Verification of the Big Bang (General)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, June 09, 2012, 15:48 (4551 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/06/07/astronomers-identify-very-d... > 
> > 
> > If the big bang never happened, then why does correcting for the rate of expansion allow us to find results such as this?
> 
> An expanding universe does not necessarily imply the big bang. There are other models I have linked before, such as the electric universe model, that also account for these same type of result. More to the point, there are a lot of assumptions being made not only about what they are seeing, but about what those sightings really indicate. That is why the article is filled with phrases like 'seem to be', 'seem to indicate', 'implies', and other vagaries. 
> -Actually, that's classic textbook "how scientists are always supposed to talk." -
> All of that being said, my biggest issue with the BBT is that it suffers from the same problem as evolution. It is being read as Fact instead of Theory. Even in scientific terms there is a difference between the two. Unfortunately, modern science often seem to confuse the two, and put on their blinders.
> 
> Is it wrong to hope that scientist would keep an open mind?-No, and as noted above, when you read actual literature (direct, or journalistic as the one I posted above) all those words you seem suspicious of are used, and used regularly. -What I don't think you realize is that science works, by giving credit to the first theory out of the gate. If the electric universe theory had been proposed at the same time as BBT, we might well have a reversed scenario. -I say this because of this quote from Paul Davies:- "In spite of its Velikovskian flavour, the Bally-Harrison electric universe unfortunately does not lead to any obviously important astrophysical consequences."-This means that yes, indeed, it can explain the same phenomenon as BBT, however, because it doesn't do a fundamental thing:-1. Explain everything BBT explains, plus a phenomenon that BBT doesn't explain.-It isn't a valid candidate (at this time) to replace BBT, spend Billions rewriting textbooks, and all the other difficult things we need to do when a major theory is overturned.-Here's criticism of the theory of unknown origin, but some learned insights:- http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html-(Ap... there are things I hadn't looked at when you originally posted the links. I'm less inclined to agree with Davies than I was moments ago.)-
[EDIT]-I will tie this back to our discussion that science is model building. Science needs to document theories like this, but pragmatically, since the theory doesn't really do anything new, it doesn't need that much scrutiny. Science is about moving forward, and fixing mistakes as they're made. You might not like it, but its the way it was designed to work from the beginning.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"