Understanding the universe.

[Ghozer 112]

We only have an understanding of the observable universe. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.

 

a Limited understanding of the observable universe, and an even smaller (though present) understanding of the NONE observable (quantum mechanics, the double slit experiment, quantum entanglement etc)

[Crosser 10]

The answer is 42.

 

Let there be no argument about that!

[Solomon1 10]

Will mankind ever fathom the mysteries of the universe or is it beyond our comprehension?

 

Just fathoming the mystery of SCC

 

Is hard enough :gag:

 

No chance mate

[Jeffrey Shaw 88]

a Limited understanding of the observable universe, and an even smaller (though present) understanding of the NONE observable (quantum mechanics, the double slit experiment, quantum entanglement etc)

Don't try this at home with Known Unknowns, for instance...

[Phanerothyme 12]

By inquiring you don't create knowledge,you create gaps in knowledge. It's like a Sierpinski Gasket, you keep filling in holes, but then look a little closer, and wouldn't you know it, another 8 little holes. Damn!

[unbeliever 10]

If you are interested . Take a thorough look at the "Electric Universe" as a competing theory with the Big Bang. Don't reject it without attempting to compare theories. Amongst cosmologist there is a debate being held, as to the increasing "esoteric "(weird and wonderful ) nature of cosmology tied to the Big Bang. I think -certainly in my lifetime - some serious rethinking around the

Big Bang and the Electric Universe.

 

There are zero mainstream cosmologists who take EU seriously.

It's a mishmash of mythology, hypothesis which have been conclusively disproven and flat-out nonsense.

It falls into the general category of not even wrong.

[petemcewan 27]

There are zero mainstream cosmologists who take EU seriously.

It's a mishmash of mythology, hypothesis which have been conclusively disproven and flat-out nonsense.

It falls into the general category of not even wrong.

 

Copernicus didn't have many admirers at first. Eventually his observations proved true. His system solved the riddles thrown up by the Geocentric model. His book wasn't very popular at the time. After all, he was only gussing

Copernicus stuck to his theories because they were simpler. Galileo confirmed by use of the telescope.

Current cosmology is full of weird and wonderful untestable theories- it's like mysticism .

Have a peruse at your leisure of the "unsupported" EU theories. It might grow on you.

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

Edited March 22, 2016 by petemcewan

[Obelix 11]

If you are interested . Take a thorough look at the "Electric Universe" as a competing theory with the Big Bang. Don't reject it without attempting to compare theories. Amongst cosmologist there is a debate being held, as to the increasing "esoteric "(weird and wonderful ) nature of cosmology tied to the Big Bang. I think -certainly in my lifetime - some serious rethinking around the

Big Bang and the Electric Universe.

 

I'll debunk and discard it because the ideas it puports as true are preposterous and simply not supported by any science, anywhere - and for that matter never have been. There are no scientists of any serious ability or renown anywhere that think any part of EU quackering is actually true.

[unbeliever 10]

Copernicus didn't have many admirers at first. Eventually his observations proved true. His system solved the riddles thrown up by the Geocentric model. His book wasn't very popular at the time. After all, he was only gussing

Copernicus stuck to his theories because they were simpler. Galileo confirmed by use of the telescope.

Current cosmology is full of weird and wonderful untestable theories- it's like mysticism .

Have a peruse at your leisure of the "unsupported" EU theories. It might grow on you.

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/testing-electric-universe/

 

Sorry. It's nonsense. I can be open-minded, but not so open-minded that all sorts of gibbering nonsense falls in.

There are open questions in cosmology and experiments are run to test them.

A lot of the stuff in EU consists of throw-backs already disproven experimentally.

It's a massive load of dingos' kidneys.

[Obelix 11]

Sorry. It's nonsense. I can be open-minded, but not so open-minded that all sorts of gibbering nonsense falls in.

There are open questions in cosmology and experiments are run to test them.

A lot of the stuff in EU consists of throw-backs already disproven experimentally.

It's a massive load of dingos' kidneys.

 

It certainly explains why the water wheel debate went on for so long..

[petemcewan 27]

I'll debunk and discard it because the ideas it puports as true are preposterous and simply not supported by any science, anywhere - and for that matter never have been. There are no scientists of any serious ability or renown anywhere that think any part of EU quackering is actually true.

 

Go ahead and debunk it- I'm interested.

 

You might be interested in the work by an Australian mathematician who takes

Einstein's gravitation field equations apart and shows the errors. I'll see if I can find his name-and put it on here. The competition between the Big Bang and the EU, I think ,hinges on which of two forces in the universe is the stronger; gravitational field or the electric field .

[unbeliever 10]

Go ahead and debunk it- I'm interested.

 

You might be interested in the work by an Australian mathematician who takes

Einstein's gravitation field equations apart and shows the errors. I'll see if I can find his name-and put it on here. The competition between the Big Bang and the EU, I think ,hinges on which of two forces in the universe is the stronger; gravitational field or the electric field .

 

The electric field is stronger.

The coupling constant for the electric field is several orders of magnitude larger than that for the gravitational field.

But the electric charges in large objects cancel and the masses don't, so with large objects gravity dominates.

How is that relevant?

 

If EU were serious, which it isn't, experiments would be performed to test it. Trouble is that it's in conflict with expositing experimental results. Still if there is an experiment you'd like to propose I'm all ears.

There are serious hypotheses in cosmology for things we don't yet know. Gravitational wave experiments will play a big part in testing them.

When Einstein proposed a new model for gravity, most of it's predictions were the same as Newtons. There were some predictions in GR that were not in established theory. Experiments were proposed and performed (most notably by Eddington) to determine if those effects predicted by Einstein, but not Newton were real. They were.

Edited March 22, 2016 by unbeliever