[Misc] The Big Bang (or not).

[Deportivo Seagull]

Exactly - but most people still assume that 'scientists' know everything.

When you hear statements like "This science is settled" - all that means is one side doesn't want to debate. If they are so confident of their position they would happily debate with people who disagree.

That’s bollocks. The one thing that scientist will say is that they don’t know everything hence why (in this case) the telescope was sent up in the first place.
As for not debating, that is also crass because when the argument is based on bollocks with no factual data to back it, it a waste of time.
Scientist generate theories based on what is known at the time, on the understanding that it is likely to change as more knowledge comes to light.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Swansman]

But those headlines are actually driven by data and study by leading scientists who have dedicated their lives to the study, we are already seeing the effects that they predicted.

Meanwhile the counter argument is based on poor science that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, hence why it isn't accepted as a theory.

That is obviously your opinion. Others disagree - pointing to that the data might be manipulated or bent in a way that fits the narrative, and that these scientists might not be entirely independent. The reason the "poor science" is not seen as "holding up" might be because it doesn't fit into the narrative.

 

[BBassic]

Swanny and conspiracy theories.

Name a better couple.

 

[Swansman]

Swanny and conspiracy theories.

Name a better couple.

You and [MENTION=34997]Your Mum[/MENTION]?

 

[The Clamp]

That is obviously your opinion. Others disagree - pointing to that the data might be manipulated or bent in a way that fits the narrative, and that these scientists might not be entirely independent. The reason the "poor science" is not seen as "holding up" might be because it doesn't fit into the narrative.

In what way is the data manipulated to suit a narrative? What data? What elements of the science do you dispute and why? Please give an explanation as well as examples. If you wish, of course.

 

[BBassic]

You and [MENTION=34997]Your Mum[/MENTION]?

Very good! I walked into that one

 

[Swansman]

In what way is the data manipulated to suit a narrative? What data? What elements of the science do you dispute and why? Please give an explanation as well as examples. If you wish, of course.

No idea. I'm not saying it is manipulated, I'm saying it might be. I've not spent a lot of time researching the climate stuff - it just doesnt itch my "know all about it"-nerve. I'm only discussing the concept of not agreeing with the majority belief, and arguing that it isn't any more "stupid" or "wrong" than supporting the majority view.

 

[The Clamp]

No idea. I'm not saying it is manipulated, I'm saying it might be. I've not spent a lot of time researching the climate stuff - it just doesnt itch my "know all about it"-nerve. I'm only discussing the concept of not agreeing with the majority belief, and arguing that it isn't any more "stupid" or "wrong" than supporting the majority view.

I see.

 

[WATFORD zero]

No idea. I'm not saying it is manipulated, I'm saying it might be. I've not spent a lot of time researching the climate stuff - it just doesnt itch my "know all about it"-nerve. I'm only discussing the concept of not agreeing with the majority belief, and arguing that it isn't any more "stupid" or "wrong" than supporting the majority view.

But you do appreciate the difference between 'an opinion' and 'a valid opinion' ?

It's that word valid

/ˈvalɪd/

adjective
(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
"a valid criticism"

As you've just stated No idea. Have an opinion, but to try and push it when you have 'No Idea' may make people think that you really haven't given it much (if any) thought and could appear a little foolish

Have a good evening, it sounds like you're well on your way to it

 

[Eeyore]

Doesn't cause me any alarm or need to change my understanding.

When asked how the universe was created and how big it is, I always replied.

'Nobody knows, and they probably never will'

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I went to see Brain Cox couple of years ago, he really is mind blowing, much like all the shows he's in.

Sent from my SM-A326B using Tapatalk

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

No idea. I'm not saying it is manipulated, I'm saying it might be. I've not spent a lot of time researching the climate stuff - it just doesnt itch my "know all about it"-nerve. I'm only discussing the concept of not agreeing with the majority belief, and arguing that it isn't any more "stupid" or "wrong" than supporting the majority view.

So your point isn’t about climate change more about you not liking the majority belief. That my tin foil hat wearing friend is …. stupid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Baldseagull]

Arguably the thought that we're all going hand-in-hand into oblivion is less frightening than the idea that we're brainwashed into thinking this for reasons unknown.

With most respectable conspiracy theories, it's money and power that pushes the agenda. The money and power is with the opposite argument with this one, it makes a nonsense of all other conspiracy theories if true, I would have thought you would not be backing this one on those grounds alone.

 

[dangull]

The Big Bang theory doesn't seem that convincing to me when experts only understand the 5% that we can see and feel, and that the other 95% is some mysterious dark matter and dark energy which has not been observed or any evidence off. Might as well stick with a creator theory.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Unless it's climate science where the historical data gets adjusted to support the narrative.

I think by your posts on this thread, I am beginning to build a picture.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Swanny and conspiracy theories.

Name a better couple.

You don’t think swanny is gretha T do you?

 

[AstroSloth]

The Big Bang theory doesn't seem that convincing to me when experts only understand the 5% that we can see and feel, and that the other 95% is some mysterious dark matter and dark energy which has not been observed or any evidence off. Might as well stick with a creator theory.

5% is still 5% more than the evidence for a creator tbf.

 

[Hugo Rune]

The Big Bang theory doesn't seem that convincing to me when experts only understand the 5% that we can see and feel, and that the other 95% is some mysterious dark matter and dark energy which has not been observed or any evidence off. Might as well stick with a creator theory.

There is plenty of evidence for for dark matter and dark energy. That’s why theories about them exist, their existence has been inferred by overwhelming evidence, you don’t need to know exactly what something is to measure it’s effect.

We might find out soon enough with the James Webb telescope.

Meanwhile, do you ever ask yourself why observed trans-neptunian objects are almost all on the same elliptical orbit of the Sun? There’s something out there with a lot of mass that has distorted their orbits, and it’s (relatively) very close indeed. We can’t see it, but it’s there.

 

[vegster]

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215

Just read the above. An interesting article about the Big Bang and that the analysis of images from the James Webb Space Telescope further undermines the consensus of the theory.

They've been hypothesising (making up) stuff to support the theory as the observations/calculations weren't supported by the estimated mass of the universe. So they came up with dark matter and then dark energy.

View attachment 150980

The observed mass of the universe (galaxies - planets/suns etc) is less the 5% of the estimated mass of the universe. The rest is 'dark' stuff. - and this dark stuff has never been detected even though huge amounts have been spent trying to find it. Just think of that - 95% of the mass of the universe we can find - doh!


Extract from page:
To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”

Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”

It is not too complicated to explain why these too small, too smooth, too old and too numerous galaxies are completely incompatible with the Big Bang hypothesis. Let’s begin with “too small”. If the universe is expanding, a strange optical illusion must exist. Galaxies (or any other objects) in expanding space do not continue to look smaller and smaller with increasing distance. Beyond a certain point, they start looking larger and larger. (This is because their light is supposed to have left them when they were closer to us.) This is in sharp contrast to ordinary, non-expanding space, where objects look smaller in proportion to their distance.

...
(And this part was very concerning).

Readers may well be wondering at this point why they have not read of this collapse of the Big Bang hypothesis in major media outlets by now and why the authors of so many recent papers have not pointed to this collapse themselves. The answer lies in what I term the “Emperor’s New Clothes Effect”—if anyone questions the Big Bang, they are labeled stupid and unfit for their jobs. Unfortunately, funding for cosmology comes from a very few government sources controlled by a handful of committees that are dominated by Big Bang theorists. These theorists have spent their lives building the Big Bang theory. Those who openly question the theory simply don’t get funded.


I wonder if there are any other areas of scientific theory where those who questions the prevailing accepted orthodoxy get called stupid and lose their funding? Hmmm...

It's a bit like Brexit, apparently a guaranteed win and reason for leaving....that strangely hasn not gone well ?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Big Bang Theory has not sprung forth in its current edition. it went through several challenges and alterations as new discoveries were made that falsified the previous maths, new maths and models emerging to explain the new observations. aiui dark matter is a consequence of this, needed to balance the amount of total mass needed for gravity effects observed. we'll see if this new finding leads to an alteration or complete rejection, too early to say. this is what science does, makes hypothesis, falsifiable theory, observations, changes. its never settled.

Very well put

Science is not religion.