Scientific explanation of the Universe

[Handsome_Dick]

Unless we figure out time travel (laughable), there is no way to come to a scientific explanation of the universe. All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses...and that includes the big bang 'theory'...which is currently being shot to **** (Back and to the left)...turns out we jumped to a conclusion long before there was any practical conclusion to be made from the evidence.

For any valid theory to exist on the beginnings of the universe, we would have needed to be present at the creation of this universe...or somehow create a second verse...and that's under the assumption that our verse is the only one in the universe (which could hypothetically be a multi-verse without contradicting current mathematics).

Simply put, we can figure out what the universe looked like millionths of a second after expansion began; but we cannot EVER (through science or faith) figure out what it was at the very beginning, or how it began, or why it began, or when it even began...nor can we figure out if a 'who' was involved, or if there even is a 'why'.

It's a pipe dream to think we can establish a working theory to the beginning.

 

[SpaceTiger]

It's a common misconception that the Big Bang theory is meant to explain the moment of creation. In fact, standard Big Bang theory only goes back to the end of inflation and explains the late-time evolution of the universe. Prior to that, there are a number of theories still in contention (mostly varieties of inflation), and prior to that, we have no useful information.

In professional circles, there are only a few old scientists that still question standard Big Bang theory, and they drift further from the mainstream as time goes on.

 

[interested_learner]

You must understand that any scientific theory is just a mathematical model of the universe. It can only go so far as the model can.

The model stands or falls on the predictions that it makes. The Big Bang is generally supported because it predicted the background microwave radiation that is found in all directions. This prediction was confirmed by engineers trying to find the source of noise in their advanced antennas. The engineers were awarded the Nobel for their work. It is the first and only case of an accidental Nobel Prize. The scientist who made the prediction got nothing. (Life's not fair).

The fact that a theory can't model everything is irrelevant.

 

[hurk4]

creation versus autonomous reality

For any valid theory to exist on the beginnings of the universe, we would have needed to be present at the creation of this universe...or somehow create a second verse...and that's under the assumption that our verse is the only one in the universe (which could hypothetically be a multi-verse without contradicting current mathematics).

Apparently you start with a belief that creation exist which has never been shown experimentally. IMO better accept autonomous reality without creation.

Knd regards,
Hurk4

 

[DaveC426913]

... there is no way to come to a scientific explanation of the universe. All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses...

1] You seem to think we need to have visual verification with our own eyes in order to be able to come to a scientific explanation of the universe. This is no so. When we have a theory that has an answer for every question, we will have an excellent scientific understanding of the universe. Yes, it is a theory. So is the atomic model of matter. Do you disbelieve everyithn you cannot see with your own eyes?

2] Theories make predictions, which we can test, even 15Gy later. If those tests bear out the predictions, we have an acceptable theory. There's nothing hypothetical about it.



If I am reading you correctly, you seem to be in the camp of those with the belief that the world is made of "mere" theories, as if theories are an invalid process for understanding the world around us.

I suppose that's OK, if you want to stop advancement of the world somewhere in the 1500s. You know that your CD player is built upon "mere" theories, right?

 

[Vast]

Simply put, we can figure out what the universe looked like millionths of a second after expansion began; but we cannot EVER (through science or faith) figure out what it was at the very beginning, or how it began, or why it began, or when it even began...nor can we figure out if a 'who' was involved, or if there even is a 'why'.

It's a pipe dream to think we can establish a working theory to the beginning.

OK everyone, stop what you're doing, you can't solve this mystery, stop working on it, it's hopeless to even try, let's just say God did it and not worry anymore, agreed?

 

[sunblock]

Yes, but which God?

 

[Wallace]

Unless we figure out time travel (laughable), there is no way to come to a scientific explanation of the universe. All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses

Perhaps you should learn what 'scientific explanation' means. Your statement shows you clearly haven't grasped this concept.

 

[Jheriko]

All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses...

Last time I checked all theories are based on hypotheses.