Scientists now doubt their precious Big Bang THEORY..?? DO SCIENCE ARTICLES COUNT AS REFERENCES..?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html
-------------------------------------------------------
answers:
busterwasmycat say: Do they (we) doubt it, though really? No. Could it be incorrect in some details? of course. If we were certain, there would not be much point to testing to see, now, would there be?
Our entire existence of humans has been one evolving view of our idea of the nature of reality. What makes you think we can say that today, now, we know everything and no longer need to evolve our ideas? That is hubris of a sort that is not worthy of mankind.
This is the old "Sherlock Holmes" idea of "when we have eliminated the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be true". Well, we have not declared all options as impossible, just many of them. Still lots of possibles, however improbable, that have not been shown to be impossible (yet, perhaps never).
In other words, Sherlock was not actually correct. We cannot eliminate everything except the truth as impossible. We simply default to the least improbable of what remains, at least until we eliminate that and move on to the even less probable yet not impossible. Start big and go small, narrow the target.
-
ANDRE L say: “What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?” Steven Novella
-
William say: Nope. The Big Bang Theory has withstood 90 years of scrutiny and tests and isn't going to change anytime soon.
This "rainbow gravity" theory is hardly new... it's been floating around for decades.
-
Corvus Blackthorne say: A theory is considered proven until New evidence appears.
A religion is considered proven, even in the face of completely contradictory evidence.
That is why we do not take you seriously.
-
BUSTER say: No, that's not accurate. With the discovery of the Cosmic Background Noise, all doubt has been removed. The problem? Singularity had a beginning. And if a beginning, then a creator. Georges Lemaitre did not call his theory The Big Bang. That was ridicule & mocking. The only thing that remains to be done is observation, which was almost done with Cosmic Background. Scientist do not want to believe in a God. Therefore a multiverse that is only speculation.
If the universe were a 100 story building, we would be able to see all the way down to the last 1/2 inch. That's how big the discovery of Cosmic Background noise was.
-
CantHaveItBothWays say: That's why it's called a theory.
-
Ludwig say: This may be hard for you to come to terms with. But I wouldn't want you to think that it in any way detracts from how your friends here think about you as a person, and you mustn't lose faith in yourself, but:
You are not an astrophysicist.
Sorry. But I wouldn't lie to you.
-
Caesar say: A hint search for the word could..., and science change theories if experiments and data show they are wrong, that way science will be closer to the truth ...believing in something that is already debunked is not science and science is not based like religions in a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
-
oikoσ say: Yes, just not very good ones.
-
Mike G say: It's speculation, not fact.
-
poldi2 say: "could be debunked" does not mean "has been debunked".
-
CarolOklaNola say: Yes, science articles DO count as references. If the Telegraphs articles have references. YOU should READ those references YOURSELF. It is called peer review. The Telegraph is NOT a reliable source.
-
Henry say: Created by God through Jesus 6000 years ago.
-
Jim V say: Interesting article...
However science reporters tend to focus in on what they want to see. **
It looks like we will have some kind of data this year.
But, let me add this:
There remains the problem that ALL energy is not eternally useful.
This article suggests there may be reason to think multiverses can be evidenced ... so what?
Is “rainbow gravity “ now some sort of ‘universe generator’?
I think not.
**
I know of an astronomer who was giving a briefing regarding General Relatively And afterward was asked if it were possible that aliens do exist. Of course since he could not completely rule out that possibility he said so.
The headline of the article said (basically): ‘Scientists say aliens could exist’.
-
Lighting the Way to Reality say: Still doesn't prove the mythical god of the Bible and his flat earth sitting on pillars with a solid firmament of heaven.
In any case, the finding, if it is made, would prove that the universe existed way further in the past than the time before when the Big Bang would have occurred and that the universe goes through different states, including the expansion of the universe from some event 13 billion years ago, if not the pin point from which the Big Bang was thought to have occurred.
In any case, the speculation about what the collider might find has yet to be verified, and it might actually disprove the speculation.
-
Riley say: No they don't. Nice try.
-
Rowan say: I've been doubting their supposed certainty of what they know for a long time. I favor the big bounce theory, big bang, big crunch, big bang, hot energy expands, cold energy contracts, gravity has no limits, all forms of propulsion do, they will get sucked into black holes, and form orbits of the gravity of the universe itself, and turn around and come back again. Dark energy is unknown, like all they know is it's probably something, that's about it. Same with gravity, same with Hawking radiation, that's unproven.
-
Acetek say: you know barack lying for jesus is still lying
you didn't read the article did you. there are some folks who think that if the LHC creates black holes (which it will not) this will prove the big bang is false.
still filled with the hate of your god i see,
you really need to get stoned
-
Michael say: I trust scientists more than I do the bible. Scientists are smart. Theologians are judgmental nobodies.
-