Strange Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 Id just like to ask people who are active in science circles, how are people taking the realization that the foundation of our world view is in question? Are people ok with tweaking things to fit or are there actually groups that would like to start over given the current situation? I'm not sure there is any such "realisation" as you suggest. It is just science working as it always does: looking at new ideas, testing and retesting old ideas, making changes as needed, discarding when necessary, and so on. That is what makes science so fascinating. Exciting even. Especially, when you don't just look for things that confirm your own beliefs/wishes about the world. Surely you cant just "tweak" the CP, so much of what we know is tied to that in one way or another.... It is just a working assumption, until we have evidence one way or the other. If people are finding evidence it is wrong, that's great. If people are finding evidence it is true, then that's great. I just found these articles today, i don't even get how this isnt frontpage news. Because it is just yet another scientific idea being explored. What did you expect the headlines to be? SCOTTY99 PROVED CORRECT. PICTURES AT 11.
Scotty99 Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 Intuition is something you have to account for when coming to truths, and the method does not allow this. Then again if truth isn't important to you....
Phi for All Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Intuition is something you have to account for when coming to truths, and the method does not allow this. Then again if truth isn't important to you.... Intuition can only be trusted from knowledgeable people. In general, would you trust the intuition of a six year old? Would you trust the intuition of someone who has only read pop-sci (instead of learning science) over someone who'd been educated heavily? The method doesn't allow scientists to think in terms of "truth". Truth is subjective, so the method stresses the reasoned following of evidence to its conclusions. Your "truth" means nothing to anyone but you, whereas the method at least assures more trustworthiness by working with the best current explanations.
Scotty99 Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 I am merely suggesting there needs to be a nice middle ground where intuition has a part to play. If we can simply remove religion from the equation i think science could begin to have the conversation about what role a creator could play in all of this. I do believe this is eventually what is going to have to happen, its just going to take a number of years before we see this discussed on a mainstream level.
zapatos Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 If we can simply remove religion from the equation i think science could begin to have the conversation about what role a creator could play in all of this. I do believe this is eventually what is going to have to happen, its just going to take a number of years before we see this discussed on a mainstream level. For science to have a conversation about a creator, there must be evidence to work with. Are you suggesting there is or will be evidence of God?
Phi for All Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 If we can simply remove religion from the equation i think science could begin to have the conversation about what role a creator could play in all of this. Why would science be interested in a conversation about an unnecessary creator?
Scotty99 Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 For science to have a conversation about a creator, there must be evidence to work with. Are you suggesting there is or will be evidence of God? Scroll up a few posts to the articles i linked... The reason the CP is being questioned is not only that it isnt homogenous like we expected, but it also has an anisotropy (basically a preferred sense of being/direction) that is aligned exactly to the axis (ecliptic) of this tiny little rock we call earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology) They have sent up at least 3 missions (maybe more by now?) and they have all come back with the same results. Instead of using intuition science is now trying to rewrite the cosmological principle to wipe away this result.
zapatos Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 I read the articles you linked. It seems as if you are saying they show evidence of God. Do I have that correct?
Scotty99 Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 I read the articles you linked. It seems as if you are saying they show evidence of God. Do I have that correct? I am saying you are not privy as to why the cosmological principle is being scrutinized as such. Most people aren't aware of the anisotropies present in the CMB, not something they really want getting out.
zapatos Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 An unequivocal response to whether or not you think there is, or will be, evidence of God for science to examine, would be helpful.
Mordred Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) I am saying you are not privy as to why the cosmological principle is being scrutinized as such. Most people aren't aware of the anisotropies present in the CMB, not something they really want getting out. That is BS. I study the CMB data for my model building all the time. I also have the technical know how that I do not require any words or sentences in any Papers I read. Unless you study the actual mathematics and data yourself exclusively without reading a single line. You are at the mercy of everyone elses conclusions instead of your own. Unless you know better ie understand the models and math you are at the mercy of pop media and every alternate theory out there as you do not have the tools necessary to form your own opinion based strictly from the data Edited July 13, 2017 by Mordred
Scotty99 Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Heh, apparently science is also on the verge of abandoning the inflation theory: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf I guess that is another way of explaining away the CMB anisotropies... And zapatos, please... Edited July 13, 2017 by Scotty99
Mordred Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Thanks for demonstrating my point. A physicist would review the professional paper. Inflation has always been challenged ever since Guth first proposed the model Edited July 13, 2017 by Mordred
Scotty99 Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 That is BS. I study the CMB data for my model building all the time. I also have the technical know how that I do not require any words or sentences in any Papers I read. Unless you study the actual mathematics and data yourself exclusively without reading a single line. You are at the mercy of everyone elses conclusions instead of your own. Unless you know better ie understand the models and math you are at the mercy of pop media and every alternate theory out there as you do not have the tools necessary to form your own opinion based strictly from the data You deny these anisotropies are present? You deny the CP is in question? Did you read the article i linked above from scientific american with professors from harvard/princeton shunning the inflation theory based on the findings from the CMB? How are you so unaware of science's current predicament being a regular on a science forum mordred? Thanks for demonstrating my point. A physicist would review the professional paper. Inflation has always been challenged ever since Guth first proposed the model So its cool to abandon the inflation model but not the big bang? Explain that one away lol.
Mordred Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) When did I state abandon either? I stated study the actual model and math not pop media coverage. If you want to properly understand any model proposal that is an obvious requirement Edited July 13, 2017 by Mordred
Scotty99 Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 When did I state abandon either? Today we are fortunate to have sharp, fundamental questions imposed on us by observations. The fact that our leading ideas have not worked out is a historic opportunity for a theoretical breakthrough. Instead of closing the book on the early universe, we should recognize that cosmology is wide open. That is the last paragraph from that article. Explain to me why its ok to abandon (what these professors are suggesting) the inflation theory but the big bang is sacred and must not be challenged.
Mordred Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Get the peer review of that article first. I don't conclude anything without examining the math and data myself Edited July 13, 2017 by Mordred
Scotty99 Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 Get the peer review of that article first. I don't conclude anything without examining the math and data myself Peer review of what lol? Its not a study but a "state of things" article. Science is doing nothing but trying to patch up the model to explain away the CMB results, i saw this happening 2 years ago when i made my first post on this forum.
Strange Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 I am saying you are not privy as to why the cosmological principle is being scrutinized as such. Because that is what science does. Scrutinise and test everything. Not take anything for granted. Not let assumptions go untested. Not allow intuition to go untested. Etc. Most people aren't aware of the anisotropies present in the CMB, not something they really want getting out. As it has been widely covered the scientific and popular press (not to mention the internet), "they" appear to doing a crap job of keeping it secret. That is the last paragraph from that article. Explain to me why its ok to abandon (what these professors are suggesting) the inflation theory but the big bang is sacred and must not be challenged. It isn't sacred and is constantly challenged. Why on Earth would you think otherwise? Because there isn't any evidence for your beliefs?
Scotty99 Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 The big bang is constantly challenged? Outside of the absurd (multiverse) i dont see much if any of that.... It just strikes me as odd that article breaks down the problems in science today nicely, but not once suggests an alternative to the big bang. Id just like to see science get to a spot where they can bring intuition into the mix. I think now would be a better time than any, given the current situation.
zapatos Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 And zapatos, please...Don't give me that "please..." crap. You stated science could study the role of a creator. Dodging a very reasonable question related to that assertion is very poor form on your part showing your unwillingness to discuss this seriously. Don't bring it up if you don't want to talk about it.
Strange Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) The big bang is constantly challenged? Outside of the absurd (multiverse) i dont see much if any of that....Maybe because you only read pop sci stories? I am not a cosmologist, not even a scientist, but I have seen several papers questioning various aspects and f the Big Bang model. (And most [all?] multiverse theories are variations of the Big Bang, not alternatives, anyway.) It just strikes me as odd that article breaks down the problems in science today nicely, but not once suggests an alternative to the big bang.Perhaps because the evidence for the Big Bang model is overwhelming. And the theoretical basis (GR) is extremely well supported. Finding a viable alternative is going to be very difficult. Id just like to see science get to a spot where they can bring intuition into the mix. I think now would be a better time than any, given the current situation.I don't know what role you want intuition to play, beyond what it does now. It obviously can't replace objective evidence. "Current situation"? What does that mean? One of the biggest "problems" at the moment is the lack of evidence for anything that could replace/extend the Big Bang or the standard model. That is the last paragraph from that article. Explain to me why its ok to abandon (what these professors are suggesting) the inflation theory but the big bang is sacred and must not be challenged. Also, inflation is just one hypothesis (NOT theory) to explain some evidence. There is no overwhelming evidence for it. And there are alternatives. So... Edited July 13, 2017 by Strange
Phi for All Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 "Best explanation" implies there are others that aren't as good, that aren't as well supported by evidence. There's nothing hidebound about this. How can someone well educated in science NOT use intuition when it comes to advancing what we know? I think what's being argued is uneducated intuition is valuable as well, and that I don't agree with. Someone who has been shown what science is about through popular journalism has NOT learned science. The intuition of someone who hasn't learned science is as valuable as any guess.
Mordred Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) Peer review of what lol? Its not a study but a "state of things" article. Science is doing nothing but trying to patch up the model to explain away the CMB results, i saw this happening 2 years ago when i made my first post on this forum. Precisely my point it is an opinion not a full examination. One that was written prior to Planck data If your going to base your opinions on every pop media article out there you will never learn a single thing. There is no patchwork. Fine tuning yes patchwork no. Particularly on the topics under discussion with extremely high confidence levels. You want to sway our opinions on this forum put forth a better effort in applying the models under mathematics. I will happily listen and supply either support or counter evidence (which counts as support, if applied correctly). If you could do that. The big bang is constantly challengedEvery model in physics is constantly challenged. That is the very heartbeat of the scientific method. Examine all possibilities then test each and see what fits the best. Edited July 13, 2017 by Mordred
beecee Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 The big bang is constantly challenged? Outside of the absurd (multiverse) i dont see much if any of that.... It just strikes me as odd that article breaks down the problems in science today nicely, but not once suggests an alternative to the big bang. Id just like to see science get to a spot where they can bring intuition into the mix. I think now would be a better time than any, given the current situation. Let me say from the outset, that I am a relative newbie and a lay person to boot, but one that has read up on plenty of cosmology and GR by reputable authors. I also started a thread yesterday on what some refer to as "pop science" and while extolling pop science presenters such as Carl Sagan and Neil De-Grasse Tyson, I also stated that if one is really interested or concerned about any aspects of current cosmology, he then certainly needs a more professional rundown. Now that I have said that, let me answer in my layman's fashion a few of the misconceptions you appear to have. Firstly, how can you sit there with a straight face and say the BB is not or very rarely challenged? That is simply wrong...Back in the early fifties the BB was on level terms with two other hypothesis on how the universe came to be...[1] The Oscillating theory, and [2] The Steady State of Freddy Hoyle notoriety. But guess what? as evidence was gathered the BB was the only one of the three that rose above the pack so to speak, and the other two sunk into oblivion. Then another astronomer proposed a mechanism he called "Electric or Plasma universe" and a book was published called "the BB never happened" by Eric J Lerner. Most of the points in that book that the supporters of this new idea were raising were all explained away and again the BB remained as the accepted mainstream model. It has continued to grow in stature and although some nagging little inconsistencies may remain, overall the evidence supporting the BB is overwhelming. And of course the fact that it and GR are so complimentary of each other, is further evidence of why it remains as overwhelmingly supported. You also mention truth...Science/cosmology constructs models that reflect what we see"and makes successful predictions and matches further observations, irrespective of what you see as truth or for that matter what I see as truth. Your suggestion of ID and a god is nothing more then a superfluous mythical idea that early man in his ignorance proposed, and that now through science, [despite the so called problems that you have raised] has largely been discarded. Plus of course anything supernatural and/or paranormal simply are not science nor align with the scientific methodology. Let me finish with my own personal observation: The stage we are at now, cosmology is able to reasonably paint us a picture of the universe from 10-43 seconds after the actual BB event, with the evolution of spacetime, the decoupling of the "Superforce", the creation of our first fundamental particles, the first element, stars, planets, the rest of the elements, Abiogenesis, and how that life evolved, right up to the present time, and then also predict with confidence what our future solar system's history will entail, merging of our local group of galaxies, and even beyond. I think that is a testament as to how beneficial the sciences particularly cosmology and astronomy are to mankind.
Recommended Posts