Big Bang Theory Busted? Universe Existed Before Big Bang

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017


Ahhh I love this link! lol sorry... may just be me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
The Number 12 Looks Just Like You, Numerology?

Ahhh 12 fold...

edit on 16-6-2012 by FractalChaos13242017 because: additional comment

Cool, I'm actually working with Graph Theory right now (mentioned in that link)... very interesting stuff
I've also done a lot of work with Penrose theories in my undergraduate classes as well as working on my Master's in Math. It is very interesting but takes a lot of time and effort to delve into it properly.

I guess it always goes back to one basic concept.... finite vs infinite, cyclic vs acyclic... interesting to think about anyway

Originally posted by yourmaker
The universe always has, and always will exist. forever. always eternal, in existance.

The lifeforms, and inorganic matter will always continue to evolve and eventually dissolve.

It did have a beginning and some day it will have an end. But the beginning is far older that any 14 billion years. It has not been here forever but pretty close to it. And another thing it is far bigger than they say. The 14 billion year bit comes from the fact that the universe is expanding. At that range of 14 billion light years it is expanding at greater than the speed of light. Now before you say nothing can travel faster than light so I am wrong let me explain that it doe not have to. If we are going in one direction at .50C and the edge of the universe is travaling the other direction at .51C then we have a separation speed of 1.01C so we will never see the light of anything beyond that range. I have more to say but I do not want get too far off subject which I tend to do.

reply to post by alfa1


One of many situations in which I wish I could star someone twice.

What is the universe expanding INTO?
There must be space outside of the universe which it expands into.....or does the universe keep creating even more space as it keeps exploding outwards from the big bangit.....
anybody got an idea?

Originally posted by stirling
What is the universe expanding INTO?
There must be space outside of the universe which it expands into....

The expansion is an expansion of space itself. It doesnt expand into anything, it itself is expanding.

Originally posted by stirling
....or does the universe keep creating even more space as it keeps exploding outwards from the big bang

Thats basically it, yes.

reply to post by alfa1

The expansion is an expansion of space itself. It doesnt expand into anything, it itself is expanding.

Now, here is where I have to take up the Socratic method of discussion.

It's very simple to say that space is expanding. It's an entirely different concept to explain and/or demonstrate how space can expand. This is particularly the case when you begin to take into account the known properties of gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics.

How does space expand?

For the sake of argument - presuming the Earth is in a 100% stable orbit... does that mean the Earth would move farther away from the Sun? But how can this be, seeing as it would effectively add energy to Earth's orbit?

If that is the case, doesn't it violate the first law of thermodynamics?

Or does the force of gravity somehow diminish as everything expands? If this is the case - then gravity must have been much, much stronger at the alleged beginning of the universe, no? How, then, did things begin to expand in the first place - as gravity would have been much stronger than the forces of 'dark energy?'

Thats basically it, yes.

Forgive me if I am coming off as a bit of a dick - but I find the notion overly simplistic to be a valuable scientific explanation.

It is, functionally, little different from "God is making the universe expand."

Sure - the point can be argued that God is a causal association that cannot functionally be tested by science (whereas the relationship of space and mass could, at least theoretically, be tested) - but neither really works to answer the question of how space expands.

Though I'm not too convinced space or the universe is really expanding. There are a lot of X-factors involved in taking measurements of celestial objects. We've changed the model of our solar system (particularly the fringes of it) several times since I was born (and it was a mere 23 years ago).

Recent observations of galaxies have completely turned the concept of dark matter on its head (IE - it's not playing according to our models of how it should work).

For me to question the integrity of the theory of universal/spatial expansion is a lesson taken out of history. What we think we know is exponentially larger than what we actually know. Even science has a tendency to fall victim to the illusion of knowledge. This is no more evident in the case of projects that run over budget. People think they know how much the project will cost (or, perhaps in some cases, do but decide to low-ball to receive a contract... sometimes easier to ask for forgiveness than ask permission) - but end up over-estimating their own knowledge of the program (usually by only doing a shallow analysis - for example; designing a house but neglecting to consider issues like plumbing and wiring, resulting in an expensive realization mid-construction... or considering plumbing without considering septic systems... the list goes on but we often assume familiarity equals understanding).

Which is why I like to be the annoying kid who asks why until threatened with homicide.

reply to post by Aim64C


The way it was explained to me is that not only is space expanding, the expansion is speeding up. The only reason the Earth keeps its orbit is because the gravity of the Sun is strong enough to pull the Earth through the expansion towards the Sun. Like if you glue a bunch of pennies to a balloon and blow up the balloon. The pennies don't get any bigger. Only the balloon does. Gravity is also what holds the planet itself together.

Mathematically you could make a case that the Sun is pulling the earth closer towards it, but the expansion happens at just the right speed to counter act that so we don't really move. But that would be too simplistic and isn't really accurate, but it gives the general idea.

Some calculations show the solar system has moved a super small amount away from the Sun due to the expansion but it's not really measurable yet.

However, some believe that eventually the expansion could speed up enough that it would overtake the force of "large" gravity causing the solar system to move away from the Sun. Except it wouldn't really be moving. It's in the same spot. The space between the Earth and the Sun would just be expanding faster than gravity can cancel it out. This would be like if the pennies actually starting getting bigger until they fell apart.

This would be a long time from now and humans probably won't be around anymore. But if they were, from our point of view it would appear as if the solar system started moving away from the Sun and fell apart.

Now to the thermodynamics question and adding energy to the Earth? Wouldn't this violate the laws of thermodynamics? Actually no, because the Earth wouldn't actually be moving. It'd be stuck in the same exact spot. It's the space between the Earth and the Sun that would actually be growing larger. And since space has no mass, the energy required could be explain by something like a quantum foam or zero point energy or whatever. Take your pick here.

Then long long after even that the expansion could become so fast that the space between atoms and sub-atomic particles expands enough that even they can't hold together anymore. And all matter would just fall apart and you'd just have empty space really.

A membrane collision would produce concentric rigs I believe. Just like an impact on any decently malleable surface.

This could account for both the concentric rings and their different locations. . . . Pre-big bang/beginning physics is the razors edge front line of theoretical physics.

Quantum fluctuations and the void itself conspire to create virtual particle from the vacuum all the time. A larger fluctuation could give rise to expanding bubble in space which expands to a universal size.

My money is on Andrei Linde and eternal inflation. Spontaneous creation from fluctuations in the vacuum/void/hyperspace....

No big bang just eternal inflation all over the "bulk space" all the time.

Linde compares it to swiss cheese. Not a bad analogy.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Like if you glue a bunch of pennies to a balloon and blow up the balloon. The pennies don't get any bigger. Only the balloon does. Gravity is also what holds the planet itself together.

The better explanation I've seen is to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon with a marker. The dots grow at the same ratio as the rest of the balloon. Which is more in line with the theory.

It's kind of like how the internet is like a series of tubes... space is like a balloon.....

Some calculations show the solar system has moved a super small amount away from the Sun due to the expansion but it's not really measurable yet.

So... where do the calculations come from if this can't be measured?

However, some believe that eventually the expansion could speed up enough that it would overtake the force of "large" gravity causing the solar system to move away from the Sun. Except it wouldn't really be moving. It's in the same spot.

So, it's like a sitcom? A lot of things happen but nothing is ever going on; the series spans years but the end is the same as the beginning?

The space between the Earth and the Sun would just be expanding faster than gravity can cancel it out. This would be like if the pennies actually starting getting bigger until they fell apart.

But they aren't really moving or getting farther apart, right?

So, if they aren't really moving... aren't really getting farther apart... then why would gravity or subatomic forces behave any differently?

Now to the thermodynamics question and adding energy to the Earth? Wouldn't this violate the laws of thermodynamics? Actually no, because the Earth wouldn't actually be moving. It'd be stuck in the same exact spot.

The distance between two gravitational bodies is directly proportional to an amount of relative kinetic energy potential (presuming a stationary object - giving one object or the other velocity just adds energy and assigns it a vector that will be determinate in how/when that energy is released upon collision). How can the distance increase without summarily increasing the amount of energy potential between the two bodies?

It's the space between the Earth and the Sun that would actually be growing larger. And since space has no mass, the energy required could be explain by something like a quantum foam or zero point energy or whatever. Take your pick here.

What does quantum foam or zero point energy have to do with space expanding between two objects (without really expanding?)

Then long long after even that the expansion could become so fast that the space between atoms and sub-atomic particles expands enough that even they can't hold together anymore. And all matter would just fall apart and you'd just have empty space really.

Now here is where things get interesting. How do subatomic particles get driven apart? Oddly enough - we understand most subatomic forces better than we understand gravity. Quantum mechanics more or less establishes information and energy to be equivalents - the idea derived from the idea that there was a minimum quantifiable amount of energy - a discrete 'packet,' or 'bit,' if you will.

Based on this 'minimum energy' concept, a number of units of measure, called the Planck Scale, have been developed.

How does this mysterious expansion affect such an interconnected system calculated from direct observations of the principles of quantum mechanics? Everything in the planck scale is based off of the observed properties of light - both its velocity and the properties of a photon.

How does space arbitrarily expand without a force or force carrier?

Or... perhaps more importantly.... what the hell is space?

reply to post by Aim64C

The better explanation I've seen is to draw a bunch of dots on a balloon with a marker. The dots grow at the same ratio as the rest of the balloon. Which is more in line with the theory.

The point of changing the dots to pennies was to show the difference between speeds. If the expansion is slow enough, it's like pennies, they don't expand with space because their gravity holds them together. If it gets fast enough it's more like the dots and the dots will start to expand with the space as well.

So... where do the calculations come from if this can't be measured?

Some computer model that might be complete BS. You can measure the expansion between two galaxies. They move away from each other faster than planets move away from their suns. They're far enough away from each other that the expansion can be measured.

So this theoretically allows you to figure out a rate of expansion. Then you take that rate of expansion and throw in the gravity at the solar system level. Then calculate how much expansion the solar system is experiencing minus gravity basically.

When do you come back with a really small number. Since it's far too small to measure there's no way to make sure the model is correct yet, but the point is it predicts what we observe and explains maybe how planets keep their orbit in space while its expanding. Maybe, after all it's just a model and they're not always accurate.

So, if they aren't really moving... aren't really getting farther apart... then why would gravity or subatomic forces behave any differently?

Because they are getting farther apart. They just aren't moving, but yet they still end up farther apart. Strange. Anyway the space between them expands and literally grows larger. Both objects are in the same space, but now there's more space between the two objects. One of the most important factors in gravity is the space or distance between two objects. The more space between you and another object the less effect gravity has on you. So there should be less potential energy between them. Losing energy wouldn't violate thermodynamics.

What does quantum foam or zero point energy have to do with space expanding between two objects (without really expanding?)

Nobody knows where the energy to make space expands come from. They call it dark energy, which really means, we have no idea. The point is that since space has no mass it takes far less energy to make it expand then it would say a planet. But where that energy comes from, no one knows. I was just saying until they figure it out, everyone gets to make their own guess I guess

How do subatomic particles get driven apart?

Well they don't really get driven apart themselves. But the space between two sub-atomic particles would just grow larger. What happens to an individual particle I have no idea. But the idea is that each particle gets farther and farther away from other particles (somehow without moving). That eventually you'd just have single sub-atomic particles floating around in empty space all alone too far away from each other to interact.

How does space arbitrarily expand without a force or force carrier?

They claim there is a force. They just don't know what the force is. They refer to it as dark energy. But nobody claims that it happens with no energy or force behind it.

Or... perhaps more importantly.... what the hell is space?

I don't know, it's just empty space.

reply to post by tinfoilman

Some computer model that might be complete BS. You can measure the expansion between two galaxies. They move away from each other faster than planets move away from their suns. They're far enough away from each other that the expansion can be measured.

Why couldn't the galaxies just be moving apart?

Why is magically expanding space required?

Because they are getting farther apart. They just aren't moving, but yet they still end up farther apart. Strange.

By what manner does the distance between two objects grow without either of the two objects moving?

Anyway the space between them expands and literally grows larger.

And a rocket launches a man to the moon.

Everything is simple on the surface.

Both objects are in the same space, but now there's more space between the two objects.

How can objects be in the same space if space is continually expanding, even inside a classic object?

The more space between you and another object the less effect gravity has on you. So there should be less potential energy between them. Losing energy wouldn't violate thermodynamics.

This is incorrect. Placing distance between you and a massive object requires the input of energy because of the continuous acceleration gravity affords. A ball dropped five feet above the ground has less energy than a ball dropped six hundred feet from the ground (particularly if you take away terminal velocity restrictions within an atmosphere).

Nobody knows where the energy to make space expands come from. They call it dark energy, which really means, we have no idea.

When people of religious faith do this, they are ridiculed and inferred to be quaint.

The point is that since space has no mass it takes far less energy to make it expand then it would say a planet.

Space has less mass?

Is space a mere metric... or is it a physical entity?

But where that energy comes from, no one knows. I was just saying until they figure it out, everyone gets to make their own guess I guess

Surely someone has some kind of a model or something that speculates as to the forces involved - better than just "dark energy does it" and forgets to factor in Einstein equations along with quantum mechanics implications.

What happens to an individual particle I have no idea. But the idea is that each particle gets farther and farther away from other particles (somehow without moving).

Functionally, how is that any different from the forces, themselves, weakening?

Is space expanding... or are the fundamental forces decaying in potency?

They claim there is a force. They just don't know what the force is. They refer to it as dark energy. But nobody claims that it happens with no energy or force behind it.

Wouldn't such force carriers have been detected in particle accelerators by now? If they are so prevalent and have an influence on all known mass...?

I don't know, it's just empty space.

?

If space is empty... then what's beyond our universe?

If that is also empty, then what makes it different from space?

If there is no difference - then how can an effectively infinite expanse expand?

Often, in science, life, and other exploits; we find ourselves with the desire to jump to conclusions we cannot even really begin to realize are beyond our comprehension. Yet, our desire for an answer presses us into the illusion that we know many things we do not.

Until we can actually define what space is... is it not very ignorant to proclaim space is expanding? It's like saying a RAID array will deter computer bugs (you do, after all, use RAID to kill various insect pests).

Even if you don't know much about computers - you're probably finding that claim suspect, and think the claim is both ignorant and misleading..

Of course - there's a facet of truth to it. The correct RAID setup will reduce hard drive read and/or write errors.... though that's not going to noticeably improve your user experience (unless you are doing research or server work... in which case - you probably know what you're doing to begin with).

According to the people that came up with this theory. There is nothing beyond the universe. The universe is infinite. Goes on and on forever and you never get to an edge. There is no edge. When it expands it expands into itself. Every place in space is expanding.

Some people thought the galaxies were moving away from each other, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Imagine if I'm moving away from something in front of me. That means I would be moving towards what's behind me. But that's not what you see with galaxies.

When they look at the galaxies they see the middle galaxy getting farther away from the one in front of it AND the one behind it. There's just some how more space between the two. Somehow a galaxy in the center of a whole bunch of galaxies can somehow move away from all of them at the same time without getting closer to other ones. It just looks like there's more space.

And like I said nobody said it didn't take energy. It does take energy. As for the dark energy thing, and dark matter as well. That's scientists for you. I guess they get to get away with things religious people don't. I guess it's okay when they do it right?

reply to post by tinfoilman

According to the people that came up with this theory. There is nothing beyond the universe. The universe is infinite. Goes on and on forever and you never get to an edge. There is no edge.

Then what's beyond the hazy depths of the edge of the visible universe? From their position... what is beyond the edge of their visible universe (along the same vector)?

When it expands it expands into itself. Every place in space is expanding.

You do realize that this is simply repeating the concept, right?

Some people thought the galaxies were moving away from each other, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Imagine if I'm moving away from something in front of me. That means I would be moving towards what's behind me. But that's not what you see with galaxies.

Unless what is behind you is moving.

According to the theory - we're still debris in an explosion of epic proportions. Why is the observation of many galaxies moving away from each other shocking?

Of course - one must wonder what the collision with Andromeda in something like 4 billion years says about the idea that everything is so universally moving away from everything else.

When they look at the galaxies they see the middle galaxy getting farther away from the one in front of it AND the one behind it. There's just some how more space between the two. Somehow a galaxy in the center of a whole bunch of galaxies can somehow move away from all of them at the same time without getting closer to other ones. It just looks like there's more space.

These are not direct measurements of distance (which could be done using a metered travel or triangulation). They are inferred from data regarding red-shifted spectra. Due to the capability of many gasses and other such substances to attenuate light (as well as gravitational forces) - one must be cautious regarding the inference of intergalactic metrics.

Here's an interesting read: www.datasync.com...

In quantum mechanics, the wavelengths of emission or absorption lines in spectral series are proportional to the inverse fourth power of the unit electrical charge If electrical charge in a given region of space is different than locally then we should expect to see all of the spectral elements from that region to be shifted in a systematic manner. (The fine-structure constant, which is proportional to the fourth power of the unit electrical charge, may also come into play here. This is because the internal spacing of individual lines within spectral multiplets is proportional to the fine structure constant.) An observed set of redshifted lines thus becomes an indirect measure of the ambient ... matter density in the source's region of space. [The word local was replaced by ambient on 14 Apr 2007.] (See the redshift derivation in Figure 4.)

And like I said nobody said it didn't take energy. It does take energy.

Then where does it come from?

What propagates the force or otherwise transfers the energy?

These are some fairly basic questions.

As for the dark energy thing, and dark matter as well. That's scientists for you. I guess they get to get away with things religious people don't. I guess it's okay when they do it right?

No. Because it's not science at that point. It's an idea backed by faith.

While a human instinct - it is not a function of science.

I see the big bang theory and many theories of cosmological development for what they are: misplaced religious instincts.

It is irresponsible for science to back or even entertain most of these theories on a grand scale until they can even so much as offer a mathematical model in which the known universe interacts with their theory. Currently, they buffer this interaction of the known and hypothetical with magic and phantasms.

Which is the point I was trying to make. The concept of the theories is very simple to explain. The mechanics of these theories don't even exist to explain. We simply substitute familiarity with the concept for understanding of the mechanics it entails.

Saying "space expands" is easy. We can simply imagine a line growing larger, or two things drifting apart.

Explaining how this is functionally separate from classical motion (two objects on diverging vectors) and proposing even the most basic of models for how this might happen within the idealized structures of mathematics is a completely different ordeal.

reply to post by Aim64C

Then what's beyond the hazy depths of the edge of the visible universe? From their position... what is beyond the edge of their visible universe (along the same vector)?

According to modern day thinking? More space that's also expanding lol.

Unless what is behind you is moving.

According to the theory - we're still debris in an explosion of epic proportions. Why is the observation of many galaxies moving away from each other shocking?

Of course - one must wonder what the collision with Andromeda in something like 4 billion years says about the idea that everything is so universally moving away from everything else.

That's what I said. Andromeda is blue shifted meaning it's getting closer. But they say that Andromeda is close enough for gravity to cancel the expansion. But as you get farther away, all galaxies start to universally red shift away from us. That's not what you would see from a universal explosion. After all, the big bang had no center point. The entire infinite universe banged all over at the same time.

See things aren't universally moving away from us. Things in space MOVE all directions. Some move towards us, some move away. But when space expands it has nothing to do with anything moving. It's actually the space itself that expands. It's not the galaxies moving like particles in an explosion.

The reason they claim this is because they need space to be expanding to explain some things. How things appear to have moved faster than the speed of light. Why they're speeding up. Particles from an explosion in space either slow down due to gravity, or stay the same speed due to inertia. But the galaxies that are moving away from us are getting faster. They also need this to explain why the gravity of all the matter hasn't contracted back to a single point.

But most importantly they need this to explain the red shift of the far galaxies. If it was just like particles in an explosion then not only would Andromeda be blue shifted, but far away galaxies would be as well. Some galaxies would be moving towards us and be blue shifted, and some would be moving away and be red shifted. And it wouldn't matter how far away from us they are.

But that's not what we see. Instead, once you get far enough away. Everything is universally red shifted. And the farther away a galaxy is the more it's red shifted. This doesn't make any sense. We know some of those galaxies have to be moving towards us even if they're really far away. So. why are they all red shifted?

So to explain why the blue shift isn't showing up, they invented the expansion of space. That even though far off galaxies are moving towards us, well space obviously must be expanding faster than they're moving towards us. So even though they're moving towards us, they're actually still getting farther away somehow. Space must be expanding. Tada! now we know why our blue shift machine is broken? Get it?

Here's some links on the topic anyway.
The expanding universe
Blue shifted galaxy

No. Because it's not science at that point.

Try telling that to the scientists.

reply to post by tinfoilman

According to modern day thinking? More space that's also expanding lol.

I'm into intelligent thought processes.

That's what I said. Andromeda is blue shifted meaning it's getting closer.

This is a possible but dangerous assumption.

All blue and red shift means is that you are encountering emissions at a different frequency than what you believe they were emitted at (locally).

Gravity, at least according to relativity, has the same effect. Light from a black hole doesn't necessarily need to be trapped so much as red-shifted to such a degree that even gamma radiation is emitted as decimals of hertz - and we'd never detect it.

So I'm somewhat cautious of such universal red and blue shift being the product of spatial expansion.

But they say that Andromeda is close enough for gravity to cancel the expansion.

I say it's because the two happen to be on intercepting vectors. Not mutually exclusive ideas... but two completely different contexts.

That's not what you would see from a universal explosion. After all, the big bang had no center point. The entire infinite universe banged all over at the same time.

This is incorrect. The Big Bang theory stemmed from the observation of 'universal' red-shifting and postulated that, since everything was moving away from everything else - it all could be tracked back to a central starting location that started as a burst of energy so intense that current physics doesn't even begin to address the energy levels and mechanics of the first several million years of the universe's existence.

Other theories contend that parallel universes could have collided 'membranes' that have given rise to the universe (and this might actually be a better explanation of the matter-dominated universe as well as explain the galactic super-clusters and the filament - like distribution of galaxies/clusters).

Of course - both theories require you to operate off of different assumptions to accept them as true.

The reason they claim this is because they need space to be expanding to explain some things.

Like spirituality is required to explain why people live.

One's considered primitive and quaint. The other is considered progress.

Explain to me what the functional difference is.

How things appear to have moved faster than the speed of light.

But the universe "banged into existence" all at once. Nothing needs to have moved faster than the speed of light unless it all had a central origin.

You have to accept one argument or the other. Not both.

Why they're speeding up. Particles from an explosion in space either slow down due to gravity, or stay the same speed due to inertia.

Except in supernovae.

Which is where the observation was first made.

I watched a lot of discovery channel as a kid. I'm not asking you for my benefit. I'm probing your own understanding of the subject.

But the galaxies that are moving away from us are getting faster.

Specious reasoning at best. The technology and data first measured was, at most, 50 years old. Detecting such a minor spatial expansion in galactic data over the course of a mere 50 years is technologically infeasible.

The inference is made because objects that are farther away tend to have a deeper red shift - which is assumed to mean a greater velocity (and it's presumed that all of this correlates to an accelerating rate of spatial expansion). Though this is merely an inference - light may naturally red-shift itself over time and distance. The presumption is that a beam of light places entropy on hold, but light has been 'coaxed' to travel faster than the speed of light - perhaps space normally causes it to stretch out (red shift) due to entropy. Energy is conserved but at the consequence of power.

Of course... they aren't really moving away from us - they are moving in all different directions (so they can't be moving away from us faster due to spatial expansion).

Exercise a little house-keeping in your presentation.

They also need this to explain why the gravity of all the matter hasn't contracted back to a single point.

But I thought it didn't all expand from a single point!

If matter didn't start from a single point - then this point goes right out the window. If matter did start from a single point - then there is no reason to believe the force of the "big bang" was insufficient to lead to the current trajectories observed today; gravity be damned.

And I'm about out of room.... May continue this later - but I think I'm fairly well making my point, here.

reply to post by Aim64C


Well gravity doesn't require anything to start at a center point to cause it to be pulled into a center point. Like the matter that was attracted together to make the planet Earth. Doesn't mean it had to start out as a planet that blew up first and then gravity pulled it back together. Gravity will pull matter together regardless of what the matter's origin point was. Even if it didn't originate at a single point doesn't mean gravity wouldn't cause it to ball up into a planet or a black hole or whatever.

But whatever, It's not even my theory and it sounds sorta crazy to me. I was just saying that's what the scientists are going around telling people nowadays about how space expands. Like I'm not saying space literally expands. I wouldn't know and wouldn't be the person to ask. I don't even care. I'm saying that's what they're saying and just repeating what they're saying.

To debate it further you probably have to take it up with scientists that actually believe in such things as dark energy and dark matter and what not like the guy in that video I posted. I myself have never seen any dark matter nor dark energy. So I could care less about proving it's real. I wouldn't have the slightest idea. All I'm saying is they assure me it's real and that space expands. If that's not true you better get on em lol.

reply to post by tinfoilman

If that's not true you better get on em lol.

There is always an illusion of consensus among 'scientists.' It really doesn't start to make sense until you begin dissecting the nature of different fields. Every field has its researchers - the people who think up an experiment or study, conduct, and analyze it. There are many researchers dedicated to different segments of the same field. For example - geneticists will conduct a very wide range of experiments and studies (on the whole). Each of these very narrow fields of interest are highly contested.

Take the debate over Polynesian descent - only recently brought to a close by evidence of mitochondrial DNA. Or of European descent and the propagation of farming.

For the longest time - people thought that the hunter/gatherers in Europe had been replaced by farmers of the Neolithic era. A sort of "foreign invasion" that the hunters were incapable of fending against. Archeologists largely agreed upon this idea, and many other 'scientists' of related fields but unrelated study also agreed.

Until mitochondrial DNA was analyzed - and it found that the vast majority of Europeans are of mitochondrial DNA lines that date back to the paleolithic era. Meaning that the hunter-gatherers adapted and learned to farm rather than an invading population coming in to completely replace them.

The contention of ideas is largely missed by the general public. It's not surprising - but also somewhat to the detriment of Science. People, even very smart people, will tend to be coaxed into believing that an idea is far better supported by evidence than it actually is (because it is in their field - but not in their study).

Mmm...
Well i guess the old saying goes both ways....

"Science works in mysterious ways"