Crosswords2 mins ago
Einstein Said Nothing Can Move Faster Than Light?
141 Answers
Einstein's theory states nothing can move faster than light. How did we get all the way out here with images from the beginning of time still arriving? It is also accepted that the big bang pushed everything out instantaneously. Surely, the big bang theory proves Einstein wrong.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ty_buchanan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"The big bang and dark matter are not supported by any scientific observations - they merely form a basis to explain observed phenomena. "
Well haven't you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence? The Big Bang Theory is supported by observations. And indeed in the recent paper on Inflation it seems as if yet another prediction at the heart of the Big Bang Theory matches observations (along with the CMB radiation, expanding Universe, etc., etc.)
In terms of what is going on outside the Universe, if there is such a thing, I'm probably in agreement with you that we can never understand it. It's why I'm not really keen on "Multiverse" theories -- unless there is some kind of interaction between separate Universes then it's inherently untestable and so unscientific. It would be like your beetle being unable to understand fully his own bottle while deciding that there must be some stupidly large number of other bottles... that he can't see or touch or investigate in any way.
As far as I'm aware, Dark Matter has not been observed directly, but its effects have been seen so in some sense we "know" it exists. Just not what it is. In another thread, I suggested that Dark Matter is really an implicit admission that we don't know everything yet -- if anything, it would be rather more bizarre if there was no such thing as Dark Matter after all. Because, firstly, this would tell us that Relativity Theory (that has passed every other test) must be utterly wrong; and secondly, that the Standard Model of particle physics is the end of the story. Both of these would be incredible revelations.
Well haven't you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence? The Big Bang Theory is supported by observations. And indeed in the recent paper on Inflation it seems as if yet another prediction at the heart of the Big Bang Theory matches observations (along with the CMB radiation, expanding Universe, etc., etc.)
In terms of what is going on outside the Universe, if there is such a thing, I'm probably in agreement with you that we can never understand it. It's why I'm not really keen on "Multiverse" theories -- unless there is some kind of interaction between separate Universes then it's inherently untestable and so unscientific. It would be like your beetle being unable to understand fully his own bottle while deciding that there must be some stupidly large number of other bottles... that he can't see or touch or investigate in any way.
As far as I'm aware, Dark Matter has not been observed directly, but its effects have been seen so in some sense we "know" it exists. Just not what it is. In another thread, I suggested that Dark Matter is really an implicit admission that we don't know everything yet -- if anything, it would be rather more bizarre if there was no such thing as Dark Matter after all. Because, firstly, this would tell us that Relativity Theory (that has passed every other test) must be utterly wrong; and secondly, that the Standard Model of particle physics is the end of the story. Both of these would be incredible revelations.
That would surely be a pretty good deduction, though, depending on the shape of the ripples. Which is, after all, the point. We can't see the Big Bang. But we can dream up the idea, make some predictions, test to see if they match what we see now, and if necessary refine the model. That's how Science works. You don't need to see something to confirm its existence, but if you can say something about the footprint it would leave behind then you have a theory worth trying.
In the case of the Big Bang, the predictions it makes match up very well with what is observed. And what is more, no other idea has been able to provide such a convincing match of what is seen today. So with all that in mind, it seems bizarre to dismiss the idea as "silly". On what basis can it be deemed silly? What better ideas are there?
And of course the beauty of Science is that if you are able to provide a convincing, and testable, answer to these questions with the result that you have a better idea that fits, then that's what will end up being accepted as the (more) correct theory. With regards to the ripples in the lake, if you can show that their profile is more accurately described by, say, a wind blowing across the surface (which would tend to make the ripples much straighter) then that's the idea that would be accepted over some large object dropped in (or perhaps a fish disturbing the water). A large object would create ripples that emanate from a fixed point, or a fixed small area, and you could trace the ripples back to work out where that was most likely to be.
In the case of the Big Bang, the predictions it makes match up very well with what is observed. And what is more, no other idea has been able to provide such a convincing match of what is seen today. So with all that in mind, it seems bizarre to dismiss the idea as "silly". On what basis can it be deemed silly? What better ideas are there?
And of course the beauty of Science is that if you are able to provide a convincing, and testable, answer to these questions with the result that you have a better idea that fits, then that's what will end up being accepted as the (more) correct theory. With regards to the ripples in the lake, if you can show that their profile is more accurately described by, say, a wind blowing across the surface (which would tend to make the ripples much straighter) then that's the idea that would be accepted over some large object dropped in (or perhaps a fish disturbing the water). A large object would create ripples that emanate from a fixed point, or a fixed small area, and you could trace the ripples back to work out where that was most likely to be.
OK, the big bang and dark matter are works in progress then?
I still consider that they are silly propositions in themselves.
Everything in the universe suddenly arrives in a tiny package, which explodes?
The majority of the matter in the universe is there in a form which cannot be detected?
No, sorry.
I still consider that they are silly propositions in themselves.
Everything in the universe suddenly arrives in a tiny package, which explodes?
The majority of the matter in the universe is there in a form which cannot be detected?
No, sorry.
So what, then?
Not that it matters particularly. The ideas stand up very well indeed to intense scrutiny, which is why they form part of the modern paradigm of Science. It's just a non-argument to take some parody of the theories, and then dismiss them as silly.
The Big Bang, for example, is not an explosion but an expansion. Dark Matter is not undetectable, it just doesn't interact with light so we can't see it in the normal way (we can feel its "weight", though).
And again, the challenge is to explain (a) what your alternative idea is, and (b) why it's better, and (c) how we could test it against the current theory. Absent such an alternative, it's not clear how you are contributing to a serious argument.
Not that it matters particularly. The ideas stand up very well indeed to intense scrutiny, which is why they form part of the modern paradigm of Science. It's just a non-argument to take some parody of the theories, and then dismiss them as silly.
The Big Bang, for example, is not an explosion but an expansion. Dark Matter is not undetectable, it just doesn't interact with light so we can't see it in the normal way (we can feel its "weight", though).
And again, the challenge is to explain (a) what your alternative idea is, and (b) why it's better, and (c) how we could test it against the current theory. Absent such an alternative, it's not clear how you are contributing to a serious argument.
What I'm objecting to is the way scientists present the big bang et cetera as facts, just as phlogiston was. They aren't proven facts - they're current theories.
To quote the OP "It is also accepted that the big bang pushed everything out instantaneously." "accepted" does not mean proven. There are many instances of "accepted" theories being discredited.
There are few research grants for big bang deniers, so the scientists do well to stay on the bandwagon...
To quote the OP "It is also accepted that the big bang pushed everything out instantaneously." "accepted" does not mean proven. There are many instances of "accepted" theories being discredited.
There are few research grants for big bang deniers, so the scientists do well to stay on the bandwagon...
Jim, //Absent such an alternative, it's not clear how you are contributing to a serious argument.//
Wow! That sounds awfully like ‘you have nothing to say that’s worthy of my consideration’. Venator is saying what I’ve said many times. You present theories as ‘fact’ when they aren’t. I question your suggestion that in order to contribute to a serious argument it’s necessary to offer an alternative explanation. It isn’t. ‘Don’t know’ works.
Wow! That sounds awfully like ‘you have nothing to say that’s worthy of my consideration’. Venator is saying what I’ve said many times. You present theories as ‘fact’ when they aren’t. I question your suggestion that in order to contribute to a serious argument it’s necessary to offer an alternative explanation. It isn’t. ‘Don’t know’ works.
But take that to it's logical conclusion and nothing you believe to be fact might actually be so. It starts to become philosophy rather than science but you can only make conclusions regarding what you trust you are experiencing of an outside world. I think one has to take something as fact when the evidence one can see/present suggests it is so.
It's true to an extent that you can contribute to a debate merely by explaining in detail why a particular idea is wrong. But venator isn't even doing that, is he? He's just taking some bizarre parody of the idea, trumpeting it as silly, and then dismissing it then and there. That is no stronger an argument than to dismiss, say, Abrahmic religions by an "argument" along the lines of "some big beardy bloke in the sky waved his arms around and everything just magically popped into existence? Puh-lease!" Even if it's right to reject such religions, there's such a thing as being right for the wrong reasons (and, equally, wrong for the right reasons).
I think it was earlier in this thread, though it might have been another actually, but I provided an explanation of what the word "theory" means in Science. In essence, the answer is that it means "fact", or at least as close to a fact as Science will ever be able to get. Rather like a theorem in Mathematics is something that has been proven, a Theory in Science is something that has passed the required scientific tests. And very rarely, if ever, does a Scientific Theory that has passed these tests get utterly rejected as false later down the line. I'm not aware of an example, anyway. Times when scientists have been wrong are usually when they've proposed an hypothesis and not tested it properly, or applied a theory that is correct in one case to another case where it turns out not to apply.
In terms of the Big Bang, then, a whole wealth of evidence supports both the general idea in the first place of a beginning to the Universe, and the specifics of what the Theory proposes. Thus an argument against it that amounts to "I think this is silly, therefore it's not true", is no argument at all. Or an argument that "No-one researches this any more, so there's a conspiracy to suppress it," isn't much better either (indeed, among those theories that venator describes as accepted but discredited would be all of the alternatives to the Big Bang (although those were really hypotheses anyway)).
A very common argument I've seen you make before goes "Scientists don't consider the possibility that future experiments and technology will exist that show current ideas up as wrong." This is not so much a bad argument as a wrong one. Each time a new experiment is devised, or a new theory is dreamed up, this is precisely because Scientists considered that possibility and took it seriously enough to do something about it. All progress in Science is made, essentially, by taking that possibility seriously. All measurements have an uncertainty attached to them, either due to the experimental set-up being possibly dodgy, or because of the theoretical prediction being not quite solid enough. Science is about these uncertainties. About pinning them down, trying to understand them, remove them where possible, and about improving the measurements to squeeze them yet further. If you really, really wanted to be technical, we've still not even confirmed to 100% certainty Newton's Inverse Square Law of Gravity -- I think the current experimental limits amount to a 99.9999999999999999% certainty. Beyond a certain point you stop caring about the difference, although experiments to test the law are going on even today. It's one of the strengths of Science that there are still tests of even the things that most people take for granted.
I don't think I've ever hid this, really. But the Answerbank is not a Scientific forum. So far as I can tell it's not got the ability to be one even if I wanted it to, as the answer boxes are text only, so it's not easy to type in the required equations. So I'll go on giving the answers that I feel are the fairest and most accurate representation of Science as it stands today. Where necessary, that will include mentions of the weaknesses, gaps, uncertainties -- but primarily it will focus on the strengths, of which there are many.
I think it was earlier in this thread, though it might have been another actually, but I provided an explanation of what the word "theory" means in Science. In essence, the answer is that it means "fact", or at least as close to a fact as Science will ever be able to get. Rather like a theorem in Mathematics is something that has been proven, a Theory in Science is something that has passed the required scientific tests. And very rarely, if ever, does a Scientific Theory that has passed these tests get utterly rejected as false later down the line. I'm not aware of an example, anyway. Times when scientists have been wrong are usually when they've proposed an hypothesis and not tested it properly, or applied a theory that is correct in one case to another case where it turns out not to apply.
In terms of the Big Bang, then, a whole wealth of evidence supports both the general idea in the first place of a beginning to the Universe, and the specifics of what the Theory proposes. Thus an argument against it that amounts to "I think this is silly, therefore it's not true", is no argument at all. Or an argument that "No-one researches this any more, so there's a conspiracy to suppress it," isn't much better either (indeed, among those theories that venator describes as accepted but discredited would be all of the alternatives to the Big Bang (although those were really hypotheses anyway)).
A very common argument I've seen you make before goes "Scientists don't consider the possibility that future experiments and technology will exist that show current ideas up as wrong." This is not so much a bad argument as a wrong one. Each time a new experiment is devised, or a new theory is dreamed up, this is precisely because Scientists considered that possibility and took it seriously enough to do something about it. All progress in Science is made, essentially, by taking that possibility seriously. All measurements have an uncertainty attached to them, either due to the experimental set-up being possibly dodgy, or because of the theoretical prediction being not quite solid enough. Science is about these uncertainties. About pinning them down, trying to understand them, remove them where possible, and about improving the measurements to squeeze them yet further. If you really, really wanted to be technical, we've still not even confirmed to 100% certainty Newton's Inverse Square Law of Gravity -- I think the current experimental limits amount to a 99.9999999999999999% certainty. Beyond a certain point you stop caring about the difference, although experiments to test the law are going on even today. It's one of the strengths of Science that there are still tests of even the things that most people take for granted.
I don't think I've ever hid this, really. But the Answerbank is not a Scientific forum. So far as I can tell it's not got the ability to be one even if I wanted it to, as the answer boxes are text only, so it's not easy to type in the required equations. So I'll go on giving the answers that I feel are the fairest and most accurate representation of Science as it stands today. Where necessary, that will include mentions of the weaknesses, gaps, uncertainties -- but primarily it will focus on the strengths, of which there are many.
-- answer removed --
Although I am a physicist, when it comes to cosmology I am just an amateur, but I have to say that I am 100% with Jim's last few posts about the scientific method and deciding whether something is true or not.
I thing venator's posts and your last post naomi are way of the mark. I don't see how you can say that Jim has patronised you or anybody else and he's certainly not arrogant or insulting in what he has written.
I thing venator's posts and your last post naomi are way of the mark. I don't see how you can say that Jim has patronised you or anybody else and he's certainly not arrogant or insulting in what he has written.
-- answer removed --
Mibs. :o)
Jim, //A very common argument I've seen you make before goes "Scientists don't consider the possibility that future experiments and technology will exist that show current ideas up as wrong."//
That’s not true. I addressed it in my post that was removed – but to avoid misunderstanding it’s important that I re-address it. What I have said is that I think it’s likely that future technology will enable science to understand that which it currently cannot – and that’s a very different thing.
Jim, //A very common argument I've seen you make before goes "Scientists don't consider the possibility that future experiments and technology will exist that show current ideas up as wrong."//
That’s not true. I addressed it in my post that was removed – but to avoid misunderstanding it’s important that I re-address it. What I have said is that I think it’s likely that future technology will enable science to understand that which it currently cannot – and that’s a very different thing.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Law10 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Tree Slayers Case Moved To The Crown...
News17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.