Is that so, Hurkyl? By that reckoning the big bang theory should be treated as indeterminate more so than aliens visiting our planet. There are plenty of eyewitnesses who claim they say alien spaceships, and there are none who claim they saw the big bang.
No. The difference is that of all the theories, the idea that the current order of the universe has a finite beginning best explains the cosmic background radiation, spectral analysis of matter composition, red shifting we see. Meanwhile there are a variety of alternative explanations to UFO sightings that correspond better to evidence that the assertion of alien visitation. So while big bang has a hugh truth value, alien visitation has a low one. Skepticism is useless without alternatives.
When you deal with any theory that has no possibility of being proved scientifically, then you have to be skeptical of the veracity of the presented claim.
The sort of proof you want, no theory at all can be proved. The thing about big bang and the others is that they make specific predictions that have been shown to be correct, and have been constructed from assumptions that have been experimentally confirmed. This is about as good as it gets. True that some parts cannot be proven, and some could not be known about, but testability does certainly exist.
As far as the big bang and black holes and other cartoon theories go, when they claim physics must stop working at some point for their theories to have an origin, then you should deduce right away that those kind of theory are illogical and are the work of shoddy thinking, or fraud.
No, you cannot make that deduction, because there is no reason for you to do so. You can test the predictions and assumptions made, to see if they correspond to reality. Since I have not seen a cartoon featuring the Big Bang, I will not deign to comment on that particular idiocy.
The whole idea about photons needing to be in physical contact with other photons in a photon stream is dependant on the photons being pushed away from the gravity of the star by being so numerous that the presence of the newly formed ones continually added to the stream forces the outermost photons beyond the gravity of the star, and hence into space.
That is nonsense, because gravity as a force is infinite. There is no way to go beyond the gravity of the star.
It is not enough to assert that photons have a momentum inherent with their creation. We have to try to figure out how they get that momentum, and describe it a way that satisfies physical laws, or it is not science.
Let's at this point define what you mean by physical laws. Newtonian mechanics? Aristotlean philosophy? Because you don't seem to notice that the momentum of photons is in itself a physical law. Photons have a set velocity, because they are based on the propagation of magnetic and electrical waves. (Read on Maxwell's equations) Photons have momentum because momentum is based on mass, and mass is a form of energy. (Read up on Einstein's Relativity) To say that photons do not have momentum is in itself an assertion, and one easily disprove the moment you point a torch at a needle in a vacuum flask, and watch the needle move by
photonic pressure.
To state that photons "just have momentum" is equivalent to saying that black holes condense millions of star down to the size of a basketball without ever giving a physical explanation how they could do that.
Yep, they are equivalently true, as any further study on your part would show. But if you don't try to understand, they are equivalently meaningless.
Saying that physics breaks down at such a point, or that it changes into something else altogether, is a childish assertion and avoids reality.
Do you by any chance know what reality IS? Reality is real in itself. Our physical laws are made by us to describe reality. They are imperfect, because we made them. These imperfect laws are broken and remade in each moment of discovery, and we accept that they may only be true within a very specific context. To say that our present laws will remain forever inviolate, to ignore the inherent exceptions that exist in each of our laws, to say that what we made in a experiment on Earth is always valid is not just a childish assertion that ignores the reality of the universe, but is a foundamental disagreement with the scientific principle - WE DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH.
Bugs Bunny can throw a black hole on the ground and jump into it, but that kind of fantasy doesn't happen for real physics.
No, there is no bugs bunny.
If they have their own propulsion, then the possibility that a black blank space could exist behind each one might have some validity, or at least it would be worth investigating with further thought experiments.
Or better yet REAL experiments, which all confirm that there is a black, blank space behind each one.
But if we go that route, we would have to also agree that since the photon is using it's own energy to travel on, then that energy would naturally have to be limited by the size of the photon and would therefore be susceptible to burning out before it got anywhere
Do you understand Newton's laws? Or the conservation of energy? The photons do not expend energy to travel, and if they did expend energy, where would it go?
We would also have to think of a physical action that occurs within the photon that could give it directional flight.
Do you know what a photon IS? A photon is a wavepacket. Within the photon, there are two kinds of field - an electric field, and a magnetic field. These fields mutually generate each other, and hence they propogate. A photon is not a smart missile. It is a case of magnetic induction in action. The speed of light, c is itself expressed from c = 1/(electric field constant * magnetic field constant)^0.5
