PDA

View Full Version : Controversial Science?


xclassicxvx
6th-October-2013, 08:07 AM
I came across an article through an INTP forum member concerning an alternative to the Big Bang Theory called the Steady State Theory. I have read and researched the theory and have heard those endorsing it and the reasons for its downfall. I cannot say that I support the theory even a bit for its lack of evidence and the self proclaimed iconoclasm of its supporters. I was simply wondering what many of you had to say about it and some debate on the two opposing theory's.

Supporting it:
http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=65

History of why it is no longer in use:
http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/bigbang.htm

just george
6th-October-2013, 09:19 AM
I think that they're both wrong.

The main problem I have with the big bang theory is that something came out of nothing, all at once, then all physical laws came into being that no one can break without being labelled a heretic. It simply makes no sense.

The other thing that I do not like about the big bang theory is that it views the universe as a strictly newtonian physical construct, where the only forms of matter are the ones that we know of (electromagnetic radiation, and the particles that we are aware of, that only interact in ways that we understand - irradiation, heating/cooling, colliding, fusing, fissioning etc)

I think that that sort of thinking is hugely arrogant, given that the entire electromagnetic spectrum is a tiny fraction of what is, and we have only been seriously studying this stuff for a couple hundred years out of the billions upon billions of years that the universe has probably been around.

The static universe theory has the same flaw, in that again, we have the continuous creation of matter to balance things out, so that you have old stars/galaxies being mixed with new stars/galaxies. Where did the new galaxies come from? Where is that energy come from? What is this, lots of mini big bangs happening all the time? So it's miracle after miracle, utterly annihilating the supposed laws of thermodynamics.

Then both of these clown troupes start talking about the background microwave radiation detected uniformly, and how its existence proves one and disproves the other.

If the steady state people are right, and there is a constant creation of matter, then the new matter would emit microwave radiation from those blobs of new matter, meaning that the background radiation would not be uniform. Fair enough, that makes sense, from a newtonian standpoint, because you don't get uniform radiation from multiple sources, and so steady state can't be true.

But this idea that the microwave radiation is "left over" from the big bang, and is bounced around by cosmic dust so that it is uniform when we measure it - what a load of crap. Anyone who has shone a torch through a dusty room knows that while light bounces around, it is definitely not uniform at every point in the room.

So the big bang people use the microwave radiation theory to disprove solid state, and by elimination, it means that the miracle of matter from nothing must therefore be true, even though it makes no sense at all.

Oh and by the way, amidst all this, we have multiple dimensions being proven to exist mathematically, and an abundance of "dark matter" that makes up most of the universe, even though we can't see it or interact with it properly at all.

What I think is going on is that there are processes of energy/matter transmutation happening around us that we don't understand, coming from directions that we cannot imagine (because the source might be in another dimension).

Further, I think that it is insulting that no one has said the obvious - that the microwave radiation is coming from space itself, because space is not the empty void we have been taught it is, and rather, a super dense, super fine fluid, the distortions in which actually make up all matter as part of a cymatic aetheric construct - which, by the way, Walter Russell was alluding to a hundred and something years ago when he said that the universe was harmonic in nature, was split into a physical and spiritual side, and then went on to accurately predict dozens of elements perfectly that had neither been imagined nor discovered.

The other thing that stinks is that we assume that the universe acts the way all matter does, newtonianly, when it expands and contracts ie when something expands, it cools down, and when it contracts, it heats up. Why? Why must this still be true in the magic universe where things magically appear with a bang? Doesn't it make sense that heat and cold may be regarded as relative, and that the rules of physics change as you move into different parts of the universe, where maybe matter can get bigger while not actually changing temperature or breaking apart?

The theory of gravity sucks as well. Einstein said that gravitational waves exist, and that gravity is a field that depends solely on mass. Yeah well when you get a bunch of atoms spinning in natural conjugated pairs and split them so that they are monoatomic, they suddenly become super conductors at room temperature. Then, when you heat them up, they change in mass. Then, if you keep heating them up, they disappear completely - they don't burn and float away, they don't conjugate with anything, they just flat out disappear.

So not only does the whole disappearing trick lob the second law of thermodynamics straight into the bin, since matter plus energy should equal more energy or more matter, but certainly not cancel both out, but the mass changes. Doesn't that therefore imply that gravity is not a wave, but rather, a relative interaction between matter according to phase, meaning that it is a gravitational effect, not a field?

You know what I think? Some dudes a long time ago like Einstein came up with a bullshit theory that everyone promptly wrote into textbooks, turning mere men into Science Gods.

Then everyone since has spent their career trying to look good by agreeing with Einsten and his Science Apostles so that they could score a grant and a professorship, while in the meantime, hardly anyone has had the balls to declare the bleeding obvious which is that Holy Einstein and all the professors who fawn after him, who have spent their lives and hundreds of billions of dollars chasing after imaginary particles postulated by the Science Pantheon, are completely full of superdense crap.

To make things worse, anyone with a jot of common sense, who says in even the quietest voice "hey fellas, how about we look at this from scratch with a fresh eye" is shouted down for being a heretic, by bearded old men with bleary eyes and too many letters after their names that they weren't born with, who shake their walking frames at them and threaten to burn down their houses and run over their dogs with the Model T they bought new.

Science died when Tesla did.

Rook
6th-October-2013, 09:36 AM
How do we know that the universe came from nothing? We can not know for certain what came before the singularity (supposing the big bang theory is correct), so dismissing the theory on the basis of it being improbable that something came from nothing is irratinal. Your further refutations are quite interesting, though. This deserves further study, and it would be quite interesting if one could create a consistent theory out of these posits.

just george
6th-October-2013, 10:22 AM
How do we know that the universe came from nothing? We can not know for certain what came before the singularity (supposing the big bang theory is correct), so dismissing the theory on the basis of it being improbable that something came from nothing is irratinal. Your further refutations are quite interesting, though. This deserves further study, and it would be quite interesting if one could create a consistent theory out of these posits.

Have you read the big bang theory? My God.

These guys say "in the beginning, there was a singularity, of tiny, tiny volume"

So you say "where did that come from?" and they say "we don't know, shut up!"

They continue on and say "then, there was a big bang! and it all started expanding really quickly, with lots of hot matter going in all directions!"

so you say "why did it go bang?" and they say "we don't know, shut up!"

They continue on and say "then, everything cooled down very rapidly!"

so you say "why did it cool down?" and they say "we don't know, shut up!"

They continue on and say "and the matter cooled to form simple atomic nuclei in the first three minutes"

so then you say "Hang on, haaaaaaang on a second...so you don't know what the stuff that expanded was...and you don't know where it came from...and you don't know why it went bang...and you don't know why it cooled down very rapidly...but you DO know that in exactly 3 minutes later it formed simple atomic nuclei?"

and they say "yes. It's a fact."

I dunno, dude. I'm not a physicist, but for some reason, I want to ask if these guys are from Nigeria or something

TheHabitatDoctor
6th-October-2013, 10:27 AM
This particular topic is extremely iffy because it's so borderline between science and philosophy. Regardless, my quick input before I must leave for work (and then, of course, peruse OP's links):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q71/1380757_509253729169668_98240076_n.jpg

*EDIT: I believe I was involved in said thread (several months ago), and if so, let me state that my understanding has tweaked a bit since then.

Ada
6th-October-2013, 10:36 AM
^ now I wonder why I bother typing all this

There seems to be a requirement for a 'conscious' being in order to collapse wave-functions, thereby making something exist in 'reality'. IF the big bang occurred, then at some point in time, everything was subject to the predictions of quantum mechanics, but because everything will be in the quantum state, and as far as we know, elementary particles do not possess a consciousness which means everything was in a state of superposition?

Following this argument, at what point did 'consciousness' appear and start collapsing wave-function? Is the concept of a Singularity flawed because of this (an alternate to the usual point representing a singularity is changing it to a bowl-shape)?

The stuff they teach you is mainstream knowledge. Theoretical physics gives you more room. Many, many proposed models out there can answer your questions. But are they indicative of the reality based on observation?

Thurlor
6th-October-2013, 02:42 PM
Based on all of my reading I'd have to say the Big Bang Theory seems the most likely.

Thurlor
6th-October-2013, 02:52 PM
@ just george

The main problem I have with the big bang theory is that something came out of nothing, all at once, then all physical laws came into being that no one can break without being labelled a heretic. It simply makes no sense.

Wouldn't that class as an Argument from Personal Incredulity? Because you don't understand it it can't possibly be true?

If you were a physicist or a cosmologist I might be willing to except what your saying, but as it is you just seem to be disagreeing with everything.

Aren't you being arrogant by requiring a theory to be understood by you before the world can accept it?

xclassicxvx
6th-October-2013, 08:32 PM
The Big Bang Theory doesn't posit the idea that anything came nothing, it simply states that we can predict the universes's conception to this specific point, anything beyond that is unknown. You're using some of the same arguments against this that fundamentalist Christians use when trying to prove creationism. The fact is, we do not know how or why the Big Bang happened, that isn't to say that we won't ever know, It is that we do not have the evidence that can show this.

redbaron
6th-October-2013, 09:26 PM
@xclassicvx

Pick up a copy of 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss. It's a great comprehensive introduction and explanation to the history of research in theoretical astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology. It will give you a lot of the answers you're after, and will point you in the right direction in terms of being able to track down the studies.

Wouldn't that class as an Argument from Personal Incredulity? Because you don't understand it it can't possibly be true?

Yep.

just george
6th-October-2013, 09:30 PM
@ just george

Wouldn't that class as an Argument from Personal Incredulity? Because you don't understand it it can't possibly be true?

Nope. I understand the theory. I just think it sucks. It's a bunch of guesses strung together with cherry picked data. I prefer the cymatic aetheric theory, because a lot more phenomena is compatible with that, than the big bang.


If you were a physicist or a cosmologist I might be willing to except what your saying, but as it is you just seem to be disagreeing with everything.

If you accepted my word because I went to a university and learned from another guy who learned a wrong theory from another guy who learned a wrong theory who learned the wrong theory from another guy, then I would suggest that you have too much faith in experts.

Plenty of professional physicists and cosmologists don't agree with the big bang theory. If it makes you feel better, accept their word over mine.


Aren't you being arrogant by requiring a theory to be understood by you before the world can accept it?

The world can accept whatever it likes. I think my own thoughts. They've been looking for gravity waves for a hundred years, and the "god particle" for half that. Still no love. I think that is because their model of the universe is fundamentally wrong.

I especially love the "strong force" :D

me: "why do two protons stay so close together if the repulsive force between them is astronomically large?"

smart physicist: "because there's a strong force holding them together"

me: "um...why does the strong force happen?"

smart physicist: "because if it didn't, the atom would come flying apart, and since atoms don't do that, it must exist!"

me: "uhhhh...how old is the universe?"

smart physicist: "between 20 and 30 billion years, give or take a few billion"

me: "um, that isn't very precise. I mean, that's ten billion years...it's quite a long time"

smart physicist: "errors like this happen because things happened such a long time ago, we can't be sure"

me: "and how long did it take for simple atomic nuclei to form after the big bang, 20 or 30 billion years ago give or take a few billion?"

smart physicist: "exactly 3 minutes"

:ahh04:

Thurlor
7th-October-2013, 01:24 AM
OMG

This is like listening to a creationist.

redbaron
7th-October-2013, 02:49 AM
Nope. I understand the theory.

Nope. You don't.

They've been looking for gravity waves for a hundred years, and the "god particle" for half that. Still no love.

The higgs-boson (god particle) has been found. The reason it took so long is because they needed the LHC to do it - and it didn't take long once they built it to then find it.

Kind of speaks to the fact that the models are really quite accurate, given that they managed to theoretically predict the existence of the Higgs-boson some 50 years ago, well before the LHC was established.

Similar to the concept of the Schwarzschild Radius being predicted theoretically well before the concept of black holes arose and was verified - because they had an accurate predictive model of reality.

Or do you doubt the existence of black holes also? :rolleyes:

smart physicist: "between 20 and 30 billion years, give or take a few billion"

For quite a while now the estimated age of the universe has been 13.72 billion years. Before that it varied between 12 and 14 billion.

Quite plainly, if someone said it was '20 or 30' billion years, they were misinformed about the big bang theory. Even if it was a physicist who said it, it makes no difference to the theory - he was simply wrong - which still holds no relevance to whether or not the big bang theory is wrong.

The Introvert
7th-October-2013, 03:17 AM
Regardless of who is actually right or who is actually wrong,someone that dismisses another's critique as 'simple-minded' or foolish (if taken in legitimate scientific context) is completely missing the point of science or philosophy in the first place.

I agree with George simply because he has his own opinion, has expressed it well and efficiently, and acknowledges that there's a definite amount of uncertainty that must exist in any scientific premise if we wish not to turn out arrogant and ignorant assholes.

redbaron
7th-October-2013, 04:38 AM
Regardless of who is actually right or who is actually right or wrong in the first place, someone that dismisses another's critique as 'simple-minded' or foolish (if taken in legitimate scientific context) is completely missing the point of science or philosophy in the first place.

No. Philosophy maybe, scientifically - no. If an idea is presented without evidence, it's dismissed without evidence. If someone states how the big bang theory is wrong, based on their incomplete and incorrect knowledge of the big bang theory, and presents absolutely no tangible evidence that displays why it is wrong - it's missing the point of science to NOT dismiss it on that basis.

There's a definite amount of uncertainty that must exist in any scientific premise if we wish not to turn out arrogant and ignorant assholes.

Uncertainty is fine. It is both accepted and expected in science. Outright distortion of fact to support your arguments is not. Big bang theory does not place the universe at 20 or 30 billion years old, it's 13.72 billion and the margin of error has never been on the order of 10 billion years as JG has said.

The Higgs-Boson (god particle) has also been found, completely invalidating JG's reasoning that it's because the 'models of reality are inaccurate' on that basis.

If it's arrogant of me to point out what the scientific theories ACTUALLY propose, in response to people misrepresenting them completely - so be it.

I'm not bothering with Strong force because not really relevant, but honestly it was just as much a distortion as the rest.

Can we stop with the pseudoscience now?

The Introvert
7th-October-2013, 05:07 AM
Sorry. My comments, although directed at you, stemmed more from personal issues I've been having with people irl recently about this same thing. Your comments didn't necessitate my reaction, and I apologize. After reading through again, I realize that you didn't say anything out of order, and in fact were in the right.

Thurlor
7th-October-2013, 05:25 AM
This is all reminiscent of creationists bagging the crap out of evolution. Generally those that deride a theory don't understand it.