So. the Big Bang looks to not be a fact. Now what?

Moronic post. It's ALWAYS been called the Big Bang THEORY by scientists for a reason.

 

We're going to have to rewrite a major series opening theme

But they're probably being canceled soon anyway.

 

Yes, it has. No one even tried to argue that. And while we are on the topic, how does that characterize your response then?

The modern belief structure isn't that difficult to understand, or explain. Science says, folks don't include "theory", so there is belief built into the equation. That then creates a faith in folks who don't take into account that it might not be true. It is simply human nature. snd when it is ultimately not actually true, and folks don't fall off the edge... it shatters some folks. One hopes that because of this revelation that it doesn't spark the kind of war or inquisition the world experienced over other notions of scientific faith.

 

@drluggit

Of course
How can there be a "bang"
in the void of space?

And no one to hear it


Moi

​

 

That's true. To be scientific a hypothesis has to be falsifiable.

There has to be a way of conceiving of a way to negate it.

 

I think Futurama got it as right as anyone... of course only time will tell for sure.

 

The absence of evidence is not evidence.

For example,

Aliens have landed on earth is not a hypothesis because it is not falsifiable.

There is no way of proving aliens have never landed on Earth.

 

That is the Popper view of science, I think. I've struggled with that, too.

However, science is open to ideas that can't be falsified. In fact, we should note that quantum mechanics falls close to that, as there is too little understanding of its basis in reality to be able to falsify. Basically, quantum mechanics is a rule set that has proven hugely useful in exploring our universe. But, nobody can say why the rule set works.

Without knowing how it actually works, there is no real way to falsify it.

 

Yes - semantics WAS the problem in what that poster stated. But, that wasn't all of what was wrong.

Improvement in our human understanding of this universe doesn't imply that what we previously understood is "wrong".

I'm tired of the line of argument that says that improving the shape of some curve, identifying that Newton's physics doesn't work after the speed of light is approached, or whatever, means that science was "wrong".

And, worse yet that idea was extrapolated into the future by that poster - suggesting that future improvement means that we're wrong today!

The only possible conclusion of that line of argument is that we must simply ignore science. And, that is total tomfoolery.

It NEVER makes sense to ignore the best of what we know when we make decisions.

 

yea, i know.

Dummies like to take stuff like this to explain why they are afraid to get the vaccine, or that it proves that their book of fables is the truth of the universe.

Science is still gives us our best answer for everything, even if those answers will probably be replaced with better answers in the future.

 

Similar to Simpsons episodes. eh
Comic episodes representing "truth"
in our time.
Truth contrary to a previous, truth.


I won a bet re.: Neanderthal / "Modern Human"
breeding. The loser had a degree in anthropology.


I AM part Neanderthal. ref.: 23andMe


Moi

​

 

What if it turns out all 'modern humans' were psychopaths and breeding with neanderthals gave us whatever gene makes us not psychopaths, but there's still a few 'pure' bloodlines lingering (like among royalty...) that don't have any neanderthal 'antipsychopathty' genes and also the rest of us are slowly becoming less neanderthal and thus more prone to psychopathy.

I know, prolly not. But it would explain some things.

 

Sure
Right
Uh - huh

So why are so many Black persons involved?
Smash & Grab crimes. Assault.
A lack of Neanderthal genome?


Moi

​

 

You never know. Apparently Africans have the least amount of neanderthal DNA, on average around 0.3% (thought to have none until recently), while Europeans have around 1% and east-Asians around 2%. But then theres also denisovan DNA which is sometimes included as neanderthal DNA in such studies, and sometimes not... and these are all just averages, of course. I imagine its subject to the dominant-recessive dynamic and someone could have 3% but its recessive while someone else might have 0.3% but its dominant.

 

It’s okay. Science doesn’t need your approval in order to keep on improving human knowledge.

 

This doesn’t disprove the Big Bang theory, it just means there are processes we don’t understand. It’s like Newtonian physics, people thought that covered it all until they ran into observations that didn’t fit a Newtonian world. Then came relativity. Newton is still right, just not universal. The Big Bang can still be correct, maybe we just don’t understand the physics properly.

 

I agree with that (though I'm not sure what you think indicates that there are process we don't understand).

But, one has to be careful when one starts going forward from there.

It's not license to go crazy.

 

So, the Big Bang looks to not be a fact. Now what ..?​

~ If human beings ever use the full potential of their intelligence we will accept the concept of 'Infinity ' , the perpetual universe and concentrate on planet earth, humanity and living in peace.
Of course this will require somewhat of an epiphany that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Until then there is coffee, Jazz and the night . '

 

Nope, Big Bang always was a theory.
Unfortunately, other theories are less plausible so that BB can be seen as pseudo-fact. Nevertheless, BB can be replaced by a better, more plausible theory. That's how science works.

 

yep, the bible has been proven false and can't be changed, that is the difference between religious myth and science

course the BB has not been proved wrong

 

The observations don’t match predictions based on our current state of knowledge, clearly there are processes we don’t understand. That’s how science works, scientists create hypothesis’ then try to verify them through observations, when they don’t match the science has to adapt.

 

Generally, Researchers create hypotheses based on observations, then devise experiments to test predictions that are a logic consequence of the hypothesis.

 

Sure. But, there is a whole lot known about cosmology and astrophysics. Finding a phenomenon that seems anomalous doesn't justify throwing out the knowledge gained to date.

It provides focus on where further exploration should take place.

 

The James Webb telescope has NOT discredited the big bang theory.

 

I never said to just throw out knowledge, just the opposite.