Is the Big Bang Running Out of Steam?

[Phobos]

(I will come back to Arp, turbo1, et al I really will; it's just that I have so little time right now).

ditto...hang on, Turbo1

 

[shrumeo]

The math needs to come first and if it is accurate, how can it lead us off track? A great example is the Lorentz transformations. The concept is now considered flawed, but the math fits observations and is useable in the theory that replaced it.

I really think objections like this come from a simple lack of acceptance of reality at face value. People don't want to believe what the math says.

Math coming first? I don't understand. All the theoretical equations that I have ever seen have a bunch of variables and constants in them. These did not come first, to us they represent something in the real world. We had to have those real world things and ideas in place first before we could relate them in an equation.

All I'm saying is that if we think "A" represents so-and-so, but all the while we didn't realize that "A" really represents who-and-who, a slightly different interpretation of so-and-so, then the math isn't flawed but our understanding is. Hmm, not doing a good job of explaining.

Then, in the red-shift example. I am under the impression that as a rule of thumb astronomers calculate the distance to distant objects by their redshift. This is based on the assumption that the redshift is due entirely to the Doppler effect, or space expanding, or whatever. The math is right. The formulas all give checkable answers. Did that just prove that we understand the nature of the redshift?



Edit:
Wait, I just read your reply more carefully and you exactly expressed what I was trying to say. Math can be right all along, but we can't rely on it entirely to build our concepts.

 

[russ_watters]

ditto...hang on, Turbo1

Oy - fasten your seat-belt, turbo1. You don't know what you just got yourself into...

Math coming first? I don't understand. All the theoretical equations that I have ever seen have a bunch of variables and constants in them. These did not come first, to us they represent something in the real world. We had to have those real world things and ideas in place first before we could relate them in an equation.

I'm talking about in the creation of a theory. A theory that describes a real-world phenomena consists of a mathematical model and a qualitative explanation. The qualitative explanation comes from the mathematical model.

Science itself arose for exactly this reason: before Galileo, people had it backwards. Starting with Galileo, scientists started making observations, recording data, and fitting the data to mathematical models, then evaluating what those models said about reality. Thats how we got rid of non-theories like the "chrystal spheres," geocentrism, and the unscientific ideas of Aristotle.

 

[Chronos]

well put russ. i too dislike the idea that our understanding of the universe leaves us basically stranded in our solar system. sailing off into the great void is much more attractive, but, not realistic. given the current economic climate [consuming the energy equivalent of our entire solar system to travel across the galaxy will probably not reach a vote in a senate subcommitee] attacking the 'guards' seems to be the only way we can escape this prison. we may not be alone in the universe, just forbidden to contaminate it.

 

[big-egg]

“yes, we need math to quantify our ideas, but that's all math in science is, a quantification of ideas. if the ideas are flawed but the math that represents them doesn't seem to be (it's "elegant") then that will lead us off track in terms of our understanding of nature.”

I fully agree with you Shrumeo. It seems that some members of the forum have never considered the qualitative nature of the foundations of the math models and the scope of their application.

 

[chroot]

While this thread seems to contain some interesting discussion, the original poster, as well as other members, seem intent on focusing it on crackpot nonsense. Off to TD it goes... let me know if you have an objection.

- Warren

 

[shrumeo]

I'm talking about in the creation of a theory. A theory that describes a real-world phenomena consists of a mathematical model and a qualitative explanation. The qualitative explanation comes from the mathematical model.

Science itself arose for exactly this reason: before Galileo, people had it backwards. Starting with Galileo, scientists started making observations, recording data, and fitting the data to mathematical models, then evaluating what those models said about reality. Thats how we got rid of non-theories like the "chrystal spheres," geocentrism, and the unscientific ideas of Aristotle.

I'm also talking about in the creation of a theory.

Doesn't what you said about what folks did before Galileo apply to inflationary BB theorists now? They took some observations and interpretations made by Hubble, et al, fit the data to a mathematical model and came up with a non-theory called "Inflationary BB theory".

I remember watching NOVA one time talking about how some guy noticed how a 200-year old equation of Eulers's also applied to the strong force and described it mathematically. Which came first here? The math or the concept of the strong force? Of course, chronologically the math did, but in the course of matching theory to observation it would be no different if the guy derived the equations himself instead of finding them in a book. The realization that the math fit the observations came after the concept of a strong force.

Also, these same equations, apparently (from the same NOVA show ) led folks to string theory and its progeny. Now, here is definite case of the math coming first. It would be very nice to see what is pretty much pure math predicting the structure of "everything." If it were supported experimentally that would be astounding. I'm sure this sort of thing happens all the time in particle physics though.

So, I agree with you that a lot of the time, especially for you physicists, that the math will come first, but also a lot of the time, the observations will come first.

 

[Nereid]

While this thread seems to contain some interesting discussion, the original poster, as well as other members, seem intent on focusing it on crackpot nonsense. Off to TD it goes... let me know if you have an objection.

- Warren

I'm sorry to see this thread in TD. Not because a discussion Savov's ideas doesn't belong in TD; rather because a) the discussion on maths vs observations, chickens and eggs, etc in science is a good one to have (though better in HPS than Astronomy!), but mainly because b) we *really, really* should have a solid discussion of objections to redshift=expansion, quasars, etc a la Arp & Burbidge (et al). IMHO, such a discussion belongs firmly in General Astronomy.

So, in a very few words, not doing justice at all to the topic:
- in the early days, the redshift-distance data were not that good; for the longest time, many quasar datasets could be interpreted many ways
- pre-Hubble (and VLT/Keck/Gemini/etc), many of Arp's collection of nice piccies (and Zwicky's before him) did look like smoking guns - Stephan's Quintet is a wonderful example; post-Hubble (etc) things haven't been so clear for the Arp hypothesis
- appeals to 'the probability of that happening by chance are just too tiny to have any credibility' (yes, this is a strawman; turbo-1, and Arp no doubt, wouldn't state it so poorly) don't stack up when properly analysed. For example, what is the average density (per arcsec^2, for example) of <25 (Bmag) galaxies? How does this vary between the core of a large, dense Abell-type cluster and a (nearby) void?
- we now have two extraordinarily rich, unbiased* surveys of galaxies and quasars - the 2dF and SDSS; shortly powerful data mining tools such as ASTROVERTEL (sp?) will be available to the public - these provide the ability to test many versions of Arp's hypothesis, in an unbiased* fashion, to (guess) many times the depth of Arp's original work
- re quasars - PLE (pure luminosity evolution) had essentially no observational support in the 1980s; it leaps out of the 2dF result.

When I have more time, I'll write better, and include lots of links; to repeat, this discussion is a good one to have in General Astronomy & Cosmology.

*in the statistical sense, not in any way in the usual meaning of this word in everyday English

 

[shrumeo]

i am now seeing that folks are working on the problem:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31815

and they attribute what Arp and others see as close associations of quasars and glaxies to gravitational lensing effects

i think this means, and points my puny opinion in the direction, that we are only at the beginning in trying to understand things, get a grasp of what's going on out there.

and to keep on about the math and observation thingie:
I think old Galileo himself worked out a lot of his mathmatical theories by observation of pendulums and balls rolling down inclined planes, etc. counting, marking, and deriving the math from that:

copied from: http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/lectures/gal_accn96.htm

Galileo's Acceleration Experiment

We are now ready to consider Galileo's experiment in which he tested his hypothesis about the way falling bodies gain speed. We quote the account from Two New Sciences, page 178:

A piece of wooden moulding or scantling, about 12 cubits long, half a cubit wide, and three finger-breadths thick, was taken; on its edge was cut a channel a little more than one finger in breadth; having made this groove very straight, smooth, and polished, and having lined it with parchment, also as smooth and polished as possible, we rolled along it a hard, smooth, and very round bronze ball. Having placed this board in a sloping position, by raising one end some one or two cubits above the other, we rolled the ball, as I was just saying, along the channel, noting, in a manner presently to be described, the time required to make the descent. We repeated this experiment more than once in order to measure the time with an accuracy such that the deviation between two observations never exceeded one-tenth of a pulse-beat. Having performed this operation and having assured ourselves of its reliability, we now rolled the ball only one-quarter the length of the channel; and having measured the time of its descent, we found it precisely one-half of the former. Next we tried other distances, compared the time for the whole length with that for the half, or with that for two-thirds, or three-fourths, or indeed for any fraction; in such experiments, repeated a full hundred times, we always found that the spaces traversed were to each other as the squares of the times, and this was true for all inclinations of the plane, i.e., of the channel, along which we rolled the ball. We also observed that the times of descent, for various inclinations of the plane, bore to one another precisely that ratio which, as we shall see later, the Author had predicted and demonstrated for them.

For the measurement of time, we employed a large vessel of water placed in an elevated position; to the bottom of this vessel was soldered a pipe of small diameter giving a thin jet of water which we collected in a small glass during the time of each descent, whether for the whole length of the channel or for part of its length; the water thus collected was weighed, after each descent, on a very accurate balance; the differences and ratios of these weights gave us the differences and ratios of the times, and this with such accuracy that although the operation was repeated many, many times, there was no appreciable discrepancy in the results.

Apologies for the length.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm also talking about in the creation of a theory.

Doesn't what you said about what folks did before Galileo apply to inflationary BB theorists now? They took some observations and interpretations made by Hubble, et al, fit the data to a mathematical model and came up with a non-theory called "Inflationary BB theory".

Why is it a "non-theory"? Because you don't like it?

 

[shrumeo]

in case you didn't notice, I was mimicking the way you dimissed past "non-theories" as you called them (not agreeing with any of them here)
i don't know if it's called sarcasm anymore

i oversimplified the creation of theory, the way you did, to illustrate the fact that there is little difference (in the way you put it) between what they did and how inflationary BB theory came about (or how a lot of theories come about)



edit:
anyway, i now have stupid questions about those papers that were linked to. the ones that explain the wacky, apparently-connected-to-a-galaxy quasars by way of gravitational lensing.

If I were an optics expert would I expect some distortion, or a lot of distortion, in the image and be able to calculate the way the image distorts? Are any of Arp's wacky quasar images distorted?

 

[Nereid]

No more distorted than other images taken with the same telescope/camera configuration!

The main source of distortion in good quality astonomical images is the atmosphere - called 'seeing'. The Hubble ST has a mirror which was ground to a shape different from that in the specs - and early images from the cameras then installed had to processed to yield useful images. Later, on a servicing mission, corrective optics were added; later still, those were removed, because by then all cameras (and other instruments) had built-in image correction.

Leading Earth-bound telescopes have active optics; the seeing is sampled, and the mirrors distorted to reduce the seeing-induced distortion (and a few other distortions too).

Why not contribute to the 'Arp' thread directly?

 

[shrumeo]

which one is the Arp thread again? :)

this one ? https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31815

hmm, i'll just ask the same question again there, i guess
anyway...

 

[Nereid]

Yes, that thread; see you there!

 

[russ_watters]

in case you didn't notice, I was mimicking the way you dimissed past "non-theories" as you called them (not agreeing with any of them here)

Since the scientific method was basically invented by Galileo, it is perfectly acceptable to consider the ideas that came before his "non-theories." Before him, ther was no such thing as a scientific theory because there was no such thing as science.

edit: I see this coming: 'How can you say there was no such thing as science before Galileo?! Stars have existed for billions of years!'

Science is not the laws that govern the natural world, science is a process by which we find the laws that govern the natural world. That process has only been around for about 500 years.

 

[shrumeo]

Nope, wasn't going to say that.

I think we are agreeing more than it seems.

I wasn't trying to argue the validity of certian pre-Gallileo theories, like crystal spheres. (I'm guessing you mean the ones from Aristotle.) You said he applied math to his crystal sphere theory. I googled THIS to learn more about it.

I like the part where it says, "This gives a pretty accurate representation of the sun's motion, but it didn't quite account for all the known observations at that time."

If I didn't know any better, if I really believed we had a firm grasp on the nature of the universe I would think it quite daft to translate it for today as: "IBBT gives a pretty accurate representation of the behavior of the cosmos, but it didn't quite account for all the known observations at that time."

I, in my ignorance, fail to see a big difference between the orgination of crystal sphere theory and IBBT. To me, in my ignorance, both seem to stem from a lack of knowledge and understanding. (Then applying a bunch of math to the flawed mental model so that it seems to be right.)

edit:
At the end of the paragraph, it says they were able to accurately account for all the motions ofthe planets based on concentric spheres.

 

[Prometheus]

Science is not the laws that govern the natural world, science is a process by which we find the laws that govern the natural world. That process has only been around for about 500 years.

I disagree.

The ancient Greeks investigated nature, and they developed and argued theories about nature. Science has been around since the time of the ancient Greeks.

 

[Eh]

Err, no. Science is a specific method, not some vauge concept of investigating nature. It has not been around since the Greeks.

 

[Prometheus]

Err, no. Science is a specific method, not some vauge concept of investigating nature. It has not been around since the Greeks.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My definition, and incidentally the definition in my dictionaries and at dictionary.com, indicate that science is not necessarily limited to a specific method at all.

Might I ask where you obtained such a definition of science. Please cite a source that says that the only reasonable definition of science is a specfic methodology.

 

[Nereid]

The origins and development of science is fascinating.

There's no doubt that what we call 'science' today didn't just pop into existence last century, or 500 years ago.

"The Trouble with Science", Robin Dunbar, faber and faber (1995) has a good general discussion on this and related topics; IMHO well worth a read. (incidentally, Robin makes the point that the Greeks often suffer from a bad press; e.g. "Aristotle's biological successes in relation to his ability to investigate them for himself", a nice table on p39, strongly suggests he was a pretty good 'scientist' wrt stuff he could 'observe', even down to the methods!)

 

[Eh]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My definition, and incidentally the definition in my dictionaries and at dictionary.com, indicate that science is not necessarily limited to a specific method at all.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. At least in the context here. Cosmology and physics are branches of modern science, which employs the scientific method and has a very limited definition. For clarity, we can say that modern science is a relatively new development that contrasts greatly with any "science" of the ancients.

The dictionary seems to use the modern definition as well.

Science

a.The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b.Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c.Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

The above describes the scientific method, though perhaps not as precisely as you'd like.

For the scientific method:

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

That sums it up.

Might I ask where you obtained such a definition of science. Please cite a source that says that the only reasonable definition of science is a specfic methodology.

That is simply the definition scientists use. This modern science has only been around for a while, and I don't think you will disagree with that.

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP
For the scientific method:

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

That sums it up.

That is simply the definition scientists use. This modern science has only been around for a while, and I don't think you will disagree with that.

Now here a curious thing ... the more you look at what 'the ancients' actually did, esp the Greeks, the greater your sense of déjà vu. Sure, things were phrased differently (no 'empirical', 'observation of phenomena', etc), and to be sure none of the ancients codied the method in a form we now know and love ... but their actions (in many cases) speak louder than their words.

 

[Prometheus]

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact.

FOr you to use the term modern science shows that you are aware of science that is not modern.

Therefore, you two must recognize that science also occurred before modern times.

We do not need to say that modern science is new for the purposes of clarity. We can say that modern science is new due to the definition of the adjective modern.

Ancient science was less advanced than today. However it was still science.

You two seem to be saying that the scientific method is new, which I will not dispute, and that therefore science itself is new, which I will dispute.

Are you actually trying to tell us that you believe that science itself is new, and that the ancient Greeks did not have any science? I canot believe that you would make this contention. What possible value could there be in this contention?

 

[setAI]

Science is not the laws that govern the natural world, science is a process by which we find the laws that govern the natural world. That process has only been around for about 500 years.

all of you specialists need to open your horizons of knowledge and learn some basic anthropology- the scientific method was originally developed by SHAMANS- the many shamanic methodologies that emerged among human communities over the last 40-70 thousand years are the foundations of the very process you mention: of examining nature- building hypotheses and frameworks to explain natural phenomenology- then testing [in/on their own flesh] those hypotheses to search for Truth and Knowledge-

in the advent of modern civilization the complexities of societies required the shaman's method to branch into several different disciplines- chiefly the sciences/epistemology/ontology/philosophy/and the arts- when powerful religions formed they dominated the examination of the world and the expression of Truth in Nature for millenia- religion was sort of a perversion of shamanic truth seeking that sought control and power over others instead of an honest search for knowledge about the world- however the power of the original shamanic analytical methodology allowed the sciences to flourish and eventually readapt that method into what we now call the Scientific Method- it was the way we started out doing things in the first place before the notion of divine order- when Man had to figure out the world by using his OWN BODY and as the laboratory-

modern science is essentially a return to that original shamanic way of investigating the world-
___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

 

[Prometheus]

all of you specialists need to open your horizons of knowledge and learn some basic anthropology- the scientific method was originally develloped by SHAMANS- the many shamanic methodologies that emerged among human communities over the last 40-70 thousand years

Hi.

I do have some basic knowledge of anthropology. Still, I wonder how you came up with shamans as the origiinal source of science. Furthermore, how is it that you came up 40-70,000 years ago. I am aware of no information on shamans that long ago, and I am not aware of them or anyone at that time as a precursor to science.

 

[setAI]

Hi.

I do have some basic knowledge of anthropology. Still, I wonder how you came up with shamans as the origiinal source of science. Furthermore, how is it that you came up 40-70,000 years ago. I am aware of no information on shamans that long ago, and I am not aware of them or anyone at that time as a precursor to science.

this figure is based on the oldest known shamanic culture: the Australian Aborigines- there are traditions and knowledge passed down from at least 40-70 thousand years from the dawn of the post-Dreamtime era- the most amazing ideas where their Dreamtime animal morphologies which contain a primitive form of the theory of Natural Selection-

as for shamanism's role in scinetific knowledge- this is self-evident and undisputible: as ALL forms of knowledge/logics/art- IDEAS themselves began with Shamans- the Shamanic method at it's core was a process of gathering data and then creating models to explain/predict the data sets investigated- then these models were tested to determine their viability within the context of the shaman's purpose-



___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com

 

[Eh]

Now here a curious thing ... the more you look at what 'the ancients' actually did, esp the Greeks, the greater your sense of déjà vu. Sure, things were phrased differently (no 'empirical', 'observation of phenomena', etc), and to be sure none of the ancients codied the method in a form we now know and love ... but their actions (in many cases) speak louder than their words.

I don't know about that. Do we have Greeks that emphasized the importance of potential falsification of a hypothesis?

 

[Eh]

FOr you to use the term modern science shows that you are aware of science that is not modern.

Right, but modern science is modern, and it's very different than the old use of the word. And in the context of physics, it's the only definition that has any relevance here.

Therefore, you two must recognize that science also occurred before modern times.

Which doesn't have much to do with modern science.

We do not need to say that modern science is new for the purposes of clarity. We can say that modern science is new due to the definition of the adjective modern.

Agreed. So why did you bring up the irrelevant Greek "science" in the first place? It has nothing to do with the context of the discussion here.

Ancient science was less advanced than today. However it was still science.

But not what scientists would call science, and nothing to do with a discussion about the science of the big bang theory.

Are you actually trying to tell us that you believe that science itself is new, and that the ancient Greeks did not have any science? I canot believe that you would make this contention. What possible value could there be in this contention?

It's really simple. The Greeks didn't have modern science, and only modern science has any relevance here.

 

[Prometheus]

why did you bring up the irrelevant Greek "science" in the first place? It has nothing to do with the context of the discussion here.

I consider that this is an extremely short-sighted opinion. You would have us ignore history and only focus on the present. Without any context on the past, how can you expect to truly understand modern science?

Our wonderful, incredibly advanced, "modern" science that you are so in love with recognizes 4 forces of nature. The ancient Greeks also recognized 4 forces of nature. The names have changed, but the fundamental properties of the forces have not changed. Modern science has evolved out of ancient science. This is but one example of the relevance of ancient science.

Things are not as different as you would make them out to be. Those who ignore the past cannot hope to understand the present, let alone look into the future.

 

[Eh]

I consider that this is an extremely short-sighted opinion. You would have us ignore history and only focus on the present.

Hardly. The reason it is irrelevant is because it has nothing to do with whether the big bang theory qualifies as a good scientific model.

Without any context on the past, how can you expect to truly understand modern science?

Because the scientific method alone can be understood by any person of reasonable intelligence. That doesn't mean the history leading up to the development of modern science isn't important or an area of interest- it's just off topic. As I said, modern science is the only definition of science in the context of this discussion.

Our wonderful, incredibly advanced, "modern" science that you are so in love with recognizes 4 forces of nature. The ancient Greeks also recognized 4 forces of nature. The names have changed, but the fundamental properties of the forces have not changed. Modern science has evolved out of ancient science. This is but one example of the relevance of ancient science.

That's nonsense. Water, fire, Earth and wind are hardly fundamentally the same as gravity, electro-magnetism and the nuclear forces. At this point it's obvious you're grasping at straws without putting any thought into the matter before posting. But it's besides the point, because even if the Greek elements were more similar to the 4 forces, that doesn't mean they would have had the scientific method.

Modern science has evolved out of ancient science. This is but one example of the relevance of ancient science.

Which has no relevance to whether or not the big bang theory counts as good (modern) science.

 

[Prometheus]

Science is a specific method,

You began with this comment, which is false on its face. I challenge this statement that you made, and you rebut by telling me that I am off topic.

You seem to have little understanding of the ancient Greeks, so you make claims that show you have little understanding.

If you do not wish to discuss the Greeks, do not respond to my posts. However, to claim that they are off topic, a topic that you started, and not me, does not strengthen your argument.

Science is not a scientific method. Science now uses what is called the sceintific method. Science has been around a long time. The ancient Greeks practiced science. That science still influences us significantly. You reject this idea, but you don't really understand what you are rejecting. I consider that it is you who is off topic. I was not the one who started this topic. I responded to your post.

 

[Prometheus]

As I said, modern science is the only definition of science in the context of this discussion.

What is this supposed to mean, if anything. Where is it written that you have taken it upon yourself to set the bounds of the topic of this discussion for everyone to follow?

I don't recall anywhere where you defined and limited the bounds of this discussion here in the Theory Development forum to areas where you have the ability to see some relevant relationship.

It seems to me that you are the one who is grasping at straws, as you are very off topic. Here we are in the Theory Development forum, and you are making meaningless statements about the definition of science, and then back them up with meaningless claims that others are off topic.

 

[Eh]

You began with this comment, which is false on its face. I challenge this statement that you made, and you rebut by telling me that I am off topic.

Like I said, this thread is a discussion about modern science, not anything the ancients believed. You are the one who confused modern science with beliefs of the ancients, which again has nothing to do with any discussion about physics.

You seem to have little understanding of the ancient Greeks, so you make claims that show you have little understanding.

Sure. You're confused about the meaning of science (on a forum about physics no less), therefore I don't know much about the ancient Greeks.

If you do not wish to discuss the Greeks, do not respond to my posts.

Certainly, as soon as you stop posting in topics about science when you have nothing relevant to contribute.

However, to claim that they are off topic, a topic that you started, and not me, does not strengthen your argument.

What do the ancient Greeks have to do with whether or not the big bang theory is a good scientifc model?

Science is not a scientific method. Science now uses what is called the sceintific method. Science has been around a long time. The ancient Greeks practiced science. That science still influences us significantly. You reject this idea, but you don't really understand what you are rejecting.

Nice try at a strawman, but I'm not arguing against the influence of the Greeks. As I've said, the Greeks did not have modern science, and that's the point.

I consider that it is you who is off topic. I was not the one who started this topic. I responded to your post.

Really? Take another look. This thread became a discussion about the validity of big bang theory. Several posters explained that the theory is mainstream not because of a vast conspiracy, but because it's a very successful application of the scientific method. Crackpot models are called such because they ignore the very same method. In that context, that is a discussion about modern science specifically. Not some vauge notion of investigating nature held by the ancients. Russ pointed out that science is a process that has only been around a few hundred years, clearly talking about modern science. You then decided to jump in with a different definition and claim science has been around for a long time. Surely you can see how that doesn't flow with the topic.

 

[Prometheus]

Like I said, this thread is a discussion about modern science, not anything the ancients believed.

Certainly, as soon as you stop posting in topics about science when you have nothing relevant to contribute.

What do the ancient Greeks have to do with whether or not the big bang theory is a good scientifc model?

Really? Take another look. This thread became a discussion about the validity of big bang theory.

Poor guy. I do feel sorry for you.

Who are you, by the way, to tell me so repeatedly that I am off topic? Did you begin this thread. No. Did you take over this thread? No, because many people have contributed. Are you the moderator, with ultimate authority to determine what is or is not on topic. No. So, who are you?

I see that your very first posting on this thread is telling the originator that he is off topic. Thereafter you seem to think that you own it. Be serious.

This thread is about the validity of the Big Bang, you contend. I contend that the forces are nature are relevant and on topic in this context. You sluff off the ancient Greeks as irrelevant in this context. Modern science, which you are blindly in love with, recognizes 4 forces of nature. The ancient Greeks recognized 4 forces of nature. Not only was the number identical, but their fundamental structure is identical. Sure, the names have changed over time, and their superficial symbolism has changed, and this seems to have enabled you, who seem to have so little understanding of either, to determine that you are the definitive authority on relevancy. What a joke. I contend that expanding the context to include the past can be extremely useful. Of course, not to blind people who are so sure of themselves such as you.

So, what do you do? The opposite of what you say that you are doing. If you really thought that I am off topic, you should have not responded. Instead, in order to tell me that I am off topic, you have caused this thread to be dominated by posts related to this topic, which is your fault. It is your fault that this topic is still alive. You have contributed nothing to the content of this topic but to keep it alive, the very opposite of what you pretend to have as your goal.

If you do not want to talk about this, don't respond. I am sorry, but I have no reason to recognize you as an authority on anything, and I do not recognize your authority to tell me repeatedly that you are the determiner of what is on topic.

I don't want to argue with you, as you seem to have nothing to contribute. To make you happy, I will take my ideas elsewhere, where people respond to ideas they have an interst in and ignore other ideas. I will take my ideas elsewhere, so that you can return to telling others that you are the ultimate expert, and that their ideas are off topic, even if they were the originators of the thread.

 

[Eh]

Poor guy. I do feel sorry for you.
Who are you, by the way, to tell me so repeatedly that I am off topic? Did you begin this thread. No. Did you take over this thread? No, because many people have contributed. Are you the moderator, with ultimate authority to determine what is or is not on topic. No. So, who are you?

I'm telling you ancient science is irrelevant. You don't have to like it, but when someone posts something misleading at least one poster will usually correct it. If you have something relevant to say about the big bang theory, go right ahead. Otherwise, there's nothing left to say.

I see that your very first posting on this thread is telling the originator that he is off topic. Thereafter you seem to think that you own it. Be serious.

Actually, I told the OP to learn what science actually is. And that's quite relevant to the point here.

Modern science, which you are blindly in love with, recognizes 4 forces of nature. The ancient Greeks recognized 4 forces of nature. Not only was the number identical, but their fundamental structure is identical. Sure, the names have changed over time, and their superficial symbolism has changed, and this seems to have enabled you, who seem to have so little understanding of either, to determine that you are the definitive authority on relevancy.

And here you go again. Jumping in without putting the slightest amount of thought into the matter, thinking you actually have something intelligent to say. How in the world do you justify claiming fire, earth, air and water are indentical to EM, gravity and the nuclear forces? Claiming they have identical properties is idiotic, and a sure sign you haven't put any thought into it.

So, what do you do? The opposite of what you say that you are doing. If you really thought that I am off topic, you should have not responded. Instead, in order to tell me that I am off topic, you have caused this thread to be dominated by posts related to this topic, which is your fault.

After I corrected you on your misuse the word science, you have keep arguing and replying to my posts. So the wasted bandwidth isn't entirely my fault, though I should know better to keep responding to people who will argue about a subject they know nothing about.

It is your fault that this topic is still alive. You have contributed nothing to the content of this topic but to keep it alive, the very opposite of what you pretend to have as your goal.

I think I've explained why the big bang theory is considered mainstream science quite well.

To make you happy, I will take my ideas elsewhere, where people respond to ideas they have an interst in and ignore other ideas.

Fine, take it to church.