the big bang is wrong

[ewmon]

I think alot of people who enjoy science are too afraid to speak out against the general consensus.

I concur.

 

Furthermore, let me interject, Colluder, that you might be objecting to something involving semantics. Everyone knows that the Big Bang Theory seems more legitimate if the universe contained more mass and energy that we know is there. So some folks have gone and given this alleged mass and energy names, and it's these names that make them "come alive" and sound better. Otherwise, the theory is no better than before ... it just sounds more legitimate. Creating names is very powerful to the human mind. Create a name, and it comes alive.

 

If some Renaissance astronomer had suggested the existence of materia sub umbra or of energia crypta, we may well be laughing about it by now ... or have forgotten it.

[HardonColluder]

Furthermore, let me interject, Colluder, that you might be objecting to something involving semantics. Everyone knows that the Big Bang Theory seems more legitimate if the universe contained more mass and energy that we know is there. So some folks have gone and given this alleged mass and energy names, and it's these names that make them "come alive" and sound better. Otherwise, the theory is no better than before ... it just sounds more legitimate. Creating names is very powerful to the human mind. Create a name, and it comes alive.

 

If some Renaissance astronomer had suggested the existence of materia sub umbra or of energia crypta, we may well be laughing about it by now ... or have forgotten it.

 

Very true . I guess I'm just wondering how best to take the world from another point of view . Like with programming , decent semantics can make work alot easier .

[swansont]

I didn't mean it was arbitary nonsense . But when the big bang disagreed with experiment , by way of insufficient force of gravity , why wasn't the big bang theory scrapped ? As Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment , it's wrong" . Wouldn't it be a more dynamic approach to consider a new theory from scratch , taking into account the problems the big bang model presented , than inventing invisble forces just to balance the equations .

 

Dark matter is more a discrepancy with regard gravity/general relativity than the big bang. The big bang has a number of predictions that heave been confirmed, as well as general relativity, so the shortest path to reconcile discrepancies is to investigate whether there is missing mass. Other theories to explain the phenomena of the big bang and gravity won't replace them if they don't explain what these existing theories explain.

 

If you want to be heard when you speak out against the general consensus, you have to actually know what the general consensus is. Speaking out against a strawman of a theory will typically either get you ignored, or laughed at; the common factor being that you won't be taken seriously.

[michel123456]

Hard, you are not alone. BBT smells bad. The problem is that science cannot accept the "No theory". You can find as many mistakes in BBT, there can be 1000 misconceptions, it will not be discarded.

 

Swansont wrote

Other theories to explain the phenomena of the big bang and gravity won't replace them if they don't explain what these existing theories explain.

And he is perfectly right in his statement, except that the Big Bang is a Theory (and not a phenomena, expansion is a phenomena) and also that Gravity is not explained through the BBT, inverse gravity is presupposed.

[HardonColluder]

If you want to be heard when you speak out against the general consensus, you have to actually know what the general consensus is. Speaking out against a strawman of a theory will typically either get you ignored, or laughed at; the common factor being that you won't be taken seriously.

 

I don't really want to speak out against the general consensus . But I am interested in hearing the ideas of others who do . That's why I came to a thread with this title . But if you came here for a giggle , I don't blame you . For some reason I just always assumed dark matter/dark energy might possibly be a discrepency with the big bang theory , just wanted to give it a few moments thought for shits and giggles in light of the topic . It's ok . I'm incognito

Edited May 27, 2010 by HardonColluder

[michel123456]

I am not incognito.

HERE is a thread that caused a myocardial infarction to Martin. Sorry for that.

[Mr Skeptic]

Wouldn't it be a more dynamic approach to consider a new theory from scratch ,

 

Technically, it is a new theory whenever it is modified. The reason for modifying theories rather than starting from scratch is that it is a much, much easier process. You are guaranteed a better result with very little effort. If you started from scratch, you need to think up a whole new theory, then show it at least as good as the previous one. While possible to do, it is much harder.

 

Dark matter has to have a certain amount of truth to it , as it's based on observation

 

Yes. My opinion is that it is data on the faults of our understanding of gravity. But it could also be some kind of real material; after all we do know of nearly undetectable matter (neutrinos). Now if there were some pile of dark matter somewhere without the visible matter, or alternately a large amount of visible matter with little to no dark matter, that would suggest it is real.

[swansont]

And he is perfectly right in his statement, except that the Big Bang is a Theory (and not a phenomena, expansion is a phenomena) and also that Gravity is not explained through the BBT, inverse gravity is presupposed.

 

There are several phenomena predicted/explained by the big bang theory, such as expansion, abundance of the light elements and the microwave background radiation. Any replacement theory has to do as well in explaining these observations. Perhaps I should have said "phenomena associated with the big bang"

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Technically, it is a new theory whenever it is modified. The reason for modifying theories rather than starting from scratch is that it is a much, much easier process. You are guaranteed a better result with very little effort. If you started from scratch, you need to think up a whole new theory, then show it at least as good as the previous one. While possible to do, it is much harder.

 

To be fair, this all depends on the framework of the theory. Phlogiston and caloric theory, for example, were abandoned rather than modified. The aether, too, current attempts to reintroduce it notwithstanding. What "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong" doesn't tell you is that it's a matter of degree. A theory that predicts the opposite of what happens is wrong. A theory that predicts a slightly different result than observed may just need to be tweaked, or may just limit the applicability, e.g classical physics vs quantum and relativity. We don't abandon Newton completely when talking about gravity, we just don't take him where space is curved significantly.