Theory vs fact

[Nightshift]

Is there anyone here who doesnt believe in the big bang theory or black holes?

I'm curious, there is some very good mathemeatical models that are the basis of many astronomical theories that are taunted around and discussed as if they are known fact. I have never observed nor met an observer of a black hole, indeed I like the theories behind black holes and everything suggests that they should exist, but correct me if I am wrong, no one has ever actually proven their existance nor the existance of any event horizon so why do we discuss them as if they are undeniable fact?

The big bang theory has a good foundation also but this is one I just can't subscribe to, it just doesnt make sense to me. Again though it is discussed in publications as if it is fact. This and many other theories.

I read about the British decision to withdraw from the Gemini telescope project based on a budget defecit and spiraling costs, this is indeed a shame but why would a government keep funding (at great cost) scientific research when the scientists all banter about theories that mean nothing to any one and are not proven fact. Is this the best that the governments billions can come up with? Is it really that the only fundamental functioning development of the space age is Velcro? I know to find answers you have to spend money but thats all we astronomers do, spend money.

The scientific community needs to start proving theories rather than endorsing them as fact, I fear that the funding cuts are becoming more widespread simply because astronomy isnt providing the population with any tangeable outcomes. Just more questions than we started with.

What's your thoughts on this?

Dennis.

[edwardsdj]

So many people misunderstand science. Science deals in theories supported by observations. If you are looking for irrefutable truths, turn to religion.

If there are observations that contradict a scientific theory, then that theory will eventually be abandoned.

Black holes and the big bang theory fit with a vast body of observation evidence. Different theories may well emerge in the future that better describe the observations but at present there is no significant observational evidence to contradict either the General Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang theory.

People who endorse scientific theories as fact really don't understand science. Science attempts to describe nature. If nature doesn't fit with the theory, the theory is wrong. This is why science evolves over time as new and more powerful theories emerge.

My two cents :)

Have fun,
Doug

[Brian W]

Hi,
As you are having trouble with the 'Big Bang Theory' do a little surfing and explore 'String Theory'. Not to say that it is absolutely right but it does give an interesting view of the Universe(s) we inhabit. However it is perhaps best to remember that there are very few 'facts' in science, and those that we have are very hard to prove. if you want to have some fun with a simple fact explore the mathematical proof that 1 + 1 = 2.
Brian

[edwardsdj]

Ah, string theory. Now this is one that is supported by no evidence whatsoever. Hey, lets ramp up the number of dimensions to 10 or even 20 and look at how many extra degrees of freedom we have to play with. You can describe anything with a theory like that. You also get all these extra dimensions that you have to find a nifty was to close up again to remove those extra degrees of freedom to what we observe.

There is definately no experimental evidence for anything other than four space-time dimensions. To me this contradicts string theory immediately.

There is a very useful process in science called Occam's Razor. Anything supurfluous goes and the simplest explanation is what stands the test of time. When string theory started it was thought to be a simple explanation of what seemed like a very complicated situation. After a few decades of work on it it seems like a very complicated solution in deed.

To me the current obsession with string theory is one of the major reasons that fundamental physics hasn't made much progress in recent decades.

[Brian W]

You are correct that there is no proof for string theory and that bringing in multiple dimensions does open things up a wee bit. The main trouble I have with the Big Bang is that, as I understand it, there is a beginning. I have trouble with what was before the beginning. String Theory needs no beginning. (again as I understand it). Applying the razor leaves me with at least the core of the simpler idea... the universe(s) are infinite.

To me (from a Buddhist perspective, not to proselytize or to get into a religious debate, just to let you understand my world view) the idea of infinity is quite acceptable.

However for me the bottom line is that cosmology attempts to explain what we experience and as important as it may be to truly understand what we see I am just happy to see.

String Theory may indeed be a dead end but probably not a waste of time in that it allows for and perhaps even demands out of the box thinking.

Brian

[edwardsdj]

String theory was not the first to propose extra dimensions. Kaluza-Klein theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza-Klein_theory was first published in 1921 in an attempt to unify general relativity with electromagnetism in five space-time dimensions.

The problem with these theories is that by adding additional dimensions you create more freedom and many more possible solutions. Many of these solutions don't correspond to anything observed so the challenge is to "compactify" the extra dimensions to take the unobserved stuff back out again.

Sounds very complicated to me. If there was any evidence of the extra dimensions I'd become a subscriber to higher dimensional theories like string theory immediately.

[Kokatha man]

The scientific community needs to start proving theories rather than endorsing them as fact, I fear that the funding cuts are becoming more widespread simply because astronomy isnt providing the population with any tangeable outcomes. Just more questions than we started with.

What's your thoughts on this?

Dennis.

Interesting little discussion fellas - reminds me of a quote I used in an inscription for one of my public sculptures: "Knowledge expands our sense of wonder" aka "The more we understand, the less we know."

Someone told me that the Judeo-christian bible has something analogous: not subscribing personally to that ethos, I'm unsure as to the veracity of such (but maybe oneday I'll subscribe to the purchase of a secondhand 13mm ethos!)

However, I do know that within (our) Aboriginal lores this aphorism is widely articulated; hence my using it on the aforesaid sculpture. I have no problems with "The Big Bang" concept et al as an articulation/analogy of events and fail to see why some sort of stasis has to be inflicted upon it: the "what happened before the bang" perspective - to me it would seem more complementary to see such as "pulsing/oscillating" through infinity.

Having said such, it is a conceptualization: in our cultures it is one of the inferred associations/references within the ubiquitous spiral/concentric rings symbols.

As to spending to expose questions: too much policy and its' effects nowadays seems orientated towards suppressing said.

Regards, Darryl.

[KenGee]

The big Bang theory is a theory developed to best fit the know facts, to describe the current, future and past state of the universe as such it also deals with the origin of the universe. Lets not get into religion here, but when it comes to the big bang, asking what happened before the big bang, demonstrates you don't understand it. Nothing was before the big bang, not even time.
String "theory" on the other hand is an idea that tries to resolve shortcomings in the standard model of atomic physics. Particle physics and more importantly quantum physics has been spectacular at sorting out three of the four fundamental forces. However it has not been able to include gravity. String "theory" is trying to do that, the main problem with string theory, as I understand it, is it doesn't make any predictions that are testable. People are trying hard to come up with some though and maybe they will and maybe they will not.

I guess the important thing here for this thread though is to understand what a theory is in the scientific world as apposed to the normal world. In the everyday world a theory is generally seen as a speculative idea about how something may work. Where in the science world it's an idea based on facts. To take your no one ever seen a black hole a bit further, no one has seen a planet around another star or even proven that the sun is powered by thermo-nuclear fusion!! Hell no one has proven that plate tectonics will create mountains. I mean have you ever seen a mountain range form? If you want to understand the benefits of astronomy then just think about GPS the fact that Europe will not have it’s own version is of little concern really. I mean why spend all that money when there is already a system that works fine and guess what it’s free.;)

[Brian W]

That is exactly where the B.B. T. loses me. to have something come out of nothing is to me not understandable. My limited brain functions require something to come out of something. However if you can mathematically prove to me that something can come out of nothing please do. But until that proof is supplied my 'leap of faith' goes towards something out of something.
Brian

[avandonk]

Here is a proposed method for experimentally testing string theory. It looks to be costly as it needs a very large array of radio telescopes to measure the neutral Hydrogen emmission perturbations. More here

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080128113207.htm

Would you board a modern complex aircraft designed by blind faith, or do you prefer the ones designed by scientific methods? Which would you trust with your life?


Bert

[sheeny]

I think I just have to re-iterate... science has few "facts"... plenty of theories though. And each theory is only as good as it matches observations, or predicts observable phenomena. So there are few "facts" at the cutting edge of science - that's why it works. If it isn't good enough, think of something better and test it.:thumbsup:

I know how I like my planes built!;):)



Al.

[avandonk]

Something comes out of nothing everywhere in the Universe all the time. They are 'virtual' particles that exist fleetingly due to quantum effects. It can be measured. Just google Casimir effect.

Hawking has postulated that these particle pairs near a black hole would lead to one being captured by the black hole and the other would then have no way of disappearing by recombining. Matter from nowhere and nowhen!

Bert

[Karls48]

I don’t think that Big Bang theory says there was nothing before it. It imply that because everything that is the universe we know come to existence with Big Bang we can not know what, if anything existed before Big Bang.
I do have problem to believe that space expanded and that it keeps expanding. That seems to imply to me that space itself is just another transformation of mater or energy.
Black holes, well if neutron stars exist I can not see reason that if very massive star collapses why it could not compress its core to form black hole

[Brian W]

The Aero Coupe was an aircraft that was scientifically designed to be the safest light aircraft of its day because it would not stall. Problem was that it was so safe it killed an awful lot of pilots when it just dropped out of the sky because the pilot was flying to slow. Good theory bad practical.
Brian

[Brian W]

This looks enlightening.

[Brian W]

I did as you suggested and looked up casimir effect. Could not find anything about something out of nothing but there was a lot about an attracting force and photons. Maybe i need to read more?
Brian

[Zuts]

Hi,

Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization it talks about one form of particle creation.

Paul

[Zuts]

Hi,

When i was a boy i had a penguin science dictionary which used to talk about the theory of anti matter particles. These days they can make the stuff by the gram.

Maybe string theory will be the same, who knows.

As far as only beleiving things that you can see and touch, what does that actually mean. I can see and touch my telescope but in reality it is composed of atoms in various quantum states and my view of it is only correct on the macro level. There are many other levels at which one could describe the reality of my telescope.

The common sense view is unfortunately a human perceptional view and generally only has meaning in human terms, it's not much use when dealing with the micro.

Paul

[joe_smith]

But with all the variables of keeping that modern complex aircraft in the air, you just have to have faith that nothing happens as all the scientific methods on the planet wont stop it falling out of the sky ;)

[DJDD]

This is a good point. The word "theory" is bandied about too much in the popular media and this leads to confusion especially when a scientist is interviewed, etc.

I see two problems with the premise for this thread:

1. There are so many people conducting scienctific research now that it is impossible to keep up with, and know about, all the results; and

2. Let's face it, the universe is complex at all scales and we cannot assume that because something cannot be described to a lay person in simple terms that it is incorrect. Or, that because a particular lay person does not understand a concept that the concept is incorrect.

NOT pointing fingers at anyone so please do NOT take offense.

Just some examples:
(a) for point 1 (so many things to know)-
I read a New Scientist article some time ago about a researcher that had simultaneously observed the wave and particle nature of light! well, close, anyway, in that the particle nature was observed and the wave properties were inferred simultaneously. Not sure what has come of it but imagine if I had not read that, then would I think it was impossible? (leading to Point 2, perhaps).

And what about GPS- this leads to observational proof of the General Theory of Relativity. Now, until something better comes along, other than refinements, then the General Theory of Relativity gets my vote.

(b) for point 2
Someone in the thread remarked, "That is exactly where the B.B. T. loses me. to have something come out of nothing is to me not understandable. My limited brain functions require something to come out of something." and "But until that proof is supplied my 'leap of faith' goes towards something out of something.".

But the universe is complex and what one person does not understand another might, and this does not make the concept incorrect.

Example (b) also highlights Point 1 as a subsequent poster referred to virtual/real particle pairs, which are well-established fact but until one knew about them then it could be assumed that it is not a fact but a "theory".

I have been reading Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" so my head is in this space at the moment.

NOT pointing fingers at anyone so please do NOT take offense.

anyway, just my $1's worth (inflation) and a bit of a ramble.


cheers,
DJDD

[Brian W]

(b) for point 2
Someone in the thread remarked, "That is exactly where the B.B. T. loses me. to have something come out of nothing is to me not understandable. My limited brain functions require something to come out of something." and "But until that proof is supplied my 'leap of faith' goes towards something out of something.".

But the universe is complex and what one person does not understand another might, and this does not make the concept incorrect.

That was me . No offense taken. My wife will tell you that I am often wrong, well perhaps not too often. I first responded to this thread with the suggestion that if someone was having trouble with the BBT they might enjoy looking at string theory. Not because I see it as answering everything and being absolutely correct but simply because it offers an interesting alternative. If the best and the brightest do not all agree it would be less than prudent for me to say I have THE TRUTH. Just seems to me that it is an interesting alternative.
Brian

[AGarvin]

I think this is a common misunderstanding of BB theory. The theory is not about the origin of the universe, it's about the evolution of the universe. It explains how the universe evolves over time, not how it began. The name is also misleading as the theory really only states that the universe gets denser and hotter the further back in time you go. There simply isn't (yet) a theory on the origin of the universe.

The way I see it is that we have theories, such as general relativity, that best explain what we see, so we use them, and these theories often lead to predictions such as black holes. I don't however think the science community considers them as fact, just that they are the ones that for now best explain observation and therefore all we have until they are either refined or replaced. The question seems to be how much supporting evidence does a theory have?

A similiar question was raised on the BAUT forums a while ago and an interesting point was raised in that many theories should not be (but often are) considered explanations of physical reality. The example used was general relativity (GR) and the expanding universe. How we can say space is actually expanding when we don't even know what space physically is? We can't. We just have a theory that allows us to treat the distances between galaxies beyond gravities reach as increasing the further out you go and this matches observation. The words "space" and "expanding" however should not be taken literally as space itself doesn't have a clear physical definition.

Andrew.

[Bassnut]

A problem this thread raises is the inadequacy of the English language in describing the meaning of obscure, counter-intuative concepts such as 10 dimensional space, the concept of "before" the BB, given time started then rendering "before" meaningless, and "something" out of "nothing". Math does this eloquently (apparently ;-). But for us plebs trying to get our heads around this, common "language" is woefully inadequate.

[KenGee]

Andrew,
I’ll have to disagree with you there, BB does indeed talk about origins, it may be polite in some circles not to mention that, but it does. The modern BB theory and variations all talk about space and time being created as the singularity expanding. Your correct to an extent in that the cause of the initial expansion is speculative, maybe quantum flux…. Or whatever. Maybe a refined GUT theory will shed some light on it. I talked about string theory just to explore the thread a bit. I think it will come to something.
No for the juicy part Space, what is space? Well the fact is we don’t know, just as we don’t know what time is. But don’t let that bother you; the fun part is trying to find out. As we do, don’t feel as though we can’t make some statements about what we do know and what we don’t, hell and don’t worry if we get it wrong ever now and then.
If your anything like me 20 years ago you could open a cars bonnet and work on it, now you just scratch your head on wait for the RAA. None the less you can still use the car to go to the shop and back. What I’m trying to say don’t think we need to fully understand something before we can make use of the knowledge we have got of it.
The truth is the pace of science has not slowed down. It’s actually become overwhelming. If we made a song and dance out of every discovery like we did in say the 19-century, Science would be a non-stop party. :lol:
While it may seem like we haven’t made must progress in the field of physics, scientist have filled in a lot of gaps. We have also narrowed the gap time between mathematical theories to experimental fact in many areas.
One last thing it’s important to also remember that theories can also be fact’s and can be treated as facts for all intents and proposes simple because scientist are human. It makes it much easy to work with an idea if you do.:thumbsup:.

oh PS As for somthing out of nothing, where do new ideas come from? Do thought's have more or less substance then space or time!!!!!

[Bassnut]

"space" is certainly not nothing. One of the glaring paradoxes in Physics is the difference in calculated and "observed" energy pervading "empty" space, a difference in the order of 10 to the pwr of 100. Just goes to show how much we dont know ;-).

[AGarvin]

Hi Kenny,



I'll have to disagree with your disagreement :P. BB theory does not define the origin of the universe, under any variation, nor was it ever meant to. It explains the evolution of the universe from the Planck time onwards as this is the point that general relativity becomes a valid theory (BB theory is a solution to the equations of GR). Once you get below the Planck scale you need another theory (which we don't yet have) as GR doesn't go there.

There are many references to this. Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos is one source where he states:

A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn’t. The big bang is a theory, partly described in the last two chapters, that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all

Here's (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html) another well referenced paper by Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton.

I does however talk about origins in the sense it explains the origin of the light elements, their abundance, cosmic structure etc ..... it just doesnt explain the origin of the universe itself.

Andrew.

[Brian W]

oh PS As for somthing out of nothing, where do new ideas come from? Do thought's have more or less substance then space or time!!!!![/quote]

New ideas? Thats an interesting idea. I would suggest that it is only possible to have the thoughts / ideas that your culture has prepared you to have. One can only ask the questions that are acceptable to your world view. Any new idea I have ever heard of has been built upon a long long list of previous ideas. Fancy term for it is 'Interdependent origination'. Simply put every effect has a cause.

As for your second question I will leave that too better minds than mine.
Brian

[ballaratdragons]

All the theories are made up. We are actually ALL in the Trueman Show. :lol:

But seriously, I find all the theories interesting. It keeps our minds active. I don't have to agree with any of them, but an active mind is a healthy mind, and healthy minds are the ones that keep researching and testing theories.

It's good to study all sides, not just say "that's crap, I can't believe that". Read about it, expand your mind, then you may have some knowledge to back up 'why' do don't believe a theory. But 'not believing' doesn't disprove it either.

Who knows, every theory could be nowhere near the truth.

Just my 98c worth. (the exchange rate keeps fluctuating :P )

[Nightshift]

LOL, Im glad I started this thread, it certainly is a challenging topic to which most of us have differences of opinion on.

I do just want to say one thing though, it has been said a few times in these posts that

"these theories often lead to predictions such as black holes. I don't however think the science community considers them as fact,"

I disagree, when a scientific publication puts to press an article written by noted astronomical scientist(s), which they do in every months offerings, that makes comments like "Giant black hole is consuming" and "gravitational forces are so powerful they must come from a black hole" and my favourite one, "This Galaxy has at its centre a massive black hole", then the scientific community IS stating this as fact and consider that they do indeed exist.

Dennis.

[Karls48]

Hi Dennis
Can you explain reasons why do you think that Black holes do not exist? By its nature it is not possible to observe Black Hole directly. But there is number of instances when observations detected cloud of the gas spiralling towards nothing visible and emitting X – ray radiation as predicted for Black hole scenario. After all neutron stars do exist and can be verified. The Black hole is just remains more massive star that formed neutron star

[avandonk]

Nightshift can I simply say to you, why are you trolling with standard fudamentalist FUD?

What do you not understand about science? You imply that scientific theory is less believable than any dogma that has no basis in reality.

You are using semantics to imply that because science calls its best current belief systems based on experimental data 'theories' that they have no validity.

I am sorry if I have offended you if I am wrong.

If you are too ignorant to see that you are missing the the basic knowledge to even start to argue, again I am sorry.

To compare facts with theories is a pathetic attempt at clouding any real issues. It is purely an exercise in semantics.

Bert

[KenGee]

Nightshift said
“I disagree, when a scientific publication puts to press an article written by noted astronomical scientist(s), which they do in every months offerings, that makes comments like "Giant black hole is consuming" and "gravitational forces are so powerful they must come from a black hole" and my favourite one, "This Galaxy has at its centre a massive black hole", then the scientific community IS stating this as fact and consider that they do indeed exist.”

Well it’s a practical point really how do you think they should put it. Turn "This Galaxy has at its centre a massive black hole" into observation show there is a large mass at the centre of our galaxy that according to a our current understanding of physics must be a black hole!! Not only would that make every scientific article a chore to read, it would also convey to the reader that scientist where less then confident about they’re understanding. I mean where would this stop, should we have a statement like that every time we mention the theory of relativity? Or QED what about the so-called laws of gravity which we know are actually wrong!!.
No I think your being unreasonable to expect some sort of disclaimer in front of every scientific theory given that the premise is implied in the scientific method itself.

[Outbackmanyep]

I have a headache......:sadeyes:

[AGarvin]

I think when dealing with any theory one must understand what is really being said and not take it beyond the theories limits.

A black hole is a product of general relativity, and the singularity at the centre is not a physical thing, it’s a mathematical singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_singularity); a point where the mathematics of the theory fail and the theory ceases. The theory predicts its existence, observation indicates its existence, but the theory says nothing about what it actually is in a real physical sense. Black holes are a prime example as we simply don’t yet have a theory to describe matter at these densities, hence the ongoing search for a theory of quantum gravity.

So when the “scientific community” says “it’s a black hole”, one must understand what is meant by the term “black hole”?

Andrew.

[xelasnave]

Well the reason why the "theory" is called big bang is that was the unkind name given by Fred Hoyle who as I understand stood in the "steady state" camp.
He did not mean it as any way complimentary but the name stuck.
So at that stage it was a competing theory whereas today the steady state has been kicked out primarily because of the cosmic background radiation finding.

I dont like the big bang becasue without "inflation" is sinks ...and "inflation" could hardley be called a testable theory... and it asks for a leap in logic I can not get my mind around... I dont buy all we see and more grew to such size in 30 odd seconds... but I dont think there is any experiement to establish inflation ... so it is an idea offerred to support the big bang.

black holes are "there" in theory as a result of a vast extrapolation in math ...so they look expecting them ... like so many things with any theory you can find what you expect if you are looking for it...and so I wonder about the marriage of facts to explaination sometimes.

I can not see any black hole capable of generating the jets they see and prefer instead a massive bianary star system which I believe will show the same apparent gravitation... certainly a binary system will generate the vortexual jets whether you go for the concept of frame dragging or not...

The lack of an understanding of gravity in working out any answer seems likely to fail... the (non existent) force of attraction will not hold galaxies in place and clearly there is an external pushing force ... yet no one is explaining this major aspect from which many other answers will come.other than to introduce a mythical unseen substance.."dark matter"... and it is supposed to make up a greater portion of everything and we can not see it..yeh well I dont buy it..if there is so much of it out there why do we not have a trailer load full of it:shrug:..trying to solve the problems with general relativity sees the need for in effect more mass..hence dark matter is invented.. it is spoken about as if it is a fact..personally I doubt it... as even if you admit it ..it will not solve the problems it was invented to fix...in my view.

I can not see the big deal with string theory or general relativity as to me all they seem to do is to put "space" into a geometric form to describe how matter may behave within that "grid"..space time is a grid of space whereby we seek to fit the three dimentions we understand in to a context of vast distance where the speed of light becomes relevant to action at a distance...

but as far as I can tell nothing seeks to show how gravity works and how could it be related to the external push that makes galaxies spin faster than they should or holds them together as a unit... dark matter is offerred to fix the problems but if gravity is limited to C then no matter how much dark matter you add to a galaxiy the problem will not go away... the problem with the faster spin will still be there and you will still be forced to admit that the force holding the galaxy in place can only be indeed external.

AND so as not to upset anybody this is my philosophy;) as I am not a scientist, but my ideas are based on my humble observations of what is available to me..
alex:):):)

[Glenhuon]

It is a human trait, dictated by our limited understanding of the cosmos. A Black Hole, Dark matter etc is called so because we cannot directly see the object, only its effects. It fits the present theories, but someday there will be an observation of some effect that does not fit and the theory will change. Its how we have advanced in our understanding and it will continue as long as our race exists. The facts are the effects, the reason for them is the theory.

Just my 2 bobs worth ( I'm still going metric)

Bill

[Nightshift]

Wow Bert, lighten up, broaden your mind, go back to my first post and read it again, you missed an awful lot, threads like this one are not supposed to be confrontational, read the posts, they are really interesting, except yours, it's just rude. I never once said I didnt believe in black holes, I said, why are they pedalled as fact, when thy are not proven, as is many other scientific theories, in the absence of a better proven theory this one fits the current understanding, but I am not silly enough to have blind faith in it, and neither should any one else, imagine if it is wrong and no one is looking for the right facts, everything is questionable, question everything, its how we learn.

Dennis.

[Brian W]

I went metric and its a lot simpler when it comes to doing money math.

I am tempted to turn the above quote 180 degrees. I would suggest that as it is possible to discern the reasons for an effect that the reasons would be the 'facts'. I would also point out that it is extremely difficult to find all the effects proceeding from a given cause or causes which would make the effect the theory. :whistle: The best you can say is that given cause or causes 'A' this effect or these effects have been observed this time. Never a guaranty that you have found all the effects and never a guaranty you will always find the same effect or effects the next time.

Brian

[Zuts]

The fact is that scientific experiments which 'prove' a theory are only deemed to be good experiments if they are independently verifiable and reproducible.

This is 180 degrees to what you posit, i.e if 'never a guaranty you will always find the same effect or effects the next time' was true of a particular experiment which 'proved' a theory then that particular experiment would be discounted.

Paul

[xelasnave]

Here is a site if anyone is interested

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

alex

[xelasnave]

from that site....

What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
Time dilation in supernova light curves.

alex

[Brian W]

[quote=Zuts;293350]The fact is that scientific experiments which 'prove' a theory are only deemed to be good experiments if they are independently verifiable and reproducible.

hi Paul, let me try again. I grant you that to 'prove' water boils at a certain temperature scientists time and again boiled water and found that under similar circumstances water would boil at a similar temperature. But what they did not and could not prove was that it would always happen exactly the same way. There is an uncertainty factor and though you can make it really really really tiny you can never totally eliminate it. Which may be one reason why scientists prefer to call things 'theories' rather than facts.
Brian

[Zuts]

[QUOTE=Brian W;293462]

Hi Brian,

I notice you are in the Phillipines.

After long effort and observation and repeatable experiments using the scientific method scientists verified the Bernoulli principle. Engineers used this principle and again after long periods of experimentation they designed an aeroplane wing which allows aeroplanes to stay in the air.

Now, admitedly aeroplanes do fall out of the sky, but not because the Bernoulli principle suddenly and for no apparent reason ceases to be true.

So, if ever you leave the Phillipines i would advise you to take a boat as who knows, maybe at 30,000 feet 'There is an uncertainty factor and though you can make it really really really tiny you can never totally eliminate it' the Bernoulli principle may somehow become untrue and your plane may plummet to the ground :)

Then again, it may not because the observed repeatable experiment that things fall to the ground at a certain rate v= at may also give up the ghost and you may find yourself floating around up there.

Quantum effects are affected by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle but i dont believe these effects are visible, measurable or indeed relevant on the macro scale.

Paul

[xelasnave]

and that runs into the following.....

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

alex

[Geoff45]

Many "facts" can only be interpreted in terms of a theory. If you point at Rigel and say "There it is--fact", you are relying on the theory that light travels in (approximately) straight lines. If you say that the sun has such and such a temperature, you are using spectroscopic theory. There are very few (if any) "facts" :ship1:
Geoff

[Brian W]

[quote=Zuts;293469][quote=Brian W;293462]

Hi Brian,

I notice you are in the Phillipines.

After long effort and observation and repeatable experiments using the scientific method scientists verified the Bernoulli principle. Engineers used this principle and again after long periods of experimentation they designed an aeroplane wing which allows aeroplanes to stay in the air.

Hi Paul, you are correct that I am in the Philippines. You are not correct that wings allow airplanes to stay in the air. As a retired commercial pilot here I speak with some authority. It is controlled power that keeps an airplane in the air. Reduce an aircrafts speed below the safe minimum airspeed for that aircraft and you are going to fall down and go boom. Might I suggest that science demands a repeatable and verifiable test result to reduce the probability of having a different effect noted. but i do not believe any scientist would suggest that the chance for a different result is absolute zero. It matters not if it is science or religion at one point or another both world views require a leap of faith because there is always that little nagging doubt or possibility that what you believe just ain't so. Like the old song has it ' the stories your liable to read in the bible just ain't necessarily so.' Physics is now once again in search of the Holy grail of a unified theory because any and all theories today fall apart when pushed to hard.

I will say it again there are no 'facts' in science just things that more or less explain what we experience.

Brian

[Karls48]

Hi Brian, on completely different note. I plan to move to Philippine in about five years time. I have been there serval times before and night sky was just brilliant, especially in Mindanao. But also many nights were cloudy. Any thoughts on astronomy in Philippines? Also do you know how Philippine customs threat importing telescopes there?

[xelasnave]

I think what you put forward in your last sentance is a fact:eyepop::D.

alex:):):)

[Brian W]

I amwered this one privately. But if anyone is wondering dark skies and no sub zero temperatures make for great astronomy when then clouds clear off.

Brian

[astroron]

Does this article help in this discussion? http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/pr-04-08.html
I am sure someone will be able to get something out of it:)
Ron

[Brian W]

The article clarified things for me re putting too much faith in obvious facts and principals. Seems with what they have explored we either have to rethink our understanding of gravity or include multiple new dimensions of some sort to make the new understanding cohesive. as some one in the bible puts it (more or less); our understanding is similar to looking through a smoky mirror you can get the general idea but the finer details are a little obscured.
Brian

[xelasnave]

Are you pulling my chain Ron.
Dark energy is my favorite thing:lol::lol::lol:
alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

When the mythical force of attraction has been cast out and recognition that gravity does not suck but pushes all things will become clear:D.

Space controls matter:eyepop:..matter does not control space;)...in my humble view and at odds with all others:lol::lol::lol:
alex:):):)