Science Fiction

[FinBak 12]

Incorrect...I DO have an understanding of what Scientific Theory is.

 

No.

[woodview 10]

I have a theory.....

[SnailyBoy 10]

6 minutes ago, FinBak said:

Incorrect...I DO have an understanding of what Scientific Theory is.

 

No.

Yet you say 'is only a theory'.

 

In scientific understanding, what is higher than a theory?

Edited March 24, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[Obelix 11]

2 hours ago, FinBak said:

Ok....BUT......

 

The  'BigBang' ' Theory' is NOT Testable...It's can't be verified.

 

Why not?

 

You can look at the cosmic microwave background and actually see the explosion of the Big Bang...

2 hours ago, FinBak said:

My credentials are this...I'm not thick..I read books...I learn...I understand.

 

I don't need any Scientific degree to understand the Universe. 

You will find it  a lot easier to understand the scientific parts of it however if you do have some reasonably advanced education in it...

[woolyhead 15]

The FLWR theory is a special case of the LTB theory in which the universe does have a centre. My reference was given by Apelike.

[FinBak 12]

On 24/03/2019 at 17:28, SnailyBoy said:

Yet you say 'is only a theory'.

 

In scientific understanding, what is higher than a theory?

Science works by induction and inference.

 

To the extent that Science can prove anything, WHICH IT CAN'T,  it can only give 100% Inference.

 

The CMB argument is false. There could be other 'Unknown to Science at this time' reasons for that.

 

The exact same goes for 'Entropy.  Distant stars moving away from us....Doesn't necessarily mean that they were once closer together.

 

Or indeed a 'BigBang' caused them to accelerate away..

 

Scientific theories are great at trying to explain things. That doesn't mean that they are correct.

 

 

[SnailyBoy 10]

2 minutes ago, FinBak said:

Science works by induction and inference.

 

To the extent that Science can prove anything, WHICH IT CAN'T,  it can only give 100% Inference.

 

The CMB argument is false. There could be other 'Unknown to Science at this time' reasons for that.

 

The exact same goes for 'Entropy.  Distant stars moving away from us....Doesn't necessarily mean that they were once closer together.

 

Or indeed a 'BigBang' caused them to accelerate away..

 

Scientific theories are great at trying to explain things. That doesn't mean that they are correct.

 

 

Once again showing a lack of understanding of scientific theory and lets be straight here, the scientific method too.

 

This should help.

 

The scientific method

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Now, try to get away from your own personal incredulity and look at the evidence that supports that the Big Bang.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgr7fg8

 

 

 

[FinBak 12]

1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

Once again showing a lack of understanding of scientific theory and lets be straight here, the scientific method too.

 

This should help.

 

The scientific method

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Now, try to get away from your own personal incredulity and look at the evidence that supports that the Big Bang.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zgr7fg8

 

 

 

I'm not against the 'Big Bang' Theory.  It 'COULD' have happened.

 

But i doubt it.

 

It's no use spouting off about tests/predictions..etc....If the 'BigBang' did happen, then we have ZERO chance of knowing it's origin.

 

We cant go back that far in that scenario.

 

Science can't prove or disprove that the universe has always been here and it always will be. No beginning and no end.

 

The CMB is a relic best forgotten about as far as 'Evidence' goes.

 

A huge problem with the 'BigBang' Theory is the Red Shift values...They are all wrong.!

 

How do you answer that?

[SnailyBoy 10]

9 minutes ago, FinBak said:

I'm not against the 'Big Bang' Theory.  It 'COULD' have happened.

 

But i doubt it.

That's your personal incredulity

 

11 minutes ago, FinBak said:

It's no use spouting off about tests/predictions..etc....If the 'BigBang' did happen, then we have ZERO chance of knowing it's origin. 

 

We cant go back that far in that scenario.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

12 minutes ago, FinBak said:

Science can't prove or disprove that the universe has always been here and it always will be. No beginning and no end.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

12 minutes ago, FinBak said:

The CMB is a relic best forgotten about as far as 'Evidence' goes.

 

A huge problem with the 'BigBang' Theory is the Red Shift values...They are all wrong.!

 

How do you answer that?

I don't have to, you're the one making the claim.

[FinBak 12]

10 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

That's your personal incredulity

Perhaps.

Quote

 

How did you come to that conclusion?

Planck Time. Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10^-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and timeare presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity.

 

How did you come to that conclusion?

Science works by Induction and Inference..As i have said before...It can't prove OR Disapprove ANYTHING. (Apart from the supernatural.)

Quote

 

I don't have to, you're the one making the claim.

I'm not making any claim, I'm stating FACTS.

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by FinBak

[SnailyBoy 10]

9 minutes ago, FinBak said:

Science works by Induction and Inference..As i have said before...It can't prove OR Disapprove ANYTHING. (Apart from the supernatural.)

Apart from the supernatural, what are you talking about?

 

10 minutes ago, FinBak said:

I'm not making any claim, I'm stating FACTS. 

You made a claim (below). So where's your evidence for it and have your findings been peer reviewed?

 

18 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

A huge problem with the 'BigBang' Theory is the Red Shift values...They are all wrong.

 

[FinBak 12]

7 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Apart from the supernatural, what are you talking about?

I'm talking about Science.

7 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

 

You made a claim (below). So where's your evidence for it and have your findings been peer reviewed?

Not quite. 

 

Here's some interesting reading for you?..

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Big-Bang-theory-bad

 

7 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

 

 

In Detail....Copied and Pasted from that site.

 

The main reason why the Big Bang theory is “bad” and by bad I mean inaccurate, is because the theory is based on what is currently known. Unfortunately what is currently known are the theory of General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, the standard model, and all others… all of which provide a model for only 6% of the energy in the universe.

Physicists have worked these theories backwards in time as all matter and particles seem to have arisen from one event called the Big Bang. The main problem with this method is that it gives a model for the big bang based only on 6% of the energy that exists in the universe. That means the Big Bang theory as it stands now implies that 94% of the energy in the universe played no role in the events known as the Big Bang.

Excuse me if I think this way of thinking is ridiculous.

Here are a few errors of the current big bang theory exposed by Gordon’s Theory of Everything:

1. You do not need to start the universe from a singularity.
2. All the energy of the universe was NOT created at the time of the Big Bang. The energy of the universe, “Always was, Always is, and Always will be.”
3. Particle of matter when first created at the big bang did not have mass. Totally incorrect, particles of matter (and anti-matter) contain mass from the moment they are created.
4. You do not need the creation of the Higgs Boson with its Higgs Field to turn on gravity.
5. There was not a great annihilation of particle of matter with particles of antimatter. Matter was predominantly created, there was no other choice.
6. Gordon’s Theory of Everything shows that a Big Bang did occur and that was when all particles were created but it starts the universe with only two postulates from everything can be derived… Including the details of the events that unfolded during the Big Bang.