- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

the big bang theory. (please explain your point of view)

#31

better word ( not needed as all those creoººº, conspiººº, despisingfactsiologies don't deserve the label "theory" - they're simply 'false', 'allegations', 'false statements', 'mouthwords', 'lies' even in case, satirical irony and cynism', ... anything else ) ...
better word maybe
'current standings of knowledge'

better word ( not needed as all those creoººº, conspiººº, despisingfactsiologies don't deserve the label "theory" - they're simply 'false', 'allegations', 'false statements', 'mouthwords', 'lies' even in case, satirical irony and cynism', ... anything else ) ... better word maybe 'current standings of knowledge'
#32

@wowbagger #30

or kill them with fire if you can get away with it

? ?

u sum kinda hitman irl ?!

@wowbagger #30 >or kill them with fire if you can get away with it ? ? u sum kinda hitman irl ?!
#33
<Comment deleted by user>
#34

@CoffeeBeanKiller said in #20:

The so-called Big Bang is possibly the most poorly named theory in the history of science, as what it describes has very little to do with an explosion. In a way it's maybe not so surprising, since the name was actually given by someone who misunderstood the theory and was trying to mock it.

The topic isn't something I made a career out of following, but I do occasionally read and think. My issue with the big bang theory is if it wasn't a big bang, then why is the universe expanding? According to what we think we know, objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and so on. What caused something of the mass of the universe to start moving, if not some sort of explosion?

Another thing I have a hard time with, is this idea that nothing ever comes out of a black hole. A Quasar (or the most recent theory I've heard, on what they are and how they are formed) seems to disagree with the idea to some extent. They might be mostly inescapable, but it appears not totally... Unless I have misunderstood what I've read/heard.

@Thalassokrator said in #29:

Got any ideas for a better word?

Hypothesis would work, but it takes too long to say... About twice as long as Theory.

"Science", in the context of this current digression of the thread about the meanings of words, etymology, definition, etc, seems to be it's own worst enemy. Science progresses and a new idea with new definitions is accepted as the new best idea. People who are in the field get word immediately that the idea has changed and we need to throw out the old idea. Unfortunately, the rest of the world who may have followed it passively and remembers enough to at least have a thought on the matter, doesn't get the memo. Then some people in science will get all up in arms about the fact that ordinary people haven't changed their "belief system" yet. The trouble with this sort of thing is, "scientists" tell everyone to believe this new idea, but they have a difficult time accepting the new idea as gospel when they're being told the last gospel idea they were told to accept, was in fact proven wrong.

A good approach to take, is to laugh a little less at the folks who resist these new ideas as irrefutable fact. I realize it's just a meme that people like to call anyone who disagrees with something in science, a "flat earther", and that's fine. For all I know, there's probably a few people on the earth who think that. But to present that as analogous to people questioning things like the big bang, is at least a little inappropriate IMHO. (I'm not even implying you did anything of that sort here, just for the record). There's an incredible amount about the universe we don't know. I find it a little distasteful of some folks that they think they know enough to mock others, just in exactly the same way as coffeebeankiller mentioned another person did long ago, and the mocking was enough to rename the idea. The same basic thing happens today, and again, science tends to cause this by the community's evolving understanding, and it's a viscous cycle with no end in sight.

Personally, I'd consider my life's questions satisfied if someone would explain 2 things to me. Gravity, and "Hot Poker Theory". I'm about sick of hearing 9.8M/S/S and "We don't know" as the respective answers. For a little background, Hot Poker Theory was a name recently given to a phenomenon I observed as a little kid, and asked teachers and physicists about literally for decades, with no answer. Question: Take a piece of steel, put the end of it in a fire and get it red hot. (Coathanger in a torch for instance). Hold the metal reasonably near the red area, but don't get too close to where it's hot. Now, dunk the hot end in a bucket of water and the heat instantly chases up the metal to where you are holding. (Think blacksmith making a sword for instance). Now, explain why that heat energy moves within that piece of metal away from the water??? ... Seems simple, but not so much... A lot like gravity. We can observe it, quantify it, make rules about it, can't explain why it happens. I've been waiting 50 years for that answer, (longer on gravity...)

@CoffeeBeanKiller said in #20: > The so-called Big Bang is possibly the most poorly named theory in the history of science, as what it describes has very little to do with an explosion. In a way it's maybe not so surprising, since the name was actually given by someone who misunderstood the theory and was trying to mock it. The topic isn't something I made a career out of following, but I do occasionally read and think. My issue with the big bang theory is if it wasn't a big bang, then why is the universe expanding? According to what we think we know, objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and so on. What caused something of the mass of the universe to start moving, if not some sort of explosion? Another thing I have a hard time with, is this idea that nothing ever comes out of a black hole. A Quasar (or the most recent theory I've heard, on what they are and how they are formed) seems to disagree with the idea to some extent. They might be mostly inescapable, but it appears not totally... Unless I have misunderstood what I've read/heard. @Thalassokrator said in #29: > Got any ideas for a better word? Hypothesis would work, but it takes too long to say... About twice as long as Theory. "Science", in the context of this current digression of the thread about the meanings of words, etymology, definition, etc, seems to be it's own worst enemy. Science progresses and a new idea with new definitions is accepted as the new best idea. People who are in the field get word immediately that the idea has changed and we need to throw out the old idea. Unfortunately, the rest of the world who may have followed it passively and remembers enough to at least have a thought on the matter, doesn't get the memo. Then some people in science will get all up in arms about the fact that ordinary people haven't changed their "belief system" yet. The trouble with this sort of thing is, "scientists" tell everyone to believe this new idea, but they have a difficult time accepting the new idea as gospel when they're being told the last gospel idea they were told to accept, was in fact proven wrong. A good approach to take, is to laugh a little less at the folks who resist these new ideas as irrefutable fact. I realize it's just a meme that people like to call anyone who disagrees with something in science, a "flat earther", and that's fine. For all I know, there's probably a few people on the earth who think that. But to present that as analogous to people questioning things like the big bang, is at least a little inappropriate IMHO. (I'm not even implying you did anything of that sort here, just for the record). There's an incredible amount about the universe we don't know. I find it a little distasteful of some folks that they think they know enough to mock others, just in exactly the same way as coffeebeankiller mentioned another person did long ago, and the mocking was enough to rename the idea. The same basic thing happens today, and again, science tends to cause this by the community's evolving understanding, and it's a viscous cycle with no end in sight. Personally, I'd consider my life's questions satisfied if someone would explain 2 things to me. Gravity, and "Hot Poker Theory". I'm about sick of hearing 9.8M/S/S and "We don't know" as the respective answers. For a little background, Hot Poker Theory was a name recently given to a phenomenon I observed as a little kid, and asked teachers and physicists about literally for decades, with no answer. Question: Take a piece of steel, put the end of it in a fire and get it red hot. (Coathanger in a torch for instance). Hold the metal reasonably near the red area, but don't get too close to where it's hot. Now, dunk the hot end in a bucket of water and the heat instantly chases up the metal to where you are holding. (Think blacksmith making a sword for instance). Now, explain why that heat energy moves within that piece of metal away from the water??? ... Seems simple, but not so much... A lot like gravity. We can observe it, quantify it, make rules about it, can't explain why it happens. I've been waiting 50 years for that answer, (longer on gravity...)