It took many years for geologists to admit that continental drift was real after a single man attempted to show them. In some instances like Einsteins General Relativity, it was rather quickly adopted. Much of this has to do with the immediacy of review and simplicity of expression, but no small amount tends towards pride. It's not a single scientist who can't say they're wrong. It's the pillars that hold up existing egos within the scientific community that battle tooth and nail to keep their reputation - sometimes in the face of better science, because it's not facts it's observable outcomes from testable hypotheses that refine or redefine what we know to appear true.
I have to say I love my fellow blades. I expected to be flamed posting this, but i am delightful more minds are privy to this nonscience.
Its just like a geocentric system. Our tools and equipment will continue to advance which will help expand the expansive scope of our science and understanding of the world around us.
He is intelligent to some degree, sure. And i am merely shooting down nonscience being touted about, as if we have figured it all out minus some minor details. I watched a few Cosmos before i became disenchanted but I saw nothing about opening minds and possibilities. I truly love science and i feel strongly against nonscience being teached to theae young people. There is nothing more frustrating than having to unlearn most of what you thought you knew. Its been the story of my life, so if i can help a few people before they waste more of their life learning thinga that arent true. By that i mean things that are known to be false. Erasing the BBM from physics would require a lot of unlearning for so many people as it is.
But I see that as the whole Process of science. We think a is right, decades later ( or more, in the ancient times lol) now we think b or c is right. We build on it, it shouldn't be an unlearning process, we as people of a scientific mindset are always open to being wrong. We learn, adapt and strive to learn more on the new way we think whatever happens or works at the moment. Ya know? Lol I'm stoned so I may be rambling nonsense. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
But my point is, for any honest scientist the BBM has failed the scientific method so it should have been a failed theory of the past. Eric Lerner "The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy."
One thing to keep in mind.. dark matter and dark energy isn't dark only because it doesn't interact with light, but called dark because we don't know what it is. Kind of like the dark side of the moon.. it's not really dark all the time, just "dark" to us. As we learn more and more, the percentage of dark energy in the universe will decrease because it will no longer be dark to us. So that means 2 of those 3 requirements are things that we know aren't known to us that we are always working towards understanding..
Don't know, don't care. I've read about it and it just seems like scientists are doing anything possible to keep the BBT afloat. At the same time it's the best current model so who knows. I just want science to make the pill from limitless so I wouldn't have to study for my finals. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
Math is an amazing thing. It's a language of facts and once a calculation is solved; it can give rise to new calculations and problems. Physicist use math, and they see where it takes them. The math from general relativity led physicist the Big Bang theory. Then over time there was evidence for the Big Bang; CMB, red shift, and abundance in certain elements. But like any theory there's still some unknowns. However, since there is evidence for the Big Bang physicist look for something unaccounted for, instead of dismissing the whole theory. That's how they make discoveries in the scientific theories! For example all the particles they find at CERN. Most were unaccounted for, but then the mathematics led to their discovery at CERN. The Big Bang hasn't failed the scientific method, it IS real science. There isn't some agenda from mainstream" science to reject it.
This is kind of a combined reply to you and a poster above. Dark energy and dark matter are not postulated based on what we observe nor on the math though, thats part of my frustration. The math of the BBM failed but rather than admit the theory failed they postulated two entities that, if existed, would balance their equations. Once the math for dark energy and dark matter were found insufficient to hold the universe together in the early moments after the ex nihilo explosion, the inflation field was needed to patch the math again. (I am recalling that off memory). As a result, many other theories stemming from the BBM, such as comets. Comets 'left over' from solar system formation shouldnt be around "So there must be a nest of them hiding out there where we cant see them." And when that fails, "there must be another bigger nest even further out there." They think reality must form around their math, not the other way around. Imagine where we would be technologically if our models actually explained reality? Its like Thomas Edison trying hundreds of materials for lightbulb filaments/gases. If only he figured out WHY one worked and why the others didnt, then we could call him a genius. Trial and error and error and error is what you get when you dont understand reality. Now going back to inflation. From Caltech " As stated above, inflation is capable of solving many of the initial value, or `fine-tuning', problems of the hot Big Bang model. This is assuming that there is some mechanism to bring about the negative pressure state needed for quasi-exponential growth of the scale factor." Quasi-exponential sounded strange to me so I did a quick search to figure out what that means... i couldnt find anything. Maybe they need math to be more flexible so they can fit the numbers to the theory? You may be granting them more pardon than they deserve Mantikore, you are nicer than I.
Quotes from "howstuffworks.com". " In fact, the standard model doesn't merely predict the existence of the Higgs boson; it requires it." " But the theory only holds water if the particles in question had no mass in the period immediately following the big bang. That's where the elusive Higgs boson comes into play; with its large mass and nonexistent spin, it's thought to generate a Higgs field that imbues all the particles that pass through it with mass. Particle physicists believe this field exists throughout the universe, but they also believe that it's incredibly unstable. It falls apart moments after its creation, leaving behind only products from its decay to prove that it ever existed." Oh its there, lets waste more time and look for another 40 years " Conversely, the Higgs might prove to be just one part of an even more complicated situation. Scientific inquiries, after all, often lead to even more scientific quandaries." Maybe its called the "God particle" because so many physicists believe in it? And it will lead to more quandaries when it doesnt exactly fit with their model and they need yet another "Super God particle". Sounds a lot like an infinite regression problem to me. Another thing, why call a hypothetical massless object a 'particle'? Answer: nonparticle sounds too made up.
I wasn't assuming anything beyond the post you made. I have to agree with you, math is amazing. It's lamentable that we have high school seniors who can't do basic fractional computations. I myself was one of those students. Failed every math class in high school and didn't learn how to even add fractions until I was in my late 20's. Which is I think what prompts me to exist more on the side of renaissance science than on imperial science.
There is no real pardon needed, what I am saying is that dark energy is only really dark because we don't know what it is yet. Say they guesstimate that the universe is currently made up of 20% energy and 80% dark energy. When we discover a new type of energy and we find out that it makes up 5% of the universe, there will be 25% energy and 75% dark energy. We know its there, that something is there.. but it is currently 'dark' to us.
There was a scientist at a university in California that tried to prove weed smokers get more cancer than tobacco smokers. When he found the opposite results he still published them. Not all scientists are dishonest thankfully -yuri
Yes, to that I am thankful. Many and I would think most are honest. Physics is in an unusually sad state, but it i not alone.
I take your point, and such guesses would be fine if; 1) they made falsifiable predictions 2) other models couldnt explain reality (without involking invisible entities) So whenever the BBM seems falsified, they invent new hypothesis often times with adjustable parameters. Call it what you like, its not how science works. So they have been looking for evidence of the Higgs for 40years. Again, imagine if they put that time into another model that didnt require fairy dust?
And these quotes about the Higgs, is only massless immediately after the Big Bang, then, with a little more magic dust it has "large mass and nonexistent spin". E=mc^2 but with no mass you get E/m=c^2 if mass is 0 you get E/0=c^2 and what happens when you divide by zero?
Yes I agree Dark energy is sort of a black swan fallacy Its basically saying "in order for our hypothesis to be correct, there needs to be something there so we will assume it is" In this specific example, dark energy is hypothesize because there isn't enough mass to create enough gravity to explain our observations of galactic interaction But dark energy is a copout. What if our observations or calculations are wrong? -yuri