₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU: No ingannation please. If the Word says it, I believe and that settles it for me but do you believe it? if not why not?

OLAADEGBU: No it doesn't. Do you actually believe the bible verse you quoted?

Dibiachukwu: do not be caught rejoicing about the death of your enemy.rather pray for a change of heart. rip to the dead and may Chukwu give us wisdom to live on this earth.

OLAADEGBU: Could you by any chance be gay? Why is it that most atheists are quick to come out their closet to defend gays using bible quotes that they don't believe in?

birdman: which town would that be

birdman: I dont think Nigerians fully understand what it means to lose 180 people from the same village. Try imagining this happening in your hometown... the number of your loved ones lost and the ripple effect is unimaginable. What kind of country does this to its own people? And some people are still singing for one Nigeria - lets see how loud you sing when the boots invade your neck of the woods.

damosky12: I suggest you change the name of the topic. Its dipicts blasphemy. Change it to something acceptable to God's kingdom.

Logicboy03: Did you research about that link before quoting from it?

33 scientists rense.......

wiegraf: Unless I'm missing something, I can't see what you mean. From where I'm positioned, it looks to me like you cannot see what I mean either, as all this has been addressed before.



Yes, but it need not be gravity, or work like strictly like that. And like we've both acknowledged , forces behave differently in different situations.



You are being close minded when assuming they behave the same way all the time. And what is wrong with proposing another force we've not directly confirmed before (other then by observing its effects, ie)? You do realize no one has ever seen a graviton but it's very reasonable to assume they exist, yes? So what's your problem with pursuing the Dark Matter hypothesis? It very likely exists, so why not?

wiegraf: Also do note, that solving just the dark matter conundrum could address all these other issues you have with the BB. Just like Einstein simply realizing time was relative solved a lot of issues with Newtonian physics. That one piece (Dark Matter) might be the only piece of the puzzle missing, critical enough to explain the other issues.

wiegraf: No I'm not,

-Dark Matter need not have always been available, like the other forces it might have come about only after some cooling took place

wiegraf: -It could also always have been repelling, why not? Like gravity, it's effects might be negligible in some situations, in others they could be critical. Simple. After particular conditions are met, they dominate other forces/interact differently. Just like a body with ridiculous mass will enable gravity to dominate other forces (in a manner of speak)

wiegraf: I don't recall saying it changed its nature, see above.

Again, no problem with seeing the BB as flawed, but calling mainstream science irresponsible over this bewilders me. I'd expect only one unfamiliar with the scientific method to make that claim. I've still not digested your link though.

alfaman2: Of course there are no good reasons to throw away existing laws of physics except when it doesn't work, which is like, ehm, ALL THE TIME! But we won't throw them away. We will rather add a variable called "dark energy" to it in order to balance the equation. Ah! yes, we don't know what this dark energy we are adding is but it is either we add it or we throw away our laws. Remeber we have invested time (thousands of years) and money (trillions of any currency) on these laws so think carefully before deciding which one you chose.

wiegraf: You have now dived head first into whargarbl senselesness.

the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
...

An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
...

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible.

wiegraf: There's more, but not really necessary. They have very good reason for sticking with BB, and they are looking at other alternatives. So again, I fail to see the problem.

striktlymi: Good evening Musky,

All that 'plenty' post comes down to the above quote. What, in your view, defines what is morally correct for one individual and morally incorrect for another?

ooman: if you have an answer, just post it

wiegraf: ^^^

Who says I'm not serious? And you still neglect the fact that at different temperatures/conditions the forces behave differently. While whatever force that was responsible for expansion might have been more powerful initially, another force could later get the upper hand after some conditions are met. In fact, iirc, that's how it works. Consider gravity and a black hole for instance. Usually gravity is ridiculously weak, but after a certain amount of mass is gathered it becomes ridiculously strong, etc.

Meh, I'll wait for a proper scientist.

wiegraf: I'm no scientist, but I fail to see how this helps your case. Perhaps, like you even indicate with your use of the word 'force', an unknown force is responsible. You know, one we know little about except its being responsible for certain phenomena like the deceleration, hence we call it "DARK".

Also, certain forces have been shown to merge at higher temperatures/energy levels. These forces, of course, are responsible for attraction/repulsion, etc, a la gravity. Initial state was very hot, very dense, so with time after the initial expansion and the dissipation of heat (entropy, more or else) as temperatures decrease these forces start to come into play, operating differently. That could be a viable explanation as well.

Better a proper scientist reply though, like you indicate.

wiegraf: You have, and you have failed. I will try to wait for whatever else you've got though I really shouldn't be procrastinating




Good, so it is not complete rubbish, yes?



Yes, once again you are providing, or suggesting, an alternative methodology, as you're criticizing the scientific method as whole, not just BB. How many times do I have to repeat this?






That's fine, no issues there. But this is not all you're implying. Again, THE RHETORIC is critical of the scientific method as a whole, not just the BB, that is my contention with you. Perhaps you should just address that.



You more or else repeated what I said, but just framed in a way to make it seem somewhat antagonistic




Cool





This right here is our problem.




Which is why I added, and even highlighted, the question mark (?), see?



Cool. Thanks, I'll look it over.



My seasoned, professional and expert opinion implicates you as the guilty party in this situation.




Stop avoiding the issue by calling 'childish', was I or was I not correct?

And pedantry isn't childish btw. Sometimes needless, but not in this situation.




Good, better. So those who subscribe to BB or something similar I suppose. I just want to make sure you're not implying there's some sort of secret super organization bent on forcing BB down people throats for some nefarious agenda





You're purposely avoiding the issue. You know what alternative I speak of, you even provided a link, so why this? If you genuinely still don't understand my issue then I can only smh.

Anyways, I'll try to digest that.

wiegraf: You have now dived head first into whargarbl senselesness.

wiegraf: It does not work all the time? When you were fumbling about earlier did you or did you not state that in some use cases it is accurate?

wiegraf: No, you are providing an alternative. Not necessarily to the bb but definitely to the scientific method. Which you claim, directly or not, is unreasonable.

wiegraf: Brah, again, i never said you proposed an alternative theory, I said you're insisting we toss out the scientific method and adopt whatever it is you're pushing. That we abandon known physical laws just because, even though that would be going against the scientific method. A situation similar to you proposing we adopt another theory just because.

wiegraf: In case you're having problems understanding that, read that bit again



You just want to argue blindly with this



What are you on about? What laws do they disregard?

wiegraf: It makes it senseless, and it strikes at the core of the issue. Even if bb is ultimately proven wrong and you're vindicated with that (note, I've not even been arguing with you over this) you have also accused the scientific community of being blatantly irresponsible. This is clearly, and very much so, wrong, as they are largely just following the scientific method. They have good reason for doing what they do, do you now understand?

You can say the bb doesn't make enough sense, no issues. But all the rhetoric about it being blatantly wrong, scientists (or whoever 'we' are) being irresponsible, etc, are clearly silly. Again, do you now understand?

Frankly, it is creating issues where there are non, unless you have a problem with the scientific method, see?

wiegraf: che. I didn't learn about occam's razor in secondary school sciences or something similar, it is not common knowledge. I am not a scientist sef, nor would most of the people on a forum labelled 'religion' be. I know of it because of simple curiosity. And occam's razor is just part of what is being examined, the whole scientific method is being put under the radar, so i am not even asking as with regards to occam's razor. You mentioned whatever you did as an alternative, superior(?) (and note the question mark, which was in the post you quoted as well, indicating you clarify) system without even explaining, in any form whatsoever how (simple links might even suffice), and expect us to just accept that?

wiegraf: This is downright childish, and I should know, I'm an expert on childishness

wiegraf: You used the word yourself, 'unique'.

You would have to make various assumptions, eg that this event is not a one off, or that the unique event while not being so unique does not take place strictly sequentially, ie, only once at a time, etc, to support your assertion that this event can potentially occur elsewhere at anytime.

wiegraf: No, they still think we popped out ready made 6000 years ago, and again, you well know that. Who are 'we' please?

wiegraf: No, at last you're getting it. I mentioned this a long time ago




Now, do tell pls, tell us this alternative and preferably dispense with the childishness if you can.

Edits, nothing major

Logicboy03: Btw, there is nothing humiliating about that. You said and showed that I was wrong and I accepted it. I love being wrong and that is how I learn. For you to even go as far back as then to bring up such trivial stuff....gaddem...


Just look at your own foolishness on this thread. You can accept that you are wrong.


I have stated more than once that I have had failed threads. I am not perfect.

wiegraf: This is all repetiton bordering on LLLAALALALAA

Because, like i've already mentioned, there's no good reason to throw out existing laws of physics. And these 'dark' effects are real, observed in various scenarios.

Until you provide good reasons to toss out the laws, like einstein did when he proposed a framework which voided the concept of the aether, a framework which stood up to scrutiny, in which he explained quite a lot of hitherto observed but unexplained phenomena, made predictions that were confirmed, etc, do not expect whatever theory you're pushing to be aaccepted by the mainstream. Simple. This is very reasonable.

No one's stopping you from exploring other options, in fact, you'll get all the support that can be mustered for your cause, support which will depend on how sound your claims are. Your claims will be peer-reviewed, collaborators will assist, etc. But having the scientific community toss out established, verified laws virtually on whims? Really?

wiegraf: An excellent example would be string theory, regardless of how fancy or beautiful it may be, it won't be accepted as mainstream until it passes a group of tests. It will not be accepted on more or else.....faith. Which is, frankly, what you, not me, are suggesting we do by disregarding established, confirmed physical laws before we've thoroughly explored them. Really, we should just make $hit up?

wiegraf: Laws of motion waver in extreme conditions, eg on the quantum scale, high densities/temperatures, etc. But obviously, they are still physical laws of this universe, not another, just under certain conditions. And we've not even studied these extreme conditions properly, they might not be as unintuitive as initially thought. They will no doubt aid with our general understanding of the universe (eg the forces being the same at very high temps would help explain some of brain dead reyg's queries). Anyways, all things being equal we should stick to the standard laws, we should at least exhaust that option thoroughly before putting our full weight on others or assuming extreme conditions.

And, for the n'th time, other options are being explored.

wiegraf: No, it cannot be both reasonable and incompetent, as far as their actions are concerned. This is simple logic, I don't think I could put it any simpler.

Your issue is with the scientific method therefore the whole scenario should be incompetent to you, not this bit then that bit.

wiegraf: You will have to explain what this superior(?) system is

wiegraf: This is wrong, if what is out there is true 'nothing' then there is no multiverse, just this one. Can't see why using the prefix 'multi' in that situation is justified.

wiegraf: You well know most humans think we popped out of nowhere ready made say 6000 years ago. So, who are 'we'?

wiegraf: Why? This is the main point of contention probably

Logicboy03: Wow......just wow.

If a balloon swells up the volume of 40cm² from nothing at a rate of 2cm per second. What was its size at 10 seconds?

The answer is 20cm.


Now, you have retraced the expansion of the balloon to a past time (from its full volume at 20 seconds to a particular time of 10 seconds) using a mathematical model and an assumption that the ballon swells at a uniform rate.


This is a basic modelling of the expansion of the universe.The assumptions are based on observable facts of the universe. And yes, ballons will swell at a uniform rate if air is pumped in at a particular rate.

Logicboy03: Shouting? Did i use capslock??


I have already explained my stance on the big bang