6
   

Demise of the big bang theory

 
 
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2014 05:27 am
http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/fallofbigbang/index.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 1,200 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2014 05:41 am
@gungasnake,
From the link:

Quote:
Since its beginnings, the Big Bang Theory has evolved to rely on a growing number of hypotheses required to explain observations:


Yeah, it's called progressive learning. As we develop greater capabilities to make more numerous and detailed observations, it's going to happen. What's the problem?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2014 05:59 am
"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

-- Samuel Clemens
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2014 06:08 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

Yeah, it's called progressive learning.


Progressive? Yeah, that'll win gunga over...

("Progressive learning" must be something taught in those Marxist public schools.)
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2014 06:24 am
@Kolyo,
Laughing OK, "incremental," then.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2014 08:49 pm
Yes, the acceptance rate among physicists is down to 99.9% .
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2014 11:20 pm
It's called having to progressively/incrementally add increasing volumes of ad-hoc bullshit in order to keep on fooling some of the people all of the time....
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2014 11:24 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

It's called having to progressively/incrementally add increasing volumes of ad-hoc bullshit in order to keep on fooling some of the people all of the time....


I long ago came to the conclusion that scientific theories on how the universe works and how we came to be are 99% guess....a rate on par with the Bibles version of the story.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Nov, 2014 11:59 pm
@gungasnake,
Of course, it's ad hoc. It's required to fit observation, rather than some a priori bias or preference.
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2014 01:32 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

It's called having to progressively/incrementally add increasing volumes of ad-hoc bullshit in order to keep on fooling some of the people all of the time....



I may have missed it somewhere, gunga, but please tell me how you think the universe came into existence.
We hear a lot from you about how it didn't, so you should now update us with your current thinking, I reckon.
If you don't have the time, please supply a link or two where you've posted your theory here in the past.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2014 02:18 am
A laudable inquiry on your part, your Lordyship, but a waste of time. Gunga Dim is just a contrarian. He won't say what he believes, he's just here to deny what he doesn't wish to believe.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2014 06:01 am
@Lordyaswas,
Quote:
I may have missed it somewhere, gunga, but please tell me how you think the universe came into existence.


If I had to put money on it, I'd go with the notion that the physical universe, like God, is eternal and has no beginning or end. Anything else leads to conundrums.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2014 06:03 am
@gungasnake,
Which god?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2014 06:43 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
I may have missed it somewhere, gunga, but please tell me how you think the universe came into existence.


If I had to put money on it, I'd go with the notion that the physical universe, like God, is eternal and has no beginning or end. Anything else leads to conundrums.

Based on your years of study of physics, no doubt. I doubt you could solve a high school physics problem, but you purport to lecture the world's physics community about cosmology.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2014 11:01 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Yes, the acceptance rate among physicists is down to 99.9% .
Yeh, that crap about all that cosmic stars background radiation and redshifting forever merely means that "c" is actually slowing down in the outer reaches of the known universe ?.


farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2014 11:18 am
@farmerman,
At first I thought gunga was talking about the TV show of the same name (which, btw, is a great comdy)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Demise of the big bang theory
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 10:12:52