Big Bang theory just does not make sense

[ollypenrice]

8 hours ago, wesdon1 said:

Hi again all. I found this interesting vid by the gorgeous and very interesting Dr Becky Smethurst on YT. It is a rather pertinent video for this current thread, I felt...

 

Clear skies!

Please, Dr Becky, you are not an American so you are not talking about alternate theories of gravity, you are talking about an alternative theory of gravity.

Olly

[andrew s]

On 31/08/2023 at 21:32, ollypenrice said:

The problem is that we want to test assorted models against what seems reasonable to us - but what seems reasonable to us has been defined by very limited, and very local, experiences. The trick is to be willing to embrace what does not seem reasonable to us because, in all probability, that is where the truth will lie.

Olly

It worth reminding ourselves just how far we have come.

Simple observations are the Sun, moon and stars go round the earth but we now know better.

What causes an apple to fall to earth is the same as that which keeps the planets in orbit and the galaxy turning.

Gravity is not a force but a curvature of spacetime. 

Nuclear fusion powers the stars and we are literally star dust.

Solid objects are 99.9% empty space.

Obvious now?

Regards Andrew 

Edited September 2, 2023 by andrew s

[Paul M]

It seems to be the case that whenever a reseach group takes on General and/or Special Realtivity hoping/expecting to "break" them, they end up by proving those theories to ever closer tolerances! 

Is it time to accept that the Relativities are, for all intents and porposes, no longer a theory? How much more proof is needed? At what point does a theory become fact?

And, while we are here, how/why is Darwin's Evolution of the species still a "theory"? I mean c'mon!!!!  

[Mr Spock]

7 hours ago, Paul M said:

Is it time to accept that the Relativities are, for all intents and porposes, no longer a theory? How much more proof is needed? At what point does a theory become fact?

And, while we are here, how/why is Darwin's Evolution of the species still a "theory"? I mean c'mon!!!!

Theories never become facts. It is the other way round - theories are explanations of facts. 

[AstroKeith]

8 hours ago, Paul M said:

And, while we are here, how/why is Darwin's Evolution of the species still a "theory"? I mean c'mon!!!!  

Most Muslim countries and many US states prohibit the teaching of evolution and Darwinism. It conflicts with their creationism beliefs.

So I guess we have to call it a theory!

[billhinge]

1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

Theories never become facts. It is the other way round - theories are explanations of facts. 

Laws of Thermodynamics, Newtons Laws, etc?

[Mr Spock]

4 minutes ago, billhinge said:

Laws of Thermodynamics, Newtons Laws, etc?

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work.
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

[billhinge]

19 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work.
Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Sounds like inconsistent semantics, I'm sure people can find many instances so I don't have to much of a problem

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

I know what you are saying
Yet we do say MOND Theory, String Theory, etc which hardly fit the above definition, yet Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy is a sacred cow and incorporated many theorems

 

[Mr Spock]

I'm not saying anything. These are established definitions in scientific echelons  

[andrew s]

52 minutes ago, billhinge said:

yet Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy is a sacred cow and incorporated many theorems

The second law is a good theory that makes accurate predictions within its domain. It is limited to closed systems and is statistical in nature. 

Our very existence show it is not valid for open systems. 

Regards Andrew 

[Xilman]

13 hours ago, andrew s said:

INuclear fission powers the stars and we are literally star dust.

ITYM nuclear fusion,

[vlaiv]

1 minute ago, Xilman said:

ITYM nuclear fusion,

tomayto tomahto

[maw lod qan]

I can't believe this thread is still expanding! 😁

[wesdon1]

My goodness this subject matter has really got people going. Personally I had to stand back from the debate when people much much more intelligent than me started mentioning things I can't even spell properly, let alone understand!? Haha! 

Seriously though, I have read/seen some incredible comments in this thread. Total respect...

[wesdon1]

4 minutes ago, maw lod qan said:

I can't believe this thread is still expanding! 😁

@maw lod qan I was just commenting about the fact this thread has really got people going! I never realised people felt so strongly about GR and QM and Newtonian laws etc!? 

[Ouroboros]

4 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Exactly.  This alone is the cause of much misunderstanding in the public imagination about science and the nature of scientific knowledge. 

[saac]

14 hours ago, Paul M said:

It seems to be the case that whenever a reseach group takes on General and/or Special Realtivity hoping/expecting to "break" them, they end up by proving those theories to ever closer tolerances! 

Is it time to accept that the Relativities are, for all intents and porposes, no longer a theory? How much more proof is needed? At what point does a theory become fact?

And, while we are here, how/why is Darwin's Evolution of the species still a "theory"? I mean c'mon!!!!  

It's a bit of a misnomer it is one of many theories of evolution,Darwin's contribution focused on the influence of natural selection on evolution.  It is seen very much as a founding theory upon which there are many offshoots (Population Genetics, Molecular Evolution, Natural Theory). Current inconsistencies or direction of interest include: Genomic Evolution, Human Evolution and one of my favourites due to the icky factor Coevolution (parasitic , host development).   So, Darwin Theory of Evolution for want of a better term will remain a theory - there really is no need to get terribly excited about the terminology. I'm not even sure there is in any true sense a complete theory anywhere in science - all works are best interpretations.  I think we would be justly accused of being a tad arrogant if we declared we had developed a full description of anything and I'm not going to lose any sleep over uncomplete theories - that is where the fun lies.  

[andrew s]

1 hour ago, wesdon1 said:

@maw lod qan I was just commenting about the fact this thread has really got people going! I never realised people felt so strongly about GR and QM and Newtonian laws etc!? 

I think this is one of the very few places on the web, or elsewhere come to that, where one can have a civilised conversation on science related topics. 

It has a concentration of science aware individuals with a broad range of knowledge and skills and it's all the better for that.

Regards Andrew 

[SwiMatt]

33 minutes ago, saac said:

It's a bit of a misnomer it is one of many theories of evolution,Darwin's contribution focused on the influence of natural selection on evolution.  It is seen very much as a founding theory upon which there are many offshoots (Population Genetics, Molecular Evolution, Natural Theory). Current inconsistencies or direction of interest include: Genomic Evolution, Human Evolution and one of my favourites due to the icky factor Coevolution (parasitic , host development).   So, Darwin Theory of Evolution for want of a better term will remain a theory - there really is no need to get terribly excited about the terminology. I'm not even sure there is in any true sense a complete theory anywhere in science - all works are best interpretations.  I think we would be justly accused of being a tad arrogant if we declared we had developed a full description of anything and I'm not going to lose any sleep over uncomplete theories - that is where the fun lies.  

What do you mean by "inconsistencies"? Genomic evolution, human evolution and coevolution are generally consistent with the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory... Or do you mean inconsistencies with Darwin's work? That's true, many of Darwin's ideas are severely outdated, after all he didn't even know about the genome

Maybe there is a tendency to conflate terms when we use "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" as a general term for everything that came out of it and "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" as a specific term indicating the contents of The Origin of Species - which laid out a hypothesis, not a theory. The contents of his book are partly outdated but many of his intuitions laid foundation to the field of evolutionary biology. There is then a great misunderstanding of the theory in the general public. For example, while most believe that evolution is about the "survival of the fittest", few scientists in the field today would point at this mechanism as the most important leading to the evolution of species. In addition to genomics or coevolution, such concepts as sexual selection (evolution of sexual traits leading to larger offspring, not to better survival), plasticity (broadly, genes that can have different effects depending on environmental and developmental factors) or neutral selection (most mutations being neutral or mildly deleterious, yet they contribute far more to genetic diversity and evolution than actual selection does) are unfortunately not well taught in school but are fundamental to understand evolution. Unfortunately, this leaves most people with a very incomplete grasp of the corpus of science that arose from Darwin's genius ideas.

Also, I wanna see more conversations about evolutionary theory on this forum

[saac]

31 minutes ago, SwiMatt said:

What do you mean by "inconsistencies"? 

 

Inconsistencies are places where a theory is unable to make a satisfactory description.  It was in reply to the copied post from Paul M

Jim

[SwiMatt]

20 minutes ago, saac said:

Inconsistencies are places where a theory is unable to make a satisfactory description.  It was in reply to the copied post from Paul M

Jim

Sorry, I didn't get the reference to the post! 

[maw lod qan]

1 hour ago, andrew s said:

I think this is one of the very few places on the web, or elsewhere come to that, where one can have a civilised conversation on science related topics. 

It has a concentration of science aware individuals with a broad range of knowledge and skills and it's all the better for that.

Regards Andrew 

I will admit that there are many times I can only read along with the posts, but not really keep up with the conversation. 

But the group here has definitely enriched my mind.

[Mr Spock]

2 hours ago, SwiMatt said:

Also, I wanna see more conversations about evolutionary theory on this forum

Not really an astronomy topic though is it 

[SwiMatt]

30 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Not really an astronomy topic though is it 

My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I said it, I swear

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

Not really an astronomy topic though is it 

Oooh, not so sure.  Our astronomical theories are created by brains which have gone through an evolutionary process.

Olly