I never said theories couldn't be disproven. Nothing in science is ever proven. You can't prove things with science, you can only gather an increasing amount of evidence in support of it. This is what I meant by "science does not deal with proofs".
Whatever. I'm running on 6 hours of sleep after a 10 hour work day.
If you are a Battletech/Mechwarrior geek you may enjoy my Timberwolf/MADCAT model (the source of my avatar) (warning: image-heavy link target) I will often edit my posts after I have posted them in an attempt to improve their clarity (I value a few high quality posts over several low quality ones; the more lengthy the post, the more time it requires to edit) so you might want to wait for a while if this post is recent and refresh to see if anything has changed before replying to it.
proving and disproving are based about the same thing, but are opposites.
A lack of evidence against something is not evidence to the affirmative. A lack of evidence for something is not evidence to the contrary.
It's true that theories are not proven in science. They make predictions that are then tested. If the predictions are true, then we consider the theory to be plausible. If it is ever fails in its predictions, then it is either modified to fit reality or discarded. A theory should always represent our best knowledge of the subject it pertains to, no more, no less. It can always be invalidated by future discoveries. We should never consider any theory incapable of being overturned, which is what "to prove" implies.
proving and disproving are based about the same thing, but are opposites.
Yes, they are opposites. However this does not mean that something that can be disproven can also be proven. To disprove a scientific theory or hypothesis, you need only discover empirical evidence that contradicts the explanations and predictions made by the theory/hypothesis. To prove it, you would have to obtain exhaustive knowledge about every aspect of reality pertaining to the phenomena explained in the theory/hypothesis to rule out the possibility of it being wrong. This is essentially impossible, or at the very least extremely impractical. The best we can do is test and verify.
Don't smoke weed kids. You'll end up being one of the most famous and respected astrophysicist in the world, who's documentary has been shown in 60 countries and an estimate of 500 million people have seen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A man paints with his brains and not with his hands."
Michelangelo
Mod edit: Shairn used lock!
It's super effective!
Pointless thread has fainted!
I believe that the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) created just the right condition for the big bang to happen. In other words, yes I do believe in the big bang.
Must be that the vast majority of astrophysicists in the world are also uneducated seeing as plasma cosmology isn't taken seriously by an significant part of the scientific community. But what do they know? You've read a website on the internet, you're better informed than they are.
In any case, some of these "deficiencies" of big bang cosmology listed on this site look like absolute horseshit.
Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
This issue was resolved in the 70s by the introduction of dark matter into the standard model. It was another observation that seemed to indicate that the visible mass of the universe is too small.
Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The article claims there's no evidence these, which is patently ridiculous. In fact, the previous point I mentioned is one bit of evidence for the existence of dark matter. We also have these observations:
Galaxy rotational speeds are too high for ordinary matter to hold them together gravitationally.
Gravitational lensing in regions of apparently empty space.
Gravitational effects on the CMB power spectrum are consistent with the existence of dark matter.
The website also claims that all the experiments looking for these things have come up with negative results. This is a half truth, a lot of the results have merely been inconclusive and, in fact, more recently positive results have surfaced.
No room for dark matter
This point is an outright lie. Ordinary matter is insufficient to explain the gravitational effects. On top of that, it's insufficient to explain the other observations I listed above that point towards the existence of dark matter.
No Conservation of Energy
Also incorrect, the accelerating expansion of the universe (which is, beyond reasonable doubt, actually occurring) does not "create" energy out of nothing but, in fact, actually predicts periods of time where it would "destroy" energy. Here's an actual astrophysicist's take on precisely this issue:
The short of it is that our ideas of energy don't make sense on these scales. We can define (and therefore conserve) energy only locally, we can't extrapolate this to large scales.
Plasma theory predicts from basic physics the large scale structure of the universe
Except that it doesn't. The large scale structure of the universe is far more homogeneous than predicted by plasma cosmology.
One glaring issue with plasma cosmology is its inability to account for the actual expansion of the universe. The universe is really expanding, but this seems to be just swept under the rug. The whole reason big bang cosmology arose is exactly because the universe is expanding. If you want to propose an alternative you better damn well be ready to explain that little feature of our universe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
First of all, M-theory (which is what Brane cosmology is) is not a competing theory to the Big Bang. Second, M-Theory has no real empirical support yet.
First of all, M-theory (which is what Brane cosmology is) is not a competing theory to the Big Bang. Second, M-Theory has no real empirical support yet.
Opinion.
Key word there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from name="I" »
Oh, look at that.
I have seem to have stopped caring.
Most people say Then what was befòòòre the big bang?
its just a theory wich is treu until otherwise is proven. but for me, it represents a mark for the reseace to stop, you know, we need to do it piece by piece, you cant learn how to built a full functioning redstone computer without knowing how logics and redstone work. start small, set a border.
The Big Bang definitely did happen. We've been able to see merely seconds after it happened with the world's most powerful telescopes. That doesn't mean there's no God, because we still don't know why the mass was there to begin with, or what all of a sudden triggered the explosion that dispersed matter across the universe and created the threads of space and time. But keep in mind, the Big Bang is not an argument against religion in general - you can believe in the Big Bang and be religious, just as you can believe in evolution and still be religious.
I never said theories couldn't be disproven. Nothing in science is ever proven. You can't prove things with science, you can only gather an increasing amount of evidence in support of it. This is what I meant by "science does not deal with proofs".
Whatever. I'm running on 6 hours of sleep after a 10 hour work day.
I will often edit my posts after I have posted them in an attempt to improve their clarity (I value a few high quality posts over several low quality ones; the more lengthy the post, the more time it requires to edit) so you might want to wait for a while if this post is recent and refresh to see if anything has changed before replying to it.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffA lack of evidence against something is not evidence to the affirmative. A lack of evidence for something is not evidence to the contrary.
It's true that theories are not proven in science. They make predictions that are then tested. If the predictions are true, then we consider the theory to be plausible. If it is ever fails in its predictions, then it is either modified to fit reality or discarded. A theory should always represent our best knowledge of the subject it pertains to, no more, no less. It can always be invalidated by future discoveries. We should never consider any theory incapable of being overturned, which is what "to prove" implies.
Through that tear came stuff.
Stuff that made the universe.
I don't know what the stuff was, Quarks? Energy? God? ALL I CAN SAY IS IT WAS STUFF.
And one day the stuff will be destroyed AND WE'LL ALL DIE.
Yes, they are opposites. However this does not mean that something that can be disproven can also be proven. To disprove a scientific theory or hypothesis, you need only discover empirical evidence that contradicts the explanations and predictions made by the theory/hypothesis. To prove it, you would have to obtain exhaustive knowledge about every aspect of reality pertaining to the phenomena explained in the theory/hypothesis to rule out the possibility of it being wrong. This is essentially impossible, or at the very least extremely impractical. The best we can do is test and verify.
Smoke more,
worry less.
EDIT: I felt this needed to be here.
Don't smoke weed kids. You'll end up being one of the most famous and respected astrophysicist in the world, who's documentary has been shown in 60 countries and an estimate of 500 million people have seen.
Michelangelo
We label things as facts because we percieve them as facts, but reality might as well not be reality.
another better theory:
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
It's about plasma cosmology
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffMust be that the vast majority of astrophysicists in the world are also uneducated seeing as plasma cosmology isn't taken seriously by an significant part of the scientific community. But what do they know? You've read a website on the internet, you're better informed than they are.
In any case, some of these "deficiencies" of big bang cosmology listed on this site look like absolute horseshit.
This issue was resolved in the 70s by the introduction of dark matter into the standard model. It was another observation that seemed to indicate that the visible mass of the universe is too small.
The article claims there's no evidence these, which is patently ridiculous. In fact, the previous point I mentioned is one bit of evidence for the existence of dark matter. We also have these observations:
The website also claims that all the experiments looking for these things have come up with negative results. This is a half truth, a lot of the results have merely been inconclusive and, in fact, more recently positive results have surfaced.
This point is an outright lie. Ordinary matter is insufficient to explain the gravitational effects. On top of that, it's insufficient to explain the other observations I listed above that point towards the existence of dark matter.
Also incorrect, the accelerating expansion of the universe (which is, beyond reasonable doubt, actually occurring) does not "create" energy out of nothing but, in fact, actually predicts periods of time where it would "destroy" energy. Here's an actual astrophysicist's take on precisely this issue:
http://startswithabang.com/?p=1792
The short of it is that our ideas of energy don't make sense on these scales. We can define (and therefore conserve) energy only locally, we can't extrapolate this to large scales.
Except that it doesn't. The large scale structure of the universe is far more homogeneous than predicted by plasma cosmology.
One glaring issue with plasma cosmology is its inability to account for the actual expansion of the universe. The universe is really expanding, but this seems to be just swept under the rug. The whole reason big bang cosmology arose is exactly because the universe is expanding. If you want to propose an alternative you better damn well be ready to explain that little feature of our universe.
Braneworld > Big Bang any time.
First of all, M-theory (which is what Brane cosmology is) is not a competing theory to the Big Bang. Second, M-Theory has no real empirical support yet.
Opinion.
Key word there.
I don't see the word opinion anywhere in my post or the one I responded to. And nothing I said is just my opinion.
its just a theory wich is treu until otherwise is proven. but for me, it represents a mark for the reseace to stop, you know, we need to do it piece by piece, you cant learn how to built a full functioning redstone computer without knowing how logics and redstone work. start small, set a border.
(im an atheist btw)
also: