow dusts and speed propagation (before you sidetrack avoiding the unavoidable, i know its not dust)

now i'm all for particle studies, CERN and all, they are the practical research of what can exist or what not, what we can gain and harness from matters and anti matters higg boson whatever around us for benefit in every day life. but when there is unproven blabbers slipped in a scientific explanations, that is just a moronic unreligious piety imho, given your respectable position in the community. when you slip in false (unproven) statement in proven true statements, every body tend to believe and blind faith start to kick in unconsciously in subliminal core, this is typical... like those err... <insert your favourite type> people. that what i think happened to people around those influential (well not so influential to me) people like Lawrence or Dawkin. me? i'm not so dragged about it because i have a clearer picture. like his presentation about plato's caveman in the other video. he Lawrence is the caveman and i'm the plato 8)

now dont ask me to prove God or not i'm not into that and i didnt provoke that, he did first. and i believe it will be pointless talking to people who got really fascinated by this topic. what my point was, if you (esp if you hold a tag as scientist) make a statement, make sure you can provide the proof, the hard the logical undisputable one, because thats the methodology you adhere to you spent your whole life entirely on it. not some lunatic imaginistic from some fancy equations. if there is "universe made astronomers" or "cosmological selection", then show us so we can joint the party of fellow atheists if the reasoning is good enough. but so far its just a theory and dont talk like it is a real thing. fascinating no doubt.

and dont talk evolution if you cant point out a single example of positive mutation (dont side track please explaining reptiles), because evolution needs positive mutation. and dont talk "creation by chance" if you cant show how easy it is to synthesize the simplest thing like amino acid from elements in periodic table in some boiling gas in a hurricane (or the "big bang explosion" if you lack of imagination). if you cant, dont even talk about cosmological selection duh. they all just nice drama and preaches to keep people occupied out of the real thing, waste people's time. just say it with me.... "i dont know" ... thats the most nobble answer a man can give. now go back to your cave man and study harder whats being asked to you, you are the scientist, do your job, not preachers job. you even got paid and money from it (by selling books) well... well there are many things to say, but i dont want to waste time any further ;)
« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 03:39:46 am by Mechatrommer »
if something can select, how cant it be intelligent? if something is intelligent, how cant it exist?
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8169
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #94 on: February 13, 2019, 03:16:46 am »
Once more, your own confusion and lack of understanding is no grounds to dismiss science. That you don't understand evolution and are unwilling to see it around you or put some effort into filling the gaps and understanding it doesn't mean it isn't real. If you don't understand the scientific method or the equations it produces or the phenomena it looks at and describes and insist on accepting stories like some magic being zapping everything into existence while lazily dismissing matters with a large body of supporting evidence there's no basis for a rational discussion. Again, it's fine to have a completely baseless personal belief as long as you don't make the mistake of mixing it with facts or science or the real world. It's silly to reject anything you can't see or experience yourself directly while musing about some magic being outside of our universe which very likely must exist even if there's not a shred of evidence to support it.

I don't even know why I'm writing this, because applying logic to irrationality isn't ever going to work. No matter how much evidence is stacked in front of you, you'll just delude yourself into believing what you already do.
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 798
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #95 on: February 13, 2019, 03:18:41 am »
Too often popular science tv-shows and books don't explain what is supported by evidence

I have noticed this too. There are shows masquerading as educational or science, but they are closer to science-fiction or fantasy-fiction.  They take really fringe ideas, present them as theories, make fancy CGI animations for them, and play them on TV. The layman who doesn't know the first thing about physics can't separate sound science from overreaching conjecture, especially when everything that can't be directly disproved is named "theory". It does a real disservice to education.
 
The following users thanked this post: apis

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8169
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #96 on: February 13, 2019, 03:26:20 am »
I have noticed this too. There are shows masquerading as educational or science, but they are closer to science-fiction or fantasy-fiction.  They take really fringe ideas, present them as theories, make fancy CGI animations for them, and play them on TV. The layman who doesn't know the first thing about physics can't separate sound science from overreaching conjecture, especially when everything that can't be directly disproved is named "theory". It does a real disservice to education.
It honestly isn't much different from shows taking topical subjects and weaving lengthy broadcasts around them. Relatively minor events are spun into what seem endless stories. When famous people or politics are involved, the sky is the limits. Hours can be filled with what's effectively no real content. It's just a lengthy game of creating tension and possibly outrage to keep people interested and around to watch commercials.
 

Offline timelessbeing

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 798
  • Country: 00
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #97 on: February 13, 2019, 03:47:04 am »
dont tell me big bang if you cant describe how a black holes can shrink to one single point, just forget it (the attempt to convince people).

It's called gravity. You may have heard of it. It's what forms stars, planets etc. and black holes. Big bang has nothing to do black holes.

you dont even know for certain what was going on 1500 years ago on earth.

this is a joke right?

if you (esp if you hold a tag as scientist) make a statement, make sure you can provide the proof, the hard the logical undisputable one, because thats the methodology you adhere to
It sounds like you're a bit of a philosophy fan. Have you read Descartes? Then you should know that, aside from simple things like 1+1=2, we can't really prove anything. So no, that is not the methodology that science adheres to. We just believe the things that agree the most with our observations.


dont talk evolution if you cant point out a single example of positive mutation
I'll give you two
1. sickle cells
2. CCR5-Δ32
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5#CCR5-%CE%9432

dont even talk about cosmological selection duh. they all just nice drama and preaches to keep people occupied out of the real thing
and by "real thing" I'm guessing you mean religious dogma?
 

Online Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8169
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #98 on: February 13, 2019, 04:00:10 am »
I'd like to add that we don't just value ideas which match our observations, but generally expect them to predict other observations correctly too. That gives credence to the accuracy of the idea. You can have all kinds of ideas about the nature of comets, but if you can not only predict when one will appear but also where in the sky it will appear you know you have a fairly good grasp on how they move and how other parts of the solar system move by extension.
 
The following users thanked this post: timelessbeing

Offline Buriedcode

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1194
  • Country: gb
Re: Help to understand the Big Bang
« Reply #99 on: February 13, 2019, 04:44:27 am »
Can't tell if poe's law is at work here..

"Good" Science makes predictions, and allows them to be tested so hypotheses can be refuted, validated, or modified.  The "bigger" the problems, the harder it becomes to do that.  Many of the big theories in this thread haven't just come out of thin air - they are based on many different observations from many different areas.

Again when people argue about these things it quickly becomes an argument about what constitutes "evidence", since confirmation bias makes us much more likely to consider something as evidence if it confirms our assumptions. We have those who are religious who call in to question almost everything that they haven't observed directly, to the other end where people bash religion and claim science is pure and flawless, with the vast majority laying somewhere on that continuum.  There is quite a bit of anti-religion with atheists, who conveniently ignore that many of the major scientific advances were done in the name of (a) God.  To that I have to point out the reason we have the scientific method - and by abiding by it you're accepting this - is to overcome our own limitations in our senses and biases.  If you believe yourself to be a rational creature who is immune to believing things that aren't true - I guarantee you believe something that isn't true.  Time and again those who bash religion ultimately have their own faith, and often that is in scientific theories. Granted science adjusts its views which is something religion struggles with (although it does, and can, change quite radically).

Trying to convince someone an assumption they hold isn't true is remarkably difficult.  Framing it as "educating" someone is only going to make matters worse as it implies they are ignorant, wrong, and are somehow less intelligent.  At the same time, if say a creationist asks a biologist about evolution - what else can they do?  If scientists are brutally honest, and point out all the holes in their theory (which is good practice for formal papers) it leaves more than enough doubt for "alternative" ideas to breed.  This is how science can become contaminated (just look at CAM in medicine), so you can understand why scientists gets frustrated - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

We dont' make our minds up based on accumulation of evidence sadly, and changing ones views isn't something that can happen quickly or easily.

This thread - about the big bang - really goes to the heart of creation, where, instead of it being seen as a pretty solid scientific theory, like much of chemistry for example, it actually does have room for a God/creator/deity, and so it will always be topic that creates a lot of strong opinions.  Evidence relies on a long chain of observations and theories, the further back we go, the longer the chain and the less confident we can be about something.  This literally goes back to the dawn of time (or so I've been told!), and so far all I have seen is people stating their views - something I'm only adding too.


« Last Edit: February 13, 2019, 04:46:14 am by Buriedcode »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf