James E Mahler Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Its the old scientific paradigm that hunts us all and prevents science from taking its proper course of discovery and enlightenment. Mr. Hawking finally admits he was wrong about some of his assumptions about black holes. I think he should also revise his assumptions about his big bang theory.According to him every thing we see around us was originated from a single point or particle that all of a sudden went "bammm" (thanks Emeril) and here we are. Of course, in view of such a tremendous revelation, graphic artist who delve in science, space and tech design run to their computers and start to make drawings that look like giant prophylactics with "milky" way and all.Let me elaborate on a couple of small points that go against this whole idea: 1 - Antoine Lavoisier was this French chemist in 1700s who came up with this neat little concept. It says, in essence, in the universe nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed. You know, the guys was right. You can't bring matter out of nothing. You can't make matter disappear either, no matter what you do to it. Moreover, the weight of the mass is also maintained the same regardless what the state of it is. Even after you have gone thru whatever method you choose to obliterate that mass into a nothing.The same is true for "creating" mass. You can't get mass out of nothing, zero, shun davar. 2 - The second point is even more interesting. As one of the ways Mr. Hawking likes to show that his theories are correct is to play the event backwards. After all Newtonian physics should allowed this fact to happen. Except that two bodies cannot occupy the same space etc etc and all that good stuff. However, Hawking wants me to believe that universe can be put back in a bottle. It requires the invention of new laws and process, the creation of invisible forms of new energy and matter and all this nonsense that in the end all it does is creates "scientists are baffled" headlines in cutsy science web sites accompanied by made up pictures such as the ones I mentioned above. And before anyone brings up the Sistine Chapel picture I must say I also have some serious doubts about the traditional creation bit. For Mr. Hawking ideas to become empirical facts dozens of physical laws need to be broken or violated. I think down deep inside he wants a miracle to happen. All I can say is "go get your own miracles, Hawking. This ones are already taken!"
ccuthbert Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 I never bought into the big bang "theory." How it can be called a theory at all is beyond me. Have you read The Electric Sky by Don Scott?
James E Mahler Posted February 17, 2014 Author Posted February 17, 2014 I am a big follower of the Thunderbolts Project. It is a fantastic group of scientists. And I always had doubts about the current scientific model of the Sun but now I understand how it really works, as well as most of the cosmological phenomenons brought fourth by the Hubble projects as well as other endeavors.
ribuck Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 I never bought into the big bang "theory." How it can be called a theory at all is beyond me. No-one claims that the big bang is a testable theory. Like James E Mahler mentioned, the Big Bang is what you reach if you play the current universe "backwards" according to the known laws of physics. As such, it's the best-supported model for what happened in the distant past. But if we discover something new about physics (for example, if it turns out that some physical "constant" changes over time) then Hawking will be happy to embrace the refined model. James wrote: You can't bring matter out of nothing. You can't make matter disappear either, no matter what you do to it. You do accept that matter can be converted into energy, don't you? After you discharge a battery, it weighs a tiny bit less. The same number of electrons flowed out of the cathode as flowed into the anode, but some of the battery's mass has been transformed into energy.
James E Mahler Posted February 17, 2014 Author Posted February 17, 2014 "You do accept that matter can be converted into energy, don't you? After you discharge a battery, it weighs a tiny bit less. The same number of electrons flowed out of the cathode as flowed into the anode, but some of the battery's mass has been transformed into energy." Not if you do it in a controlled environment, sealed chambers etc. No matter what you bombard the mass, or try to spend the energy inside an object etc, the weight of the containment remains the same. Its the law of conservation. As for the big bang, it is an impossibility and I see immense scientific resources being thrown around all consequence of that idea. Which is idea that really originated from the evolution concept. The whole purpose is to create a model that can explain everything once for all, based on a linear progression. Its absurd and therefore new forms of matter, such as the so called dark matter, have to be invented in order to justify the explanations given of the event. The other problem that occurs also is the play of words that are so blatantly deceiving and no one even bothers to call out, i.e. according to Einstein's equation I can go the speed of light or even a little faster. Why? Well, because the equation refers to TWICE the speed of light. Two times, in order for matter to be transformed into energy. However, one must understand that this is all on paper. No one have tested, its all hear say since it was never explained how much the mass grows, and at what rate and so on.
weeb Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 Hawking, and others who "believe" in the big bang, are not motivated by some secret interest that they now "admit" to it being wrong. I know it is a paranoid fantasy of some to think smarter people have a conspiracy to keep things from you because you don't understand. Scientific rigor has been applied to this "theory" (which has a different meaning in science than layman's terms). To claim they are twisting the story of the universe with biased physics is baseless. At least, cosmologists' claims about the universe are proven with math and verifiable measurements. Whatever motivations you have to believe in something else, i doubt, are based on something so objective as they. Besides, who cares what the data show? I won't be heartbroken even if it is wrong because i have no confirmation bias in regards to the origin of everything. This is just what the data show.
ribuck Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 James, you may be well-meaning but you are commenting without knowledge. Einstein's famous equation does not refer to twice the speed of light; it refers to the speed of light squared. It does not refer to this as how fast you can go, but as part of a calculation for how mass converts to energy. And yes, the conversion between mass and energy has been observed consistently in experiments. It's ignorant to say "it's all hear say" (because anyone can experimentally test the conversion of mass to energy in a very simple laboratory). It's ignorant to say "No one have tested" (because even high school students experimentally test this). It's ignorant to say "it was never explained how much the mass grows" because it's precisely explained by Einstein's formula for relativistic mass (which equals the rest mass divided by the square root of one minus v^2/c^2, where v^2 is the velocity squared and c^2 is the speed of light squared). If you want to understand this, a great place to start is Wikipedia's page on Mass-energy equivalence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence
ccuthbert Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Hawking, and others who "believe" in the big bang, are not motivated by some secret interest that they now "admit" to it being wrong. I know it is a paranoid fantasy of some to think smarter people have a conspiracy to keep things from you because you don't understand. Scientific rigor has been applied to this "theory" (which has a different meaning in science than layman's terms). To claim they are twisting the story of the universe with biased physics is baseless. At least, cosmologists' claims about the universe are proven with math and verifiable measurements. Whatever motivations you have to believe in something else, i doubt, are based on something so objective as they. Besides, who cares what the data show? I won't be heartbroken even if it is wrong because i have no confirmation bias in regards to the origin of everything. This is just what the data show. Several strawman agruments here. It seems we have yet another "settled science." There are many scientists who challenge the big bang "theory" based on plasma theory. They would no doubt be insulted to hear anyone accusing them of "believing" in something else, since science is not about believing. If you are unfamiliar with their ideas, which I assume you are though I don't know, then how can you say they are not "based on something so objective"? You might want start with the two books recommended here before you criticize.
Recommended Posts