Poll

Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?

Yes53%53% - 56
No15%15% - 16
Somewhat26%26% - 28
I believe in another theory (If so specify)3%3% - 4
Total: 104
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Commie Killer wrote:

Hmm, more Im looking at this, the less that "bouncing" universe theory looks possible, considering that the speeds are increasing.
It almost makes you think that whatever lies on the universe fringe is more massive than the internal. It's what makes the most since to me. (Referring to the increased rate of expansion)
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

Kmarion wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Hmm, more Im looking at this, the less that "bouncing" universe theory looks possible, considering that the speeds are increasing.
It almost makes you think that whatever lies on the universe fringe is more massive than the internal. It's what makes the most since to me. (Referring to the increased rate of expansion)
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
The guy I was working with was working in gravitational lensing, and he got his PhD in 2003. I wonder if he was involved in one of those experiments.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)
Yes and no.

I don't buy the idea that the whole universe just suddenly appeared one day in an almighty POP.

But then, from our human perspective, the evidence does add up...

Personally, I think we're missing something in our understanding of fundamental physics...

In fact, this is all kinda linked in with my belief that the universe is deterministic...
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6624

"Somewhat"; I believe that the universe is constantly expanding at the speed of light, which means there initially had to be a tiny particle to emit those photons. Could it have been the big bang? Sure. However, it's largely possible the universe could have came about another way, but right now this is the best we have, so I'm not sure if it's true or not.
imortal
Member
+240|6635|Austin, TX

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

String theory has to many holes in it to be considered a solid theory. What I thought was interesting is an idea me and my friend use to kick around with our physics teacher. If this universe is part of an omniverse, then black holes of different universes could collect material and all connect to a point of singularity until that mass would implode on itself. So really the Big bang but with some tweaks.
I agree.  It is so unprovable scientifically, it is better referred to as a philosophy.  However, it does seem to tie everything up rather neatly.  I personally like the theory; it would be nice if they could figure out a way to prove or disprove it.
ReTox
Member
+100|6469|State of RETOXification

imortal wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

String theory has to many holes in it to be considered a solid theory. What I thought was interesting is an idea me and my friend use to kick around with our physics teacher. If this universe is part of an omniverse, then black holes of different universes could collect material and all connect to a point of singularity until that mass would implode on itself. So really the Big bang but with some tweaks.
I agree.  It is so unprovable scientifically, it is better referred to as a philosophy.  However, it does seem to tie everything up rather neatly.  I personally like the theory; it would be nice if they could figure out a way to prove or disprove it.
I don't like to use the word never but... how hard can it be to measure something a billion billion times smaller than an atom that exists in 11 dimensions?
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

ReTox wrote:

I don't like to use the word never but... how hard can it be to measure something a billion billion times smaller than an atom that exists in 11 dimensions?
They have actually been able to prove that 11 dimensions isn't required as first thought, it's now something like only 7 dimensions. But still, that's a lot.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

TheAussieReaper wrote:

ReTox wrote:

I don't like to use the word never but... how hard can it be to measure something a billion billion times smaller than an atom that exists in 11 dimensions?
They have actually been able to prove that 11 dimensions isn't required as first thought, it's now something like only 7 dimensions. But still, that's a lot.
Who is they?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

Kmarion wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

ReTox wrote:

I don't like to use the word never but... how hard can it be to measure something a billion billion times smaller than an atom that exists in 11 dimensions?
They have actually been able to prove that 11 dimensions isn't required as first thought, it's now something like only 7 dimensions. But still, that's a lot.
Who is they?
The string theorist's that are working on the possible unified theory. Sorry I don't have names off the top of my head. This series explained it very well however:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6357
What I wanna know is how people can figure out there are more then 4 dimensions, I cant even begin to understand how to understand that.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

Commie Killer wrote:

What I wanna know is how people can figure out there are more then 4 dimensions, I cant even begin to understand how to understand that.
X axis is one dimension. Y axis another dimension. Z axis a third dimension. The 4th dimension is time. Then you have a dimension that is from the viewpoint of a singularity looking outward (considered another) then looking inward, and it gets more and more complex...

Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-08-06 21:37:19)

https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

They have actually been able to prove that 11 dimensions isn't required as first thought, it's now something like only 7 dimensions. But still, that's a lot.
Who is they?
The string theorist's that are working on the possible unified theory. Sorry I don't have names off the top of my head. This series explained it very well however:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
I saw that a long time ago (Actually I read the book about 6 years ago). I'm still looking for your new information.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ReTox
Member
+100|6469|State of RETOXification
There are the four dimensions of normal experience and the 7 theorized dimensions.  In fact it was thought to be 10 dimensions until Whitten expanded string theory by using super gravity's 11 dimensions thus creating M-Theory.

I think we will find that these are all parts of a greater reality.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

Why is everyone stuck in the mid 90's?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ReTox
Member
+100|6469|State of RETOXification

Kmarion wrote:

Why is everyone stuck in the mid 90's?
?

Not sure what you mean unless it is about Whitten in 95.  If that is the case then it goes directly to the 7 dimensions and Brian Green's "Elegant Universe" as mentioned above.

Besides, I can't seem to recall anything ground breaking in the last few years when it comes to strings.  I read about Burt Ovrut's brane collisions in 2002 and that really peaked my interest.  Since then though, nothing.  Got anything good?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6571|132 and Bush

There are new "ideas" coming out all the time though (Albeit usually small variations to existing models). There is a show on the Science Channel called "Battle for the Beginning". It's a little more up to date.

Some other good ones:
http://dsc.discovery.com/space/im/unive … dfarb.html
http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedul … 93.36132.x
http://science.discovery.com/tv/joao-ma … ueijo.html
http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedul … 96.36136.0

I pretty much DVR the whole station..
Xbone Stormsurgezz
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6489|Πάϊ

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

r u srs? We still believe in 4 basic elements? We believe in a geocentric model? Not everything has been disproved, but an awful lot of it has been. Looking at physics through the ages is a wonderful example.

Belief - something based on faith. Very similar to the religious version in this case. There is a mystical element in science, especially when studying the very large and the very small. Throwing yourself behind any theory takes more than a little faith to go along with the facts.
4 basic elements? lol ok you seem to know little about Greek history. Take Democritus for instance. But anyway, the Greeks are off-subject.

The fact of the matter is (imo) that in science there is no room for unfounded beliefs. The entire concept of believing is unscientific to begin with, since the latter works on the basis of obsevation and experimentation in an effort to provide proof. It's all written very well in the last link really:

wiki wrote:

While performing experiments, Scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important that this tendency does not bias their interpretation.[7][8] A strict following of the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment.

Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory. This is a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis—commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. These broader theories may be formulated using principles such as parsimony (e.g., "Occam's Razor"). They are then repeatedly tested by analyzing how the collected evidence (facts) compares to the theory. When a theory survives a sufficiently large number of empirical observations, it then becomes a scientific generalization that can be taken as fully verified. These assume the status of a physical law or law of nature.

Despite the existence of well-tested theories, science cannot claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject or of the field of study due to epistemological problems that are unavoidable and preclude the discovery or establishment of absolute truth. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.
ƒ³
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

ReTox wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Why is everyone stuck in the mid 90's?
?

Not sure what you mean unless it is about Whitten in 95.  If that is the case then it goes directly to the 7 dimensions and Brian Green's "Elegant Universe" as mentioned above.

Besides, I can't seem to recall anything ground breaking in the last few years when it comes to strings.  I read about Burt Ovrut's brane collisions in 2002 and that really peaked my interest.  Since then though, nothing.  Got anything good?
Nothing of real interest has come out of string theory in the last decade, that's why not very people give it very much credit in the scientific community. It makes a lot of unverifiable assumptions and then doesn't answer very many questions, struggling to meet the most basic requirements for being a reasonable theory.

oug wrote:

4 basic elements? lol ok you seem to know little about Greek history. Take Democritus for instance. But anyway, the Greeks are off-subject.
Hardly. In fact I read a nice little book that went in depth into Democritus as the founding father of the idea of the atom. The fact of the matter however is that his ideas were much more philosophical than scientific, a route that you are contending science has no room for. He founded his idea of the atomos on the basic idea that if you keep cutting and cutting, you will eventually get to an indivisible particle. That is not our modern day atom, but what is today known as the elusive Higgs boson or God Particle.

Those were not necessarily the popular beliefs of the people either. I would draw a parallel to those today who believe in cold fusion. It isn't accepted by the scientific community at large, it is founded on pseudoscience, and it could turn out to be correct against all scientific odds in the future.

If you think the Greeks are off-topic then you truly don't understand what I'm saying. We currently believe in theories that are wrong, but we believe them anyways. Having what proof we have today doesn't make them right, it only gives us more faith in the theory before it is disproved.

Imagine you go back in time and talk to Newton. You tell him that matter and energy are interrelated with a very specific formula. What do you think he would say? You would sound an awful lot like people talking about God today. There are no scientific instruments that would allow you to test the theory, all he can do is take it on your word. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense and what little concrete evidence of it existing doesn't count for much. No one would believe it. Does that make the theory any less right? The universe has abided by the same rules since the beginning of time, and it will most likely continue for long after the expiration of the human race. As we pass through our short time in it we don't alter anything about those rules because we have scientific evidence for a theory, we just temporarily believe it is true until something better comes along.

Something better always comes along when it comes to nature. The only constants in our intellectual world are the ones that humans control, things like our counting system, mathematics, etc. because they are only our interpretations of the world around us. Six will always be six because we stick that definition to the natural world. When we try to define the natural world itself however, it is presumptuous to assume we have it right this time. Every civilization throughout time has taken their crack at it, and we see obvious flaws in every one. What makes us different? Why all of a sudden are our theories correct and not beliefs? I refuse to say a theory is correct in lieu of a better theory because I know it is wrong. We just don't know why yet.

oug wrote:

The fact of the matter is (imo) that in science there is no room for unfounded beliefs. The entire concept of believing is unscientific to begin with, since the latter works on the basis of obsevation and experimentation in an effort to provide proof. It's all written very well in the last link really:
You really hammered my point home for me with that last paragraph. I was pretty suprised in fact at what it said, seeing as I wrote my former response before reading this.

wiki wrote:


Despite the existence of well-tested theories, science cannot claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject or of the field of study due to epistemological problems that are unavoidable and preclude the discovery or establishment of absolute truth. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.
We cannot establish absolute truth using the scientific method, therefore what we choose to accept we believe or temporarily assume correct. It is founded on little more than faith in that scientific method.

I believe in quantum theory. There is actually a very good chance that it is at least some part wrong, and that it will be proved so in order to be unified with GR in my lifetime. That does not keep me from using it in practical applications, or preclude scientific development of theories to replace it. It only means that I have enough reason to bother to learn about it. Belief does not mean unfounded, Christians have proof Jesus was real and the Bible and such you know.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6644|Canberra, AUS
This field is my 'pet' subject, so let's get in on the action.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

ReTox wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Why is everyone stuck in the mid 90's?
?

Not sure what you mean unless it is about Whitten in 95.  If that is the case then it goes directly to the 7 dimensions and Brian Green's "Elegant Universe" as mentioned above.

Besides, I can't seem to recall anything ground breaking in the last few years when it comes to strings.  I read about Burt Ovrut's brane collisions in 2002 and that really peaked my interest.  Since then though, nothing.  Got anything good?
Nothing of real interest has come out of string theory in the last decade, that's why not very people give it very much credit in the scientific community. It makes a lot of unverifiable assumptions and then doesn't answer very many questions, struggling to meet the most basic requirements for being a reasonable theory.
It is a theory in its basest form. The reason it is popular (and it is) is because it introduces a level of simplicity to aspects of physics in real need of it. Don't discount the power of simplicity.

oug wrote:

4 basic elements? lol ok you seem to know little about Greek history. Take Democritus for instance. But anyway, the Greeks are off-subject.
Hardly. In fact I read a nice little book that went in depth into Democritus as the founding father of the idea of the atom. The fact of the matter however is that his ideas were much more philosophical than scientific, a route that you are contending science has no room for. He founded his idea of the atomos on the basic idea that if you keep cutting and cutting, you will eventually get to an indivisible particle. That is not our modern day atom, but what is today known as the elusive Higgs boson or God Particle.

Those were not necessarily the popular beliefs of the people either. I would draw a parallel to those today who believe in cold fusion. It isn't accepted by the scientific community at large, it is founded on pseudoscience, and it could turn out to be correct against all scientific odds in the future.

If you think the Greeks are off-topic then you truly don't understand what I'm saying. We currently believe in theories that are wrong, but we believe them anyways. Having what proof we have today doesn't make them right, it only gives us more faith in the theory before it is disproved.

Imagine you go back in time and talk to Newton. You tell him that matter and energy are interrelated with a very specific formula. What do you think he would say? You would sound an awful lot like people talking about God today. There are no scientific instruments that would allow you to test the theory, all he can do is take it on your word. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense and what little concrete evidence of it existing doesn't count for much. No one would believe it. Does that make the theory any less right? The universe has abided by the same rules since the beginning of time, and it will most likely continue for long after the expiration of the human race. As we pass through our short time in it we don't alter anything about those rules because we have scientific evidence for a theory, we just temporarily believe it is true until something better comes along.

Something better always comes along when it comes to nature. The only constants in our intellectual world are the ones that humans control, things like our counting system, mathematics, etc. because they are only our interpretations of the world around us. Six will always be six because we stick that definition to the natural world. When we try to define the natural world itself however, it is presumptuous to assume we have it right this time. Every civilization throughout time has taken their crack at it, and we see obvious flaws in every one. What makes us different? Why all of a sudden are our theories correct and not beliefs? I refuse to say a theory is correct in lieu of a better theory because I know it is wrong. We just don't know why yet.
This is true, but if we went around being not-so-sure of our theories because we think they're not correct, we wouldn't get very far, would we?

oug wrote:

The fact of the matter is (imo) that in science there is no room for unfounded beliefs. The entire concept of believing is unscientific to begin with, since the latter works on the basis of obsevation and experimentation in an effort to provide proof. It's all written very well in the last link really:
You really hammered my point home for me with that last paragraph. I was pretty suprised in fact at what it said, seeing as I wrote my former response before reading this.

wiki wrote:


Despite the existence of well-tested theories, science cannot claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject or of the field of study due to epistemological problems that are unavoidable and preclude the discovery or establishment of absolute truth. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them.
We cannot establish absolute truth using the scientific method, therefore what we choose to accept we believe or temporarily assume correct. It is founded on little more than faith in that scientific method.

I believe in quantum theory. There is actually a very good chance that it is at least some part wrong, and that it will be proved so in order to be unified with GR in my lifetime. That does not keep me from using it in practical applications, or preclude scientific development of theories to replace it. It only means that I have enough reason to bother to learn about it. Belief does not mean unfounded, Christians have proof Jesus was real and the Bible and such you know.
I've seen this discussion before. Far too deep for me, but for the record I do think belief has its place in science. Not all theories are as well-tested as quantum mechanics (and it has serious issues) or evolution.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
topal63
. . .
+533|6688
I voted "no." I don't believe in big bang theory. The basic conception of Universal expansion is basically true - without a doubt (i.e. the life and death cycle of stars, the elemental makeup of the Earth, its age, even evolution wouldn't be possible - without the basic "bang"; expansion; happening. And what's the logical alternative to basic Universal expansion- what's the basic contender to this idea(?) - there isn't one). Some of the particulars are true as well. But, the whole of it is never ultimately perfect or ultimately comprehensive - nor does it need to be (nor has anyone ever really said that it is). If someone came along and toppled my certainty that even the basics are true (it aint gonna happen) - I'd shake his hand and say thank you. Because "belief" has no place in science.  I have no vested interest in: big bang theory, evolution, the number six, trigonometry, geometry, the basics of celestial observation, mapping sciences, calculus, music theory (octaves, tone separation, triad chords), building/architectural sciences, farming, animal husbandry, chemistry, other applied sciences, and so on... I am willing to give any of it up in an instant! Which is utterly unlike "faith" that is often clung to in spite of massive contradictions existing utterly disproving one or more beliefs. To say practical knowledge or science is like "faith" is to confirm that one simply doesn't understand the difference.

I don't need to believe in any of it and I don't; the proof is in the usefulness of the knowledge and its predictability-value (regardless of the limit of the predictability). And while I am not believing in any of it, I am not belittling the massive contributions made incrementally along the way (like the Greek contribution) that enhance the value of our practical knowledge database (the collective value of practical-knowledge to us as a specie).

Last edited by topal63 (2008-08-07 07:53:32)

Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6616
Whether I believe or don't believe it really doesn't matter. So therefore I really couldn't give a fuck.

Besides, it contradicts my Jesus was a T-rex theory.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Whether I believe or don't believe it really doesn't matter. So therefore I really couldn't give a fuck.

Besides, it contradicts my Jesus was a T-rex theory.
T-rex? Wtf.

He was a Velociraptor.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6662
I heard a theory of what was before the singularity. In the 11th dimension membranes or branes float around freely in infinite numbers. Each brane is a universe. When these fluid branes collide they create big bangs. Because the branes are not flat, they are fluid in form, when they collide there are many collisions at once, dispersing matter across the newly formed universe. This theory ties in with M theory.

I see this was brought up early in the thread. I like this theory.

Last edited by Superior Mind (2008-08-07 22:32:57)

oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6489|Πάϊ

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The fact of the matter however is that his ideas were much more philosophical than scientific, a route that you are contending science has no room for.
I never claimed that. My beef was with "belief". Anyway, in this subject I completely agree with topal63 and I think we both explained our position to the point where nothing further can be said. I understand what you're saying in your last post, and I agree with some, I just can't shake the idea off my head that belief and science are two different things. The wiki page was explanatory enough, though I don't think I understand what you mean by "hammering your point home"... because the link doesn't really agree with your take. I think at least...


edit:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If you think the Greeks are off-topic then you truly don't understand what I'm saying. We currently believe in theories that are wrong, but we believe them anyways. Having what proof we have today doesn't make them right, it only gives us more faith in the theory before it is disproved.
and tbh I really don't know what theories we might believe in today that might prove wrong in the future.

Imo our whole disagreement lies in the use of the word "believe". Nothing more.

Last edited by oug (2008-08-08 04:04:43)

ƒ³
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|5967
For anyone who doubts the Big Bang, I have one thing to say:

One hundred sixty point four gigahertz.

Science: it works, BITCHES!

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard