No, but that’s not what you are doing here. So this just another attempt of yours to sidetrack with a fallacy.
That was not a fallacy. It is a fact. In order to drive, I do not need to understand auto mechanics. One does not rely on the other. Calling a fact, a fallacy, or suggesting that I am using it to sidetrack. Is a complete misuse of the term.
You are arguing based on semantics. Based on my usage of the word theory. So what? The underlying truth is the same. No one has any instrumentation to observe phenomenon that took place 13.8 billion years ago.
http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html
“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.”
“What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.”
http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/fallofbigbang/
“The continuous addition of new hypotheses to a theory constantly in disagreement with new observations is a strong indication that the underlying assumption, that the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state, is incorrect. Based on the large number of publications which expose the theory’s weaknesses, it is becoming clear that the Big Bang Theory is collapsing under the weight of its own untested assumptions.”
Put simply. Science inserts and makes things up, in order to keep pushing this theory. Making stuff up, and pushing what is not provable or observed. Has all the staples of organized religion.
“Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.”
Dark matter. Posited, but not proven. No working theory, no independent theories about it. We know f~~~ all about dark matter. But science claims it exists, and uses it to continue to try and prove BB theory? Religion does all of that very well too.
“Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that “science is the culture of doubt”, in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.”
That is truly fascinating. It appears that science does not encourage new ideas, as you previously suggested. But instead, shuts down anyone who tries to refute a theory which is full of holes. Again, that is so very similar to what organized religion has done. No parallels you said? No similarities? I’ve just conclusively pointed them out.
“Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.”
Did you catch the words dogmatic. Ignored or ridiculed? Alien to the free spirit of scientific inquiry? Where else do we find this? In religion of course.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/19/science-religion-not-be-questioned
“Even the more highbrow effusions on science have yet to learn this lesson. TV programmes on science pursue a line that’s often cringe-makingly reverential. Switch on any episode of Horizon, and the mood lighting, doom-laden music and Shakespearean voiceover convince you that you are entering the Houses of the Holy – somewhere where debate and dissent are not so much not permitted as inconceivable.
If there are dissenting views, they aren’t voiced by an interviewer, but by other scientists, and “we” (the great unwashed) can only sit back and watch uncomprehending as if the contenders are gods throwing thunderbolts at one another. If the presenters are scientists themselves, or have some scientific knowledge, be they Bill Oddie or David Attenborough, their discourse is one of monologue rather than argument, received wisdom rather than doubt.
Which loosely means. We don’t welcome debate. We speak with authority on matters that have yet to be proven. We conflate theories to the level of facts. That sounds more and more like religion.
My not understanding the science in depth. Or my misuse of the word theory. Does not make science any more correct with regard to BB.
Put another way. Proving me wrong based on semantics, or wordplay. Does not prove you right. Nor the science in this particular area.
I cited very strong examples where science and religion are nearly identical. How can science, if it is true science, behave just as religion does? Because it has become the new religion. And questioning science. Questioning their theories, is akin to blasphemy.
You’re attempting to use your knowledge in this area, with regards to the minutia. As proof that you are correct. You’re not. Because what you regard as science. Beyond a certain scale and scope, I regard as a giant game of intricate theories and guess work, supported only by ever changing hypotheses.
Many questions remain unanswered by the Big Bang theory:
– Why don’t Quasars follow the Hubble law?
– Quasars appear as small objects yet are very energetic. Why don’t we see quasars nearby?
– What causes the asymmetry in the temperatures of the CMBR on opposite sides of the sky?
– Why doesn’t the timescale of quasar intensity variations increase with redshift?
– Why are mature galaxies seen in the early universe?
– How to explain the very large galaxy structures in the universe?
On and on it will go. You asked for proof. I gave you proof. You said I am misusing the terms. I tried to cite better examples where the terms are more correctly used.
So again I ask you, do I really need to be a scientist, to know the very real limits of science? The answer is no. No more than I need to understand dentistry to brush my teeth.
I answered your question regarding where the ball came from. Go back and re-read what you obviously missed.
No, you’re just wrong. Claiming to be “looking at it from a larger scale” doesn’t negate that.
Scale matters because beyond a certain point, our sciences are absolutely meaningless. Which is my initial point, that science has very obvious limits and cannot and does not know the origin of the universe any better than religion does.
And if you’re going to debate science, you have to use the correct scientific definition.
And if I didn’t use the correct scientific definitions, but the underlying ideas are completely sound. Would that make any difference as to the conclusion?
Again, you are arguing based on semantics. And completely dodging the larger points. Who cares, whether I know the minutia or not? My initial position and point, was that science is no more able to explain the origin of the universe, than religion. That is true, whether I employ all the right terminology or not. Makes absolutely no difference regarding the conclusion.
I noticed you wrote a lot in your last response. But you completely avoided what I had asked you regarding what science shows before the BB? Where did matter come from? Where did the energy required to produce the BB come from? Prove dark matter.
Now who is deflecting and dodging?
“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”
X11 2 years, 2 months ago.
