I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

a reply to: chr0naut

there are things in the 'scientific' world view that are unscientific. The gaps in our framework of knowledge have been 'filled in with crayon' and are accepted uncritically as valid, even by "scientists".

Whenever I'm starting to think (for the dozenth time) that maybe you do have something of value to contribute to the ongoing conversation on ATS, out you come with something like this.

Every word quoted above is false. Since you are evidently not a stupid person, you must know this.

It appears that your hatred and fear of science are so passionate you are ready to knowingly, maliciously traduce and misrepresent it in order to devalue it.

Let me put you straight. The gaps in our framework of knowledge are not filled in 'with crayon'. They are filled out with provisional hypotheses that fit the available facts and what we know in general.

As soon as ever these hypotheses can be tested, they are. Failed hyporheses are replaced by ones that better fit the facts. This is how human knowledge advances.

It is the nature of some hypotheses that they can never be tested directly. For obvious reasons, hypotheses about the origins of the cosmos fall into this category. They fit the facts as we know them, they pass the tests we can devise, but we can never know for sure that we are correct. There were no witnesses to the Big Bang.

Yet that does not mean, as you bluntly state, that we know nothing about it and are just drawing pictures 'in crayon'. We know plenty.

It is evident that you still carry around with you the ruins of a good education. What a shame your embrace of superstition causes to hate and fear true knowledge, such that you can find no better use for that wasted education than to employ it as a weapon against science and truth.

By the way, I love how you put scare quotes round the word 'science' to show us that you're so clever you've seen through all those dumb 'scientists'. Slick move, that.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Raggedyman

Language informs perception.

Since you don't have a dozen plus different words for different shades and tones of green, you are unable to easily discern the difference.


It is subtle to people without a large language for the color green...but can you see the difference now?

Army green,Harlequin,sea green,emerald ,jade,olive,Teal,fern,kelly green,pine green,forest green,sea foam,shamrock,juniper,lime and chartreuse. Given time i can probably think of more but my point is just because you cant think of shades of green doesnt mean they dont exist. And if they exist shoots a big hole in your theory.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Really, only those who have or are entering a graduate program, really

Yes, really. Suck it up. It's the truth.

So, nobody else gets to offer anything, ask questions, comment

He didn't say that. You're free to ask any questions you wish, and to air your wondrous opinions all you like. Just be prepared to have them treated with the contempt they deserve.

a reply to: dragonridr

And if they exist shoots a big hole in your theory.

The theory is pretty dodgy anyway. 'Language informs perception', aka Linguistic relativity, was popular among linguists and anthropologists back when these disciplines were populated by social scientists rather than real ones. Once real scientists got involved these ideas were soon shown to have very little reliable data supporting them.

a reply to: Indigo5

I was right!

a reply to: chr0naut

It's a theory? Lighten up?

Still tons of unknowns out there, I was just elaborating on the other possibilities for the energy released during the 'big bang'.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

there are things in the 'scientific' world view that are unscientific. The gaps in our framework of knowledge have been 'filled in with crayon' and are accepted uncritically as valid, even by "scientists".

Whenever I'm starting to think (for the dozenth time) that maybe you do have something of value to contribute to the ongoing conversation on ATS, out you come with something like this.

Every word quoted above is false. Since you are evidently not a stupid person, you must know this.

It appears that your hatred and fear of science are so passionate you are ready to knowingly, maliciously traduce and misrepresent it in order to devalue it.

Let me put you straight. The gaps in our framework of knowledge are not filled in 'with crayon'. They are filled out with provisional hypotheses that fit the available facts and what we know in general.

As soon as ever these hypotheses can be tested, they are. Failed hyporheses are replaced by ones that better fit the facts. This is how human knowledge advances.

It is the nature of some hypotheses that they can never be tested directly. For obvious reasons, hypotheses about the origins of the cosmos fall into this category. They fit the facts as we know them, they pass the tests we can devise, but we can never know for sure that we are correct. There were no witnesses to the Big Bang.

Yet that does not mean, as you bluntly state, that we know nothing about it and are just drawing pictures 'in crayon'. We know plenty.

It is evident that you still carry around with you the ruins of a good education. What a shame your embrace of superstition causes to hate and fear true knowledge, such that you can find no better use for that wasted education than to employ it as a weapon against science and truth.

By the way, I love how you put scare quotes round the word 'science' to show us that you're so clever you've seen through all those dumb 'scientists'. Slick move, that.

What, precisely, is the process of 'removing failed hypotheses'? Does each one receive a rating from the Scientific Committee of Debunking Ideas (SCDI) and the results get posted to an online database of failed hypotheses?



I ask this because I see many debunked hypotheses that just seem to go on and on, being repeated incessantly.

In the case of the 'big bang from quantum fluctuation' vs 'the first postulate of thermodynamics', which one has failed? I would posit that the big bang from quantum fluctuation is on weaker footing but Bedlam may disagree.

I have given, in this topic thread, several examples of hypotheses that are directly contradicted by objective evidence which can be, and has been, tested. At a minimum you should speak to those examples. Arrogant indignation does not become you.

... and "scare quotes"?



Don't let anyone lull you into a true sense of security, especially when there are "scare quotes" out there...

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: chr0naut

It's a theory? Lighten up?

Still tons of unknowns out there, I was just elaborating on the other possibilities for the energy released during the 'big bang'.

But theory is so often presented as fact and used as if it was a factual basis of even more speculation.

Towers built on air...

a reply to: Astyanax

On the subject of Science, would you agree that a lot of our knowledge about the Sun can be attributed to science?

Is this part of the FB page; I #ing Love Science?

The key in this is the background radiation. It really has no other reason for being there. With it, you are forced to accommodate a model that had a huge, instantaneous energy release. "Bang" does not adequately describe what really happened, nor how it happened as well.

a reply to: chr0naut

But one of those towers possibly stands on solid ground?
Unless you believe in that God guy, then there's no hope.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Raggedyman

Really, only those who have or are entering a graduate program, really

Yes, really. Suck it up. It's the truth.

So, nobody else gets to offer anything, ask questions, comment

He didn't say that. You're free to ask any questions you wish, and to air your wondrous opinions all you like. Just be prepared to have them treated with the contempt they deserve.

Of course, I want a vicarious education just like you

I want to surrender my reason and logic to someone else because stupidity is my nature.
I just want to be told by others what to do and accept

I want to be just like you

originally posted by: GreenGunther
a reply to: chr0naut

But one of those towers possibly stands on solid ground?
Unless you believe in that God guy, then there's no hope.

Because the science un-happens, obviously, how could it be otherwise?.

originally posted by: droid56
So the whole future universe existed on less than the head of a pin.

And life wasn't present, but then there it was.

And dark energy and dark matter make up 95% of all matter but we cant see it. OK. Really?

I suspect we live in a computer simulation so all of the rules of physics do not apply.

The universe might be expanding too quickly but that might be a product of a simulation.

I agree with this. The big bang is one long series of illogical conclusions. Speculation, assumptions, etc. Even the so-called "data" (science's favorite word) on the red shift is taken to an illogical assumption. No, science has no humility and they just can't bear to admit "we just don't know." And why is this thread in Skunkworks? Why isn't the Big Bang theory relegated to a questionable status?

a reply to: chr0naut

What, precisely, is the process of 'removing failed hypotheses'? Does each one receive a rating from the Scientific Committee of Debunking Ideas (SCDI) and the results get posted to an online database of failed hypotheses?

No. You just publish your data disproving the hypothesis. Qualified others will judge your work on its merits. If it holds up, bang goes the hypothesis.

In the case of the 'big bang from quantum fluctuation' vs 'the first postulate of thermodynamics', which one has failed? I would posit that the big bang from quantum fluctuation is on weaker footing but Bedlam may disagree.

So would I. Energy can be regarded as having a sign convention. Gravity is negative in this convention; the total energy of the universe is zero. More

Pascual Jordan first suggested that since the positive energy of a star’s mass and the negative energy of its gravitational field together may have zero total energy, conservation of energy would not prevent a star being created by a quantum transition of the vacuum. George Gamow recounted putting this idea to Albert Einstein: “Einstein stopped in his tracks and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down”.

And yes, scare quotes.

Take it easy. You needn't worry: God is not debunkable.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

On the subject of Science, would you agree that a lot of our knowledge about the Sun can be attributed to science?

All the knowledge we have of the Sun that is not attributable to common, quotidian experience (and that's a hell of a lot) is, yes, derived from scientific inquiry.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I want to be just like you.

Well done, then, for judging by the way you describe me, you're a dead ringer.

That's not the way I operate. Have a good (sorry, Good) Friday.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

there are things in the 'scientific' world view that are unscientific. The gaps in our framework of knowledge have been 'filled in with crayon' and are accepted uncritically as valid, even by "scientists".

Whenever I'm starting to think (for the dozenth time) that maybe you do have something of value to contribute to the ongoing conversation on ATS, out you come with something like this.

Every word quoted above is false. Since you are evidently not a stupid person, you must know this.

It appears that your hatred and fear of science are so passionate you are ready to knowingly, maliciously traduce and misrepresent it in order to devalue it.

Let me put you straight. The gaps in our framework of knowledge are not filled in 'with crayon'. They are filled out with provisional hypotheses that fit the available facts and what we know in general.

As soon as ever these hypotheses can be tested, they are. Failed hyporheses are replaced by ones that better fit the facts. This is how human knowledge advances.

It is the nature of some hypotheses that they can never be tested directly. For obvious reasons, hypotheses about the origins of the cosmos fall into this category. They fit the facts as we know them, they pass the tests we can devise, but we can never know for sure that we are correct. There were no witnesses to the Big Bang.

Yet that does not mean, as you bluntly state, that we know nothing about it and are just drawing pictures 'in crayon'. We know plenty.

It is evident that you still carry around with you the ruins of a good education. What a shame your embrace of superstition causes to hate and fear true knowledge, such that you can find no better use for that wasted education than to employ it as a weapon against science and truth.

By the way, I love how you put scare quotes round the word 'science' to show us that you're so clever you've seen through all those dumb 'scientists'. Slick move, that.

What you've explained is basically what chr0naut was saying.

Someone said in an earlier post "science is the new religion". This is an observation I've made too.

All this talk of FACTS and IT'S BEEN PROVEN.
How do you know these facts as facts?
Because you've read them in a text book and taken them as gospel.

Look what happens when the Scientific Creation Myth comes under question.
People start thumping their text books, reciting their own dogma more zealously than the religious.