Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Of course I did. When some truth is lacking in cosmological models, believers of convensus dogmatism cannot even descide what other truths there can be posted by alternative thinkers, as they themselves don´t know the entire truth.

So the point did go way over your head, then. One simply doesn't need to know 'the truth' in order to effectively refute nonsense.

No it didn´t.

You cannot know the truth unless you know the whole truth and untill then, your standing "truth" can be nonsense all along the way - and this is also why you´re in danger to take alternative and opposite perceptions and arguments as nonsense.

We can never know that we have arrived at the truth, even if we do.

What? I don´t even know why you then bother at all to try. But of course this keeps you away from sitting in a pub all day.

You cannot prove scientific theories, only disprove them.

In this case you must be thrilled and pleased for my attempts to do just that

 

[Native]

@ben d

In regarding to understanding of the nature or the world or the universe, religions relied on belief.

Science, on the other hand, relied on testing the explanatory / logic / predictive models (models as in hypotheses or existing scientific theories).

These testing as I have said before come from observations of the evidence. The observations also provide data.

There are two possible outcome after testing and analyzing all the available evidence and data: tested evidence will either (A) refute a model or (B) verify the model.

Only tested scientific theories are accepted as science, after it passed all three standards of natural or physical sciences: Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review.

As @Subduction Zone pointed out...

...natural sciences and physical sciences are in the business of seeking “absolute truth”.

Like both SZ, @shunyadragon and @ratiocinator have all pointed out to you, Science is all about testing the models that provide best understanding we have about the physical or natural phenomena, through testings, and that can only happen with evidence as mean of verification.

I will repeat again, science isn’t about “Absolute Truth”, but what are probable, based on understanding the evidence and data observed or collected.

If you want to discuss absolute truth, then try some unhelpful religions or philosophies.

Does it ever occurs to you that your comments just describes theories of scientific theories (which isn´t stricktly followed in several cases) and not so much factual matters?

 

[Native]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
You just took a fork to a gun fight and stuck yourself in the eye.

LOL
I have never come across the fork being used in this saying before.

Well, then has your participation in the RF at least provided some important news for you

 

[ratiocinator]

You cannot know the truth unless you know the whole truth and untill then, your standing "truth" can be nonsense all along the way - and this is also why you´re in danger to take alternative and opposite perceptions and arguments as nonsense.

Nonsense can be seen to be nonsense without having to know the truth.

What? I don´t even know why you then bother at all to try.

Yes, that fits with your attitude. The problem is that you're chasing a fantasy. There is logically no way to be sure you have the truth about the physical world (certainty is only available in mathematics or pure logic). We can, however, build better and better models.

In this case you must be thrilled and pleased for my attempts to do just that

If only you were better at it....

 

[Native]

The space-time is a four-dimensional object and time is a direction through it.

How can dimensional concepts be "objects" at all?

 

[Native]

Nonsense can be seen to be nonsense without having to know the truth.

This of course also goes for the standing consensus in modern science as the truth is abscent there according to your good self.

The problem is that you're chasing a fantasy. There is logically no way to be sure you have the truth about the physical world (certainty is only available in mathematics or pure logic). We can, however, build better and better models.

Your "fantasy" in this case would concern a Theory of Everything, wich you don´t seem to await any time soon - if ever.

I don´t know why you´re so sure of "math as pure logics and certainties" as it obviously brakes completely down in several cosmological cases. It even cannot provide a constant true meassure of a wooden board when it comes to the matter as everything is constantly changing by external influences.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nonsense. A scientific hypothesis or theory must make testable predictions and be falsifiable. Anything else isn't science and amounts to nothing more than empty speculation at best, and personal fantasy at worst.

As I'm sure I've said before (more than once) GR makes numerical predictions that can be and have been tested and found to be accurate. Unless you can produce something that also makes testable predictions, you aren't doing science.

I see what you are doing, I won't waste my time (no pun intended) further.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
In this case you must be thrilled and pleased for my attempts to do just that

If only you were better at it....

I take your "better at it" as better to confirm you on your educational dogmas

 

[ratiocinator]

I don´t know why you´re so sure of "math as pure logics and certainties" as it obviously brakes completely down in several cosmological cases.

Whoosh!

 

[ratiocinator]

I see what you are doing, I won't waste my time (no pun intended) further.

What is it you think I'm doing? I made an entirely uncontroversial statement about how science works and related it to a relevant example.

 

[gnostic]

Does it ever occurs to you that your comments just describes theories of scientific theories (which isn´t stricktly followed in several cases) and not so much factual matters?

Spoken like anti-science adherents, who like to twist words to suit your own perverted fantasies.

Any model required evidence as verification to be science.

A scientific theory is a tested explanation, supported by observations of evidence or test results from experiments...or ideally both.

Logic alone, is theoretical proposed explanation at best, but at worse it is just empty speculation.

You speak of fact, but facts - or factual explanations can only come about if there are evidence.

The Electric Universe (EU) concept failed not only in the evidence department, it also failed to be logical. It failed to be “falsifiable”, it failed to meet the standards of Scientific Method, and not once was EU ever reviewed by peers.

Failing to be falsifiable, disqualified the Electric Universe the hypothesis status, because it cannot be testable. Failing all requirements, means not only isn’t scientific, there are not evidence, therefore EU is factual.

Of all the cosmologies you could have picked, Native, you picked a doozy of pseudoscience.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, so is the vacuum energy dark energy?

If dark energy is *only* the cosmological constant, then yes. A number of alternatives are also being considered, but the best bet right now is yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Native said: ↑
Well. excuse me from arguing from the terrible annoying approach that "science don´t know everything". I just thought that such arguing could get some people to think otherwise in order to know a bit more.

It´s not my problem if you´re confused by a "combative shotgun approach" as my intents just are to describe and discuss cosmological problems in large.

Please, don't accuse others of being confused when you can't support your own claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That sounds very much as a description of some standing cosmological models

One more point, just because you don't know how models are tested does not mean that they cannot be tested. If you don't know how a specific model is tested ask. It is really that simple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
You just took a fork to a gun fight and stuck yourself in the eye.

Well, then has your participation in the RF at least provided some important news for you

Yes. How not to argue. But I have a feeling that he knew that already.

 

[gnostic]

Your "fantasy" in this case would concern a Theory of Everything, wich you don´t seem to await any time soon - if ever.

Just because some alternative model come out, you don’t accept a model based on personal preference.

You still haven’t come to grip, no matter how many times it has explained to you, that no explanations are accepted “science” by default, until the model (eg hypothesis) is falsifiable (testable), tested (Scientific Method) and all the evidence and data verified the model have been examined/analyzed by peers (Peer Review).

The Theory of Everything (ToE) have the potential to unify General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, because the logic and mathematics of ToE seemed to be feasible, BUT there are no tests yet to verify any maths being true. As a theoretical model, ToE is still in a hypothesis stage, hence ToE isn’t currently “science”.

Despite the name of the model contained the word “theory”, it isn’t a “scientific theory”.

Other models containing “theory” as part of the name of the models, eg String Theory, M-theory, Superstring Theory, etc, are still not “scientific theory”, because they remained untested.

The Big Bang theory has been scientific theory, since 1964, since the discovery of CMBR (discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson).

CMBR was predicted in 1948 by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, along with the paper on the Primordial Nucleosynthesis (or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, BBN) by Alpher and George Gamow. Gamow was a former student of Alexander Friedmann, who was one of the 3 pioneers of the Expanding Universe Model EUM, which later became known as the Big Bang model).

CMBR is actually the 2nd important evidence of the BB. The first evidence of expansion was dated back to 1929, when Edwin Hubble discovered the Redshift, which were independently predicted in 1924-25 by Howard Percy Robertson and in 1927 by Georges Lemaître.

Both the cosmological Redshift and CMBR are still being used today, including onboard satellite observatories, like COBE, WMAP and Planck space probe, to measure Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). They provide more precise and much higher resolution measurements than radio antenna constructed by Penzias and Wilson.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If dark energy is *only* the cosmological constant, then yes. A number of alternatives are also being considered, but the best bet right now is yes.

Thank you Polymath, you are a gentleman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What is it you think I'm doing? I made an entirely uncontroversial statement about how science works and related it to a relevant example.

Ok, it is like we are speaking two different languages, there is little affinity. But that's ok, everyone has their own perception of reality, reminds me of the 'Blind men from Hindustan describing the elephant' poem.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, it is like we are speaking two different languages, there is little affinity. But that's ok, everyone has their own perception of reality, reminds me of the 'Blind men from Hindustan describing the elephant' poem.

And I am reminded of the other seven blind men who really were dealing with different things even though they were all told they had an elephant.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And I am reminded of the other seven blind men who really were dealing with different things even though they were all told they had an elephant.

Well you do realize the the Elephant in this story is a metaphor for God, it follows then that the seven blind men are atheists.