I expected to see some anti-science in this thread, but I just didn't expect it to be so big.
As for myself, I stick with the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory, that far surpasses any past, current, or future scientific, religious, theological, ideological, physical or metaphysical theory.
To understand the big bang theory, we must climb the stairway to the Land of Sheldon...
To understand "something" that existed "before matter" "while no time existed" may need a little insanity.
And a lot of mathematics.
I will stay with chess for now.
It's rather interesting to explain the progression of then to now but it still doesn't explain before to now.
Where does it all come from
Like the explanation
For existence
And there is
An explanation
For existence .
BBT,
It addresses the beginning
But it doesn't address the before
I guess some questions
Just can't be answered...
I saw some clips of the sitcom, and honestly the ending looked pretty awesome! ;)
#20
"the most poorly named theory"
Georges Lemaître called it the hypothesis of the primeval atom.
He was a catholic priest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
@Thalassokrator said in #18:
> Theory means something very different in science than it does in everyday language.
Exactly. If we used different words, there would probably be a lot fewer flat earthers, creationists, etc.
@#1
it's not all (lol) clear to me
I'll try my rhime on it all:
•√º - i do believe, it indeed happened
. . . ( there's strong hints on it )
•√º - i imagine, it could be the next stronger form of a superhypernova, something, a superhypermassive blackhole(?) bursting really badly, some quarkslevelultranova, with yet unknown subnuclear forces and mechanisms beyond light that can outdo gravity or the laws of nature that we know, ... i mean, what would happen, what kind of conditions would this be in a quark-gluon plasma, matter itself dissolving - maybe then it loses its feature of graviting!? and the blackhole collapses to "matterlessness" or sth, who knows
•√º - i believe, conditions for a bigbang can exist *within* a universe already existing, e.g. our current u., "nested" so to say ( btw, i wonder how this would be perceived from a distance, also in compare to a hypernova ), possibly a nested multiverse then
•√º - i believe, baryonic and antibarionic matter got separated by the burst ( with no chance to abolish one another ) and we are living in the barionic "part" ( which is why antibarionic matter seems lacking for valid theories, but it just can't be observed and detected )
•√º - the bigbang itself is not even the greatest riddle, the biggest "unknown variable", but there's much more mystical observations to the day lacking any reasonable explanation - dark energy, dark matter, galaxies behaving unexpectedly in matters of rotating under gravity, a drift of the *whole* (!) onsight on the universe
•√º - einstein's ( or is it maxwell-einstein's? ) wave-equations are still sort of two-dimensional, linear - with current calculating capacities, computers should be able to formulate and solve a nonlinear version of them ( cf. what's possible in chaos theory, mandelbrodt )
•√º - time is not a natural basic value - there's no whatsoever gauge for it being "one" for everything and everywhere and always in the whole universe including its unobservable expansions with no connection to one another (afawk). time is (only) a valid concept, or better: possible onsight, for distinct sequences of distinct events to happen, causal chains - so there's maybe a lot to rethink in physics of the universe
•√º - ... [more]
@AsDaGo said in #27:
> Exactly. If we used different words, there would probably be a lot fewer flat earthers, creationists, etc.
I agree that the word "theory" is not a net positive for science communication. From its ancient greek roots it means little more than "consideration, theory, speculation; contemplation" and is probably derived from a verb that means "to look at, to observe, to contemplate, to speculate".
All of these are among the necessary activities for the development of a scientific theory. So in that sense it is aptly named. But the word lends itself to confusion because of its different meaning in everyday language. Where scientific literacy is lacking the meanings can easily be confused. Or deliberately conflated by those disagreeing with current scientific knowledge on an ideological basis.
However I'm not sure there really would be fewer flat earthers (and YECs and the like) if scientists were to adopt a different term. They would probably find other excuses to reject everything that conflicts with their preconceived beliefs. I'd be very surprised to learn that the straw that broke the camel's back, for *any* flat earther on this planet, turned out to be the fact that there is a "theory" of gravity. There are usually much richer underlying belief systems (not at all interested in what science has to offer or how it works) and circumstances that motivate people to reject scientific theories. These wouldn't simply go away if scientists changed the word and deprived them of one easily repeatable truism. I cannot recommend this video/piece of art highly enough. It helped me better understand some of these motivations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44
But one thing is for sure: "It's just a theory!" is an annoyingly common and utterly pointless argument based on a fundamental misunderstanding. If there was a way to avoid it entirely a lot less time would be wasted before an informed discussion can begin. It'd be nice. Got any ideas for a better word?
@Thalassokrator said in #29:
> Got any ideas for a better word?
Nope, you can use different words but the weirdos will adapt. Just look at how often words like 'energy' or 'quantum' or 'frequency' are being misused by crackpots.
There's this etymorphic resonance field that forces them to copy words that sound sciency.
My advice is to just ignore those kind of people (or kill them with fire if you can get away with it).