My ramblings on truth and grey area's.

[Mordred]

A side note. Every model just mentioned above is still around. They are all different than their original design but every model above has a modern contender.

 

It is extremely rare to see any alternative model completely go away. I for one cannot recall any that has done so.

Edited July 14, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

There are very few examples of scientific theories that turn out to be completely wrong. About the only ones I can think of are phlogiston and the steady state universe. The latter was really just an assumption (like the cosmological principle), not a theory. It turned out to be wrong.

[Scotty99]

 

 

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.

 

I'm not sure we can have a conversation if you can write off the idea of a creator so quickly.

 

Given the current state of cosmology i am surprised anyone can feel confident going forward with any of the theories, or ok with the amount of patchwork that needs to be done.

 

I personally believe there should be teams of people working on an advanced geocentric model, that is where i would start with this re-imagining. I of course know there are problems with the geocentric viewpoint, but given the current situation i feel it deserves another look.

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure we can have a conversation if you can write off the idea of a creator so quickly.

"Wait for evidence" isn't the same thing as "write off".

 

Given the current state of cosmology

What about the "current state of cosmology" gives you the impression we have a gap in our knowledge that needs to be filled by a supernatural explanation? It sounds more like the problem lies with your misunderstanding of "the current state of cosmology".

[Strange]

 

Given the current state of cosmology i am surprised anyone can feel confident going forward with any of the theories, or ok with the amount of patchwork that needs to be done.

 

I personally believe there should be teams of people working on an advanced geocentric model, that is where i would start with this re-imagining. I of course know there are problems with the geocentric viewpoint, but given the current situation i feel it deserves another look.

What problems do you think would be solved adopting a geocentric model? Can you be more specific than "the current state of cosmology".

[Scotty99]

Well many strange, big one being it gets science away from the idea we aren't special.

[Mordred]

what does science have to do with that? isn't that a philosophical question not a scientific one?

[Scotty99]

what does science have to do with that? isn't that a philosophical question not a scientific one?

 

I am not sure we can have a conversation if you aren't aware of what the copernican principle denotes.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Covering the same ground without modifying your position in response to valid criticism is a sign that we're done.

 

IOW, I'm not sure we can have a conversation if all you're interested in is preaching. (Which is why we have rule 2.8)