- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
OK. I enjoy that theory too. 
1
Posted on 9/20/23 at 8:20 am to TrueTiger
Reality doesn't exist without an observer.
Therefore, the Big Bang couldn't have happened without the Observer.
Therefore, the Big Bang couldn't have happened without the Observer.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 8:22 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
I enjoy that theory too.
Sure, and your favorite one is the theory of evolution.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 8:25 am to Bard
quote:There are very few chefs in science, only cooks following recipes. They don't come to these conclusions, they just repeat them, so why should their numbers be counted to add weight to certain views?
I don't think it was developed to fit a conclusion, but I think it's become so commonly cited that it is considered (by many) to only be a "theory" in a textual sense (essentially looking at it, and using it, as if it were a concrete law).
Some people can be incredibly resistant to change, when they are in scientific fields they are the primary ones to think of science as concrete rather than fluid.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 8:25 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Sure, and your favorite one is the theory of evolution.
My favorite? Depending on what you mean by that, I'd say not really.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 8:31 am to Mo Jeaux
Fair enough.
I take it that of the two you favor evolution theory over simulation theory.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 8:39 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I take it that of the two you favor evolution theory over simulation theory.
Gut reaction . . . probably. Like many, the first time I heard about simulation theory, it seemed like a fun thought experiment. The first Matrix movie was cool. Simulacra and Simulation was thought provoking, but over my head at the time. In general, it seemed like something that you discussed as you were puffing and passing.
Over the years, as I've read more about it and listened to serious scientists discussing it, it certainly seems more persuasive. COVID probably accelerated that persuasiveness.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 8:44 am to TrueTiger
Probably because the models don't understand that mass affects both gravity and time the way they think it does. There was an unfathomable amount of mass concentrated in a small absolute area, according to the theory, so much so that there is no understanding of how these things relate.
Many scientists are ego driven douches that won't let bad ideas die, too.
Many scientists are ego driven douches that won't let bad ideas die, too.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 8:46 am to TrueTiger
This isn't debunking. Scientists do not have the capability to see back all the way to the big bang and their models can't go back all the way to the start either.
This has not changed. This new evidence of large galaxies existing before they should have due to physics calculations was a head scratcher at first.
It still isn't settled but there have already been new discoveries that could explain why these galaxies developed sooner than expected. Don't quote me but it has something to do with blackholes forming in ways that weren't previously predicted.
Contrary to popular belief here, scientist do NOT think they know it all. There are lots of things that remain unexplained.
This has not changed. This new evidence of large galaxies existing before they should have due to physics calculations was a head scratcher at first.
It still isn't settled but there have already been new discoveries that could explain why these galaxies developed sooner than expected. Don't quote me but it has something to do with blackholes forming in ways that weren't previously predicted.
Contrary to popular belief here, scientist do NOT think they know it all. There are lots of things that remain unexplained.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 8:49 am to TrueTiger
Science works on the Thomas McKenna quote “give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.”
Posted on 9/20/23 at 8:57 am to TrueTiger
quote:
The Webb data, though, revealed that some very large galaxies formed really fast, in too short a time, at least according to the standard model. This was no minor discrepancy. The finding is akin to parents and their children appearing in a story when the grandparents are still children themselves.
This is really misleading, and one of the lead scientists on this survey has been pretty vocal that people are misinterpreting this data. These early galaxies are globular in nature, as predicted (it takes much longer for spiral galaxies to form). Also, this survey was only able to capture the brightest objects in existence at that time, and because of phenomena such as gravitational lensing and the expansion of the universe, they actually don't know how large the observed objects actually were at the time of the survey.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 9:05 am to VolcanicTiger
quote:
There are very few chefs in science, only cooks following recipes. They don't come to these conclusions, they just repeat them, so why should their numbers be counted to add weight to certain views?
Excellent analogy. If enough people repeat something enough...
Posted on 9/20/23 at 9:08 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I take it that of the two you favor evolution theory over simulation theory.
Not mutually exclusive. Evolution can occur within the simulation.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 9:08 am to TrueTiger
quote:
But particular subject doesn't matter, big bang, evolution, climate change, will all eventually get their debunking.
This claim reminds me of this from Isaac Asimov.
The Relativity of Wrong
Posted on 9/20/23 at 9:13 am to LSUbest
quote:The Big Bang hypothesis was developed when science actually worked. Very different from the "climate change" "Earth is boiling" wear a cloth mask and get 17 boosters Batsoup origins of SARS-CoV-2 bullshite
This is what happens when the "theory" is developed to fit a preferred conclusion.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 9:20 am to PurpleSingularity
quote:
OP is an idiot and probably shouldn’t read articles dealing with expansion, the cosmos, quantum field theory, etc.
Please stick to masking and jab articles.
is chance a thing?
Posted on 9/20/23 at 9:24 am to PurpleSingularity
quote:
OP is an idiot
Thanks for changing the subject and the ad hominem,
I'll take the win.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 9:35 am to TrueTiger
"Our" Big Bang theory is incorrect. Most people know this, they just do not have anything better to offer.
It is much easier to believe a "God" story of creation, than the Big Bang, however the disbelief in a God is a religion itself to many.
It is much easier to believe a "God" story of creation, than the Big Bang, however the disbelief in a God is a religion itself to many.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 9:40 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The Big Bang hypothesis was developed when science actually worked. Very different from the "climate change" "Earth is boiling" wear a cloth mask and get 17 boosters Batsoup origins of SARS-CoV-2 bullshite
There is a lot more scientific research going on besides those two subjects that "works" and I'm sure there were harebrained ideas being adopted in the 1930's (and every year) as well.
Posted on 9/20/23 at 9:42 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:Yes.
Did you even read the source of what you posted?
What point were you attempting in raising the question?
Page 2 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News