Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Native]

Native said: ↑
For the third time - "List of Cosmological Problems # General Relativity".

And yet again: so what? It's a list of open questions in cosmology. It would be incredible if there weren't open questions. What do you expect me to say about them? None of them support the utter nonsense in the video you posted, for example.

Never mind the posted video in this case.

If you had acted on the link the first time posted, you would have known that the linked contents were a reply to your (very uncritical) claims that in General Relativity, "all test were made and all evidences were at place" whereas in fact, many serious problems still exists.

So blame yourself for not reading the links when posted first time.

 

[Native]

Theory, hypothesis, speculation, guessing, all a part of the process of science, in a particular sequence of course. It is still early days in the space age, lots of pet theories are going to be abandoned along the way. Hold on to your hat!

I guess many scientists and proponents of the standing theories will be the last to know that they´ve lost their hats - and their scientific face too.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I guess many scientists and proponents of the standing theories will be the last to know that they´ve lost their hats - and their scientific face too.

Yes, it is a tendency for those who have learned certain knowledge to become possessed by it, hence the saying, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks! Also there is this type of inertia existing in academia... "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."-Upton Sinclair

And going forward, given continuing human evolutionary progress, this saying from T.H. Huxley is insightful. "It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions."

 

[ratiocinator]

If you had acted on the link the first time posted, you would have known that the linked contents were a reply to your (very uncritical) claims that in General Relativity, "all test were made and all evidences were at place" whereas in fact, many serious problems still exists.

You don't seem to understand what you've linked to. None of these change the fact that every direct test we have made of general relativity has confirmed it.

Also, how many more times do I have to point out that I'm not advocating one specific answer to the origin of the universe, or, for that matter, answers to the open questions in cosmology? I'm pointing out that one possible way to look at it is just to take a very well tested theory at face value and look at the consequences.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
If you had acted on the link the first time posted, you would have known that the linked contents were a reply to your (very uncritical) claims that in General Relativity, "all test were made and all evidences were at place" whereas in fact, many serious problems still exists.

You don't seem to understand what you've linked to. None of these change the fact that every direct test we have made of general relativity has confirmed it.

It´s fine be me that you believe fully in a theory which has it´s serious problems which you prefer to ignore in the overall theory. It´s also OK by me if you add lots of biased assumptions to the initial ones which you call a "theory", but don´t expect me to hold my mouth shut.

Also, how many more times do I have to point out that I'm not advocating one specific answer to the origin of the universe, or, for that matter, answers to the open questions in cosmology? I'm pointing out that one possible way to look at it is just to take a very well tested theory at face value and look at the consequences.

I really don´t care how often you come up with "this or that" postulation - I´m just replying as it all goes on.

BTW: When are you finish with your mathematical calculations of the galactic and solar system orbital motions?

 

[Native]

Yes, it is a tendency for those who have learned certain knowledge to become possessed by it, hence the saying, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks! Also there is this type of inertia existing in academia... "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."-Upton Sinclair

And going forward, given continuing human evolutionary progress, this saying from T.H. Huxley is insightful. "It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions."

Excellent thoughts and quotes indeed.

And said by the danish poet, Piet Hein:

"The noble art of losing face my some day save the human race
and turn into eternal merit what weaker minds would call disgrace".

 

[ratiocinator]

It´s fine be me that you believe fully in a theory which has it´s serious problems which you prefer to ignore in the overall theory.

I have said repeatedly that I don't "fully believe" in it. Are you just not paying attention or is the misrepresentation deliberate? And open questions in cosmology do not necessarily mean problems with the theory.

It´s also OK by me if you add lots of biased assumptions...

Such as....?

 

[ValdresRose]

It´s all nothing but a huge cosmological confusion. Everything in cosmos is observed with the Earth as the center and all cosmic measurements are connected to the speed of light and to the human concept of "time".

Thanks. We're on the same 'page' so it was nice to read your comments. For the past couple days I was getting a weird feeling about reality.

Our Posts in this Thread are going off the original OP's concerned and I was wondering yesterday if we could start a new thread that gets closer to the topic.

I notice your 'mini' comment about time. I'll stick my neck out, Time doesn't exist in the Natural Universe!! The concept of Time is a human imagination, invented by humans. We don't use Time, we use Time intervals, we have no applications for Time, only for Time intervals. Without Time intervals we have basically no use for Time. One of the reasons we have confusion about Time is because the only way we can measure Time intervals is by using 'matter', either atoms or molecules. We need to reason out the possibility that molecular motion changes with change of speed or strong gravitation influence. Since that can't be measured without Time intervals we're stuck, unless we reason it out.

 

[gnostic]

Theory, hypothesis, speculation, guessing, all a part of the process of science, in a particular sequence of course.

That speaks volumes of your ignorance.

Any statement, explanation or model required to be TESTABLE and TESTED, before it can be even considered as “science”.

And the only way to TEST them are through OBSERVATIONS.

And by “observations”, I mean by finding EVIDENCE or performing EXPERIMENTS, which are part of the process or stage required in the Scientific Method.

These evidence and test results, often come in the form of data, such as recording the observations, recording the quantities and measurements, the comparison between one evidence against the others, etc.

The more evidence and data you have, the better you can determine if these support the explanatory/predictive models.

Why do you anti-science people continue to ignore the roles that evidence/observations/tests play in science?

No models (hypotheses or theories) are accepted as “science” until they have been rigorously tested and reviewed.

And second.

New alternative models are always welcome to challenge existing scientific theories, but they must undergo the same requirements before those models be even considered as science.

An alternative model must be falsifiable, must be tested .(Scientific Method) and must be reviewed, and that can only happed with testable and verifiable evidence and data.

Without evidence and data, the alternative model can be rejected as “unscientific”, “unfalsifiable”, “untestable”.

The problems with concepts like Intelligent Design, Fine Tuning Universe and Electric Universe, is because they are all untestable, and neither of them have any evidence to back these concepts. Hence, they are deemed as pseudoscience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That speaks volumes of your ignorance.

Any statement, explanation or model required to be TESTABLE and TESTED, before it can be even considered as “science”.

And the only way to TEST them are through OBSERVATIONS.

And by “observations”, I mean by finding EVIDENCE or performing EXPERIMENTS, which are part of the process or stage required in the Scientific Method.

These evidence and test results, often come in the form of data, such as recording the observations, recording the quantities and measurements, the comparison between one evidence against the others, etc.

The more evidence and data you have, the better you can determine if these support the explanatory/predictive models.

Why do you anti-science people continue to ignore the roles that evidence/observations/tests play in science?

No models (hypotheses or theories) are accepted as “science” until they have been rigorously tested and reviewed.

And second.

New alternative models are always welcome to challenge existing scientific theories, but they must undergo the same requirements before those models be even considered as science.

An alternative model must be falsifiable, must be tested .(Scientific Method) and must be reviewed, and that can only happed with testable and verifiable evidence and data.

Without evidence and data, the alternative model can be rejected as “unscientific”, “unfalsifiable”, “untestable”.

The problems with concepts like Intelligent Design, Fine Tuning Universe and Electric Universe, is because they are all untestable, and neither of them have any evidence to back these concepts. Hence, they are deemed as pseudoscience.

Unfortunately our science deniers have no clue as to what the scientific method is or even understand the concept of rational reasoning. Like most true believers they are only looking for excuses to believe. When one tries to get them to understand the basics of science, by which I mean the scientific method and the concept of evidence, they will simply run away.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That speaks volumes of your ignorance.

Any statement, explanation or model required to be TESTABLE and TESTED, before it can be even considered as “science”.

And the only way to TEST them are through OBSERVATIONS.

And by “observations”, I mean by finding EVIDENCE or performing EXPERIMENTS, which are part of the process or stage required in the Scientific Method.

These evidence and test results, often come in the form of data, such as recording the observations, recording the quantities and measurements, the comparison between one evidence against the others, etc.

The more evidence and data you have, the better you can determine if these support the explanatory/predictive models.

Why do you anti-science people continue to ignore the roles that evidence/observations/tests play in science?

No models (hypotheses or theories) are accepted as “science” until they have been rigorously tested and reviewed.

And second.

New alternative models are always welcome to challenge existing scientific theories, but they must undergo the same requirements before those models be even considered as science.

An alternative model must be falsifiable, must be tested .(Scientific Method) and must be reviewed, and that can only happed with testable and verifiable evidence and data.

Without evidence and data, the alternative model can be rejected as “unscientific”, “unfalsifiable”, “untestable”.

The problems with concepts like Intelligent Design, Fine Tuning Universe and Electric Universe, is because they are all untestable, and neither of them have any evidence to back these concepts. Hence, they are deemed as pseudoscience.

Tut tut, remember the importance of succinctness.

Here, have a listen to the very famous physicist Richard Feynman as he explains the scientific and unscientific methods of understanding nature as he teaches future scientists.

 

[gnostic]

Tut tut, remember the importance of succinctness.

How about you remembering that “logic” alone and personal “intuition” don’t equate as evidence?

Concerning nature: Without verifiable evidence and data, your claims are nothing more than just baseless speculation and opinions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tut tut, remember the importance of succinctness.

Here, have a listen to the very famous physicist Richard Feynman as he explains the scientific and unscientific methods of understanding nature as he teaches future scientists.

So why don't you follow what he teaches?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How about you remembering that “logic” alone and personal “intuition” don’t equate as evidence?

Concerning nature: Without verifiable evidence and data, your claims are nothing more than just baseless speculation and opinions.

I don't leave it up to others to tell me what to believe, I will always take their views into consideration and then trust my own judgement based on my present understanding. I presume you do more or less the same, happy learning gnostic..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So why don't you follow what he teaches?

I am not a part of establishment science, and my interest is so broad it covers everything, but one does one's best.
.This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. - Shakespeare, Hamlet

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not a part of establishment science, and my interest is so broad it covers everything, but one does one's best.
.This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. - Shakespeare, Hamlet

So all you can do is guess. That all but guarantees that you are wrong in your beliefs when it comes to complicated concepts.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So all you can do is guess. That all but guarantees that you are wrong in your beliefs when it comes to complicated concepts.

Young soul, have you not got anything better to do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Young soul, have you not got anything better to do?

I could ask the same of you. Why do you waste your time with nonsense? There are ways to solve the problems that you seem to be interested in but you are not following the correct path.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Thank you for your advice SZ, have a nice day.

 

[gnostic]

I don't leave it up to others to tell me what to believe, I will always take their views into consideration and then trust my own judgement based on my present understanding. I presume you do more or less the same, happy learning gnostic..

Religion are about what to believe and follow. Philosophies are about what to believe and follow. Political views are about what to believe and follow. Opinions are what to believe.

Beliefs are about subjective views on what are possible and what are impossible.

And since belief are subjective, different people can have different beliefs or different opinions.

Science is about the available verifiable evidence, verifiable observations or verifiable data - the more the better.

Evidence are the objective ways to determine if the natural or physical phenomena are probable or improbable.

You can question or challenge any current explanatory/predictive model with alternative models, but the alternatives must be subjected to testing...hence requiring evidence to back the alternatives.

But if there are no evidence or all the evidence refute/debunk the models, then the alternative models are wrong.

I think it is silly to follow any models that have no verifiable evidence to back up the concepts/explanations.

The only possible reasons to believe and follow a zero-evidence model, is that the people allow their biases to decide the preferences for the models, hence not based on the available physical evidence.

Take for instance, Michael Behe, supposedly the expert witness for Intelligent Design in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District trial (2005).

Behe admitted during being cross examined, that there are no evidence (observations, data), no original research and no peer review for ID, and yet, he still strongly advocated ID.

Behe is an example of scientist who allowed his religious belief biased his works...works based on belief, not on scientific evidence.

As biochemist, he has disgraced himself, making up all sorts of excuses for ID.