?? No Big Bang (Not pseudoscience)

[4321lynx]

Not pseudoscience yet, anyway.

Observation of distant galaxies shows them to decrease in size with distance as measured by Redshift of light from them (and so their brightness). This paper states they should appear bigger the further ( i.e. the older) they are.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...e-against-expanding-universe-in-mnras.943111/

If the link given in the last sentence of the first post there does not work for you, go to:

https://lppfusion.com/is-the-univer...t-galaxy-size-predictions-based-on-expansion/

Interesting.

 

[untermensche]

No, no! Don't tell me it's so!

This is life altering news!

 

[Underseer]

Haha! I love the disclaimer at the top:

<< Mentor Note -- after a very long Mentor discussion, we acknowledge that this paper, while potentially controversial, has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. We believe that a discussion of this paper can be useful and constructive. Thanks >>

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...e-against-expanding-universe-in-mnras.943111/

The guy who wrote the paper is not doing well at all in the debates on the forum there.

 

[fast]

No, no! Don't tell me it's so!

This is life altering news!

One of the things about [T]heories isn't that they are highly unlikely to be wrong but rather incapable of being wrong, by definition. That's why Theories not living up to expectations are not discarded as false; instead, the scope to which they apply is adjusted.

That being said, the Big Bang is a Theory. It's even called The Big Bang Theory. Since it's a Theory, it CANNOT be wrong, so anyone claiming that it's wrong is well, mistaken, to say the least. If there is any legitimacy to claims against the Theory, the Theory will not be discarded and will not go down in history as a scientific bumble; what will happen is that it will continue to be hailed but as apart of a new discovered truth.

I hope others find my assessment well intentioned. Science as an endeavor invites critique, and when an hypothesis is shot down, it'll sink like a ship, but once a hypothesis has been elevated to the status of a Theory, it shall eternally live in the forever true things of the world.

 

[Juma]

No, no! Don't tell me it's so!

This is life altering news!

One of the things about [T]heories isn't that they are highly unlikely to be wrong but rather incapable of being wrong, by definition. That's why Theories not living up to expectations are not discarded as false; instead, the scope to which they apply is adjusted.

That being said, the Big Bang is a Theory. It's even called The Big Bang Theory. Since it's a Theory, it CANNOT be wrong, so anyone claiming that it's wrong is well, mistaken, to say the least. If there is any legitimacy to claims against the Theory, the Theory will not be discarded and will not go down in history as a scientific bumble; what will happen is that it will continue to be hailed but as apart of a new discovered truth.

I hope others find my assessment well intentioned. Science as an endeavor invites critique, and when an hypothesis is shot down, it'll sink like a ship, but once a hypothesis has been elevated to the status of a Theory, it shall eternally live in the forever true things of the world.

Your theory is wrong...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

 

[fast]

Well shit!

 

[Malintent]

No, no! Don't tell me it's so!

This is life altering news!

One of the things about [T]heories isn't that they are highly unlikely to be wrong but rather incapable of being wrong, by definition. That's why Theories not living up to expectations are not discarded as false; instead, the scope to which they apply is adjusted.

That being said, the Big Bang is a Theory. It's even called The Big Bang Theory. Since it's a Theory, it CANNOT be wrong, so anyone claiming that it's wrong is well, mistaken, to say the least. If there is any legitimacy to claims against the Theory, the Theory will not be discarded and will not go down in history as a scientific bumble; what will happen is that it will continue to be hailed but as apart of a new discovered truth.

I hope others find my assessment well intentioned. Science as an endeavor invites critique, and when an hypothesis is shot down, it'll sink like a ship, but once a hypothesis has been elevated to the status of a Theory, it shall eternally live in the forever true things of the world.

.. in opposite world.

Can't tell if this is sarcastic or a demonstration of a complete lack of understanding of... understanding.

 

[skepticalbip]

Well shit!

Actually, you were kinda right - to a point.

A theory is a mathematical model that can explain observations and predict future observations. It is in the philosophical interpretation of that model that serious errors pop up. The theories, themselves, are generally valid within limits.

example:
... The geocentric theory for the universe was valid within limits. The theory is still used by astronomers in aiming their telescopes and by navigators when not using GPS. The "wrongness" is the philosophical acceptance of the model as reality.

... Newtonian mechanics is valid within limits. The theory is still used by physicists and is actually still the basis for "explaining" the universe. However, the philosophical interpretation of gravity as an actual force, the actual existence of a universal reference frame, etc. are apparently wrong if Einstein's theory of relativity is a closer approximation of reality.

 

[Elixir]

... The geocentric theory for the universe was valid within limits.

That is a model, not a Theory. The fact that the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in colloquial speech is to blame.

 

[Malintent]

... The geocentric theory for the universe was valid within limits.

That is a model, not a Theory. The fact that the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in colloquial speech is to blame.

That's just your theory.

 

[skepticalbip]

... The geocentric theory for the universe was valid within limits.

That is a model, not a Theory. The fact that the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in colloquial speech is to blame.

I agree that the word, "theory", is misused in common speech which causes problems in communication. The geocentric theory was a mathematical model which makes it a theory. Stars on the ecliptic change apparent position by approximately 15 degrees of arc per hour from east to west. The angle subtended/hour by stars decrease with latitude to zero over the poles. Knowing the time and the observed angle of a given star above the horizon, someone can calculate their position on Earth (or alternately, knowing one's position and the time, someone can calculate where to aim their telescope to view a particular star). This is the results the theory gives us and is valid regardless of the fact that the philosophical model of a celestial sphere revolving around the Earth has nothing to do with reality.

Trying to calculate such positions using a heliocentric model turns out to be a real pain in the arse.

 

[none]

interestingly... the mods over at physics forums locked the thread
something to do the way the individual that introduced the paper for discussion was answering inquiries
after a couple days they reopened the thread
the thread is now back open and there hasn't been much activity or clarification

 

[bilby]

Well shit!

Actually, you were kinda right - to a point.

A theory is a mathematical model that can explain observations and predict future observations. It is in the philosophical interpretation of that model that serious errors pop up. The theories, themselves, are generally valid within limits.

example:
... The geocentric theory for the universe was valid within limits. The theory is still used by astronomers in aiming their telescopes and by navigators when not using GPS. The "wrongness" is the philosophical acceptance of the model as reality.

... Newtonian mechanics is valid within limits. The theory is still used by physicists and is actually still the basis for "explaining" the universe. However, the philosophical interpretation of gravity as an actual force, the actual existence of a universal reference frame, etc. are apparently wrong if Einstein's theory of relativity is a closer approximation of reality.

... Phlogiston is a perfectly good theory, as long as you understand that Phlogiston has negative values for many of its characteristic properties such as mass - the theory works just fine if Phlogiston is taken to have a relative atomic mass of (approximately) minus sixteen, and to form molecules of Ph₂ with a bond energy of minus four hundred and ninety eight kJ/mol.

 

[Speakpigeon]

<snip>

the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in colloquial speech

<snip>

Theory
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Could you please explain?
EB

 

[bilby]

<snip>

the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in colloquial speech

<snip>

Theory
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Could you please explain?
EB

He is pointing out that definition 1 (typically used in science) has almost exactly the opposite implication of confidence or certainty to definition 6 (commonly used in casual conversation).

 

[steve_bank]

Words like law, hypothesis, theory and others as general desiptors are contextual.

To me a law is a scientific principle so thoroughly tested by use it is used without question within bounds. Ohm's Law, Newton's Laws, Laws Of Thermodynamics.

For me a hy[oyjesis is a general idea without a cvompletly thought out and developed model. My hypothesis on this problem is xxx...I am working on a theory. A contectual framing of the state of development.

Theory is a broad term. String Theory initially was a well thought out model that was not testable, some scientists considered it philosophy. Electromagnetic Theory comatins Ampere's Law, Gauses Law, Faraday's Law. And so on.

Modern science is IMO called model based. A system of equations that can be simulated.

The BB is a model that predicts most or all what we see today. It is not provable. It is a spohisticated 'cureve fit' to data in a sense, so by definition the model works.

What bothers me is when I see pop sci shows that present BB as fact. In popular use the BB has become a sort of creation myth. It is a good useful model, nothimg more ot less.

Regardless of wyhat you call it, it comes down to a system of equations subject to review and testing.

Word descriptions and meaning are over on philosophy. The problem with words is it is diffuclt to develop a bounded imclusive meaning and interpretation.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
Well said…

I definitely agree that pop sci gives a very poor impression of what science is. It leaves the viewer with the impression that the philosophical models being described are absolute truth.

As I see it, there is certainly a fair amount of philosophy in science but there is also the mathematical theories that can accurately predict what will be observed and accurately “postdict” what was observed. The fact that the mathematical theory does accurately describe observation does not necessarily mean that the philosophical model assumed is true, only that the theory will still apply if the philosophical model does describe reality.

For example, Newton’s universal gravity (a purely mathematical model) works well enough to predict comet orbitals, allows us to send probes to the outer planets and accurately aim cameras to photograph their moons, and to send rovers to Mars and safely land them there. However, the philosophical model Newton used of gravity being an actual force and there being an actual fixed universal reference frame appear to be erroneous assumptions if uncle Albert’s model is closer to reality. Newton’s mathematical model does work quite well even though the philosophical model appears to be very wrong but it would work equally well if the philosophical model did describe reality.

For me, the worst pop sci was Brian Greene’s “Elegant Universe” series. Although I enjoyed the series, the fact that it was presented as absolute reality while much of what was presented was actually speculative philosophy made it misleading.