Verification of the Big Bang (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, June 09, 2012, 23:35 (4551 days ago) @ xeno6696

Actually, that's classic textbook "how scientists are always supposed to talk." 
> -Yes, agreed. Vagaries are classic textbook science jargon. Of that there was never a doubt. The doubt comes when the vagaries become touted as fact to the public. That, as I have always maintained, is a crucial sticking point for me, and will continue to be so.- 
> 
> 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. 
> -Perhaps, but then you are admitting the failure of the scientific method. The scientific method does not work by giving credit to the first one out the gate, it gives credit to the one that a) explains the observations best, b) offers the most predictable, testable results, and c) has not yet been directly disproven.-
> 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."
> -First, I was mistaken about something. Plasma Cosmology is the spin off from the Electric Universe Theory, and the one I am more satisfied (though not completely). Most of the rebuttals too it are straw man arguments, such as:-"Standard Newtonian gravity can't explain the observed rotation speeds of galaxies. The right answer is that there is dark matter in those galaxies; we know this is the right answer because there is a whole lot of other evidence for dark matter. However, MOND was introduced as a way of modifying Newtonian gravity, rather than by introducing a new component to galaxies, to explain the flaw."-Sure, say your model is right and the other is wrong because you have theoretical evidence of a theoretical substance that can never be observed.-> 
> 1. Explain everything BBT explains, plus a phenomenon that BBT doesn't explain.
> -A) It doesn't have to explain everything that the first theory does, and truth be told, no new theory ever will. Why? Because old theories like the BBT have had decades of research poured into them, and when the observations didn't fit the predictions the theory was shored up with adhoc non-sense that became the common parlance. A hypothesis MUST go through the vetting and iterative refinement process of the scientific method. How else are the kinks supposed to get worked out? And how is that supposed to happen when new theories are dismissed out of hand simply because they are new.-
B) The theory DOES do some new things. Originally I linked a whole slew of predictions made by this model that were not able to be accounted for by the bbt. Some of these predictions have been tested, by NASA no less, and shown to be valid, where as the predictions made by the bbt of the same event failed. That is something new. That explains something the old theory doesn't. It also accounts for numerous planetary phenomena that are also likewise inexplicable under the bbt paradigm, and requires no imaginary substances to do it.-
> 
> 
> [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. -Yes, fix mistakes. Not cover them up with froo froo mathematical models with no observational backing in the real world.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.