The Largest Structures in the Universe: The Great Walls - "Do They Contradict The Big Bang Theory?

Originally posted by Astyanax
We live in a universe. There is no evidence whatsoever that it is part of a complex of universes. Even if it was, such a complex of universes would not be interactive; information cannot travel from one universe to another, or they would both be the same universe.

Huh? I guess you need to revisit your assumptions! Information can flow from one universe to the other provided they are in the same dimension. If you're meaning universes in different dimensions then that's a different ball game altogether.

Now you'll ask how can there be more than one universe in the same dimension? Customarily, the universe is defined as everything that exists, has existed, and will exist. But that's according to our perception. Does this 'everything' emanate from the so called Big Bang that created OUR universe? Now the question arises, where there countless Big Bangs in this dimension, each producing a universe? So now we have space, time and matter emanating from all these 'bangs' independently, but in the same dimension.

Yes, there's no evidence of such multiple Big Bangs, but where's the incontrovertible proof of this one Big Bang that supposedly created 'everything' - our universe?

Scientists are busy inventing multiple theories to prove that there WAS a Big bang after all, but have failed. On the way they are falling over themselves inventing esoteric assumptions and theories such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes and so on and are burning midnight oil fitting mathematical equations to suit their outlandish theories!

Thanks for calling me a bloody imbecile. Have you any suggestions as to why I should not report you for it?

Report it? To Prez Obama? Which world are you living in? Get real! I appreciate your sense of humor! But of course, you don't seem to know what sarcasm is. I said all 7 billion of us (including me) are imbeciles for believing in God because it can't be proved by science. (Therefore all scientists must be atheists!!).

reply to post by OrionHunterX

Report it? To Prez Obama?

No, to the board staff. Obviously. And for all your bluster, that wriggling attempt to pretend you meant something other than an insult by the term ‘imbecile’ suggests you’re a bit worried about it, really.

Though, as you see, I didn’t. You’re safe for the time being.

Lol at Anastyaxe!

Failed in your own dreamland.

Thanks for ending an interesting thread with half baked ideas. I'll give you one thing, you're confident in your assumed knowledge, but that is also dangerous because many a person could take your confident tone to be truth. (Not mentioning scaring most of the punters away from this thread. (Less people = Less knowledge, but you'd be intelligent enough to know that already, i'm sure))

;P

Uh, can we stay on Topic and stop the personal sniping, Please !

You are free to attack theories, explanations, posts, etc. but not fellow members.

TIA

reply to post by Jbird

Thanks, JBird. I'm trying.

Aww, but we're having such fun!

Never mind, this thread died an ignorant death anyhow. Sniping was the only option left.

Tata

Originally posted by Astyanax
You’re safe for the time being.

Ah! Thanks! That was a huge relief! So, I ain't gonna be shoved in the cooler after all! Thanks to good Samaritans like you!

Originally posted by itsatrap
It has always amazed me at how arrogant scientists have become to assume that they have "figured out" the universe.

More like arrogant posters on meaningless internet forums constructing straw man arguments in order to take pot shots at a science they refuse to invest the time to understand.

Originally posted by itsatrapThe scientific culture has seemed to have forgotten that theories (like the big bang, string, and gravity) are meant to be improved upon, adapted, revised, or possibly even thrown out in the face of new data.

You seem to have forgotten to read even the most basic scientific publications (Scientific American, Discovery Magazine, etc.) These publications contain the writings of scientists saying "we don't know" in every issue.

Recently, one of the originators of the current version of inflation theory wrote in Scientific American that the theory has to be either radically changed or thrown out.

Originally posted by itsatrapBut now it seems that the culture treats theory as law and you never question it. If the data doesn't fit the theory, the data must be wrong....

For example, dark matter and dark energy are terms invented due to anomalous data that completely contradicts our understanding of gravity and the big bang. It's a clever way of saying "we have no idea what is going on out there", and what's so wrong with admitting that?

Yet observation is what led to the postulation of dark matter and dark energy.

Should we not try to describe and/or explain what has been observed?

And, every time I read about it, "science" does say "we have no idea what dark matter/dark energy is."

Originally posted by itsatrapOnly the most miniscule changes to a theory are allowed. Its a good thing galileo isn't around today, if he thought the catholic church was bad....wait til he got an eyeful of the scientific community of today. He probably wouldn't be under house arrest for his radical ideas, but he would be so ostracized that he would probably end up teaching a 4th grade science class in wisconsin! (no offense to any 4th grade science teachers, this is galileo after all)

Science has become, ironically, a religion itself. With differing theories polarizing groups like christians and muslims.

I'm not saying science is wrong, I'm just saying that it tends to act a little childish when things don't go as expected.

I suggest you spend some time trying to find out what science is actually saying rather than inventing a supposed position that science has taken.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


I agree. It always bothers me, too, when people say "scientists arrogantly think they know everything".

Science and scientist are the ones who constantly give us new theories and revisions/corrections to their old theories. If Science truly thought it had everything figured out, then they really wouldn't bother constantly working to revise old/devise new theories, would they?

Whenever a new or revised theory comes out, invariable someone says "See! Science may think it knows everything, but this new theory proves that it doesn't". However, considering that it was science itself that took all the time and energy to devise the new theory, it's obvious that science doesn't think it knows everything.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Agreed.

But what a shame (and how frustrating) that this should be the default topic into which the bulk of science-forum threads on ATS, this one included, degenerate.

You two above me help to keep things real, and if I may add a bit of a jovial response I give to those who yell at me that science is just a theory, I tell them 'The Bomb' works.

The bottom line is that in physics, quite often, a totally unexpected, new phenomenon pops up. In recent years, physicists lifted their eyebrows over dark energy, the Pioneer anomaly, the missing of the Higgs boson, the pentaquark and the suspected drift of the fundamental constants.

In other words, physicists are constantly being surprised by weird new stuff that wasn't in the theories yet.

Originally posted by itsatrap
It has always amazed me at how arrogant scientists have become to assume that they have "figured out" the universe. the data must be wrong....

Im not sure where this impression comes from since that is not what scientists are when they defend long accepted, viable, logical, retested and overall proven theories. Like the poster above said, we have alot of discoveries made that people dont seem to be interested enough in learning about to realize that scientists constantly have "wtf" moments and are in regular debates, with differing opinions on these theories that pop up. And thats also the reason people devote major chunks of their lives proving their theories and coming up with evidence that their peers couldnt throw back in their face again. The theories that dont get mainstream news are the ones that either werent proved or are still in the process of proving since, you kind of put your self and your reputation on the line as a professional if you have gaping holes in a theory you present in front of them. And especially when there are testing methods out there for those holes to be sealed up and a concise case made.