| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - THE BIG BANG THEORY -> Occam's Razor | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Occam's Razor |
| Posted By: George Posted On: Dec 17, 2010 Views: 867 | Occam's Razor Only a few centuries ago scolars agreed that the earth was flat. Disagreeing with this hypothesis at the time could even be quite detrimental to one's health. In my humble opinion The Big Bang Theory is nothing more than the "Modern Day" equivalent. Red Shift was explained most simply by a singular point of genesis. Hence they reverted to good old Occam's Razor, and declared the Big Bang Theory valid. Yes there has been many experiments and mathematical evidence to prove the theory. But anybody that knows a little bit about mathematics knows it can be used to prove the weirdest things. But if I may, let's just take a minute to take a step back and do a quick reality check. The ultimate validation for the Big Bang Theory would be if scientists knew the size of the universe. After all, they claim to know the age of the universe, and the rate at which it expands. But every time they build a bigger telescope, they realize that the universe is much larger than previously excepted. As a matter of fact, not one scientist knows the exact size of the universe. So how can they claim to know the age of the universe? I believe that in a few centuries from now scientists will look back on the Big Bang Theory with the same derision as we now hold for the Flat Earth Theory. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 18, 2010 Views: 864 | RE: RE: RE: Occam's Razor When red shift was discovered it proved that the universe was expanding and therefore it must have started from one place, it was just one more piece of evidence that supported the Big Bang Theory. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with it so I fail to see why you mentioned it. You also said "The ultimate validation for the Big Bang Theory would be if scientists knew the size of the universe." Knowing the size of the universe has nothing to do with proving or disproving the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't matter what the size of the universe is, the theory is about how it began. Even if we knew that rate of expansion of the universe it would not be possible to use that alone to calculate the age, the rate could have changed considerably over the years. The age of the universe is calculated using a number of methods, look it up. You said "But every time they build a bigger telescope, they realize that the universe is much larger than previously excepted." This is not correct, telescopes do not reveal the size of the universe, bigger telescopes simply reveal more distant galaxies that smaller telescopes were unable to resolve. The Big Bang Theory has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. Even taking the simplest view, that the universe is expanding proves that at one time it must have been smaller, and the further back in time we go the smaller the universe must have been until it was all contained in a single point. How can argue against that? If you do not believe in the Big Bang Theory then how do you explain the fact that the universe is expanding? |
| Posted By: Occam's Razor Posted On: Dec 18, 2010 Views: 859 | RE: Occam's Razor [b]Keith Mayes wrote: "When red shift was discovered it proved that the universe was expanding and therefore it must have started from one place, it was just one more piece of evidence that supported the Big Bang Theory. Occam's Razor has nothing to do with it so I fail to see why you mentioned it." [/b] Occam's razor, as you know, simply means selecting from competing hypothesis the one that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses be equal in other respects. I used it as the title for this postulate, because red shift, as you well know, can be caused by at least 3 different mechanisms. They just selected the one that fitted their hyphotesis the best, which does not make it the right one. [b] Keith Mayes wrote: "Knowing the size of the universe has nothing to do with proving or disproving the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't matter what the size of the universe is, the theory is about how it began. Even if we knew that rate of expansion of the universe it would not be possible to use that alone to calculate the age, the rate could have changed considerably over the years. The age of the universe is calculated using a number of methods, look it up." [/b] I must say I am a bit stunned by what you say here. It doesn't matter what the size of the universe is? That's the whole point! If there ever was a big bang, nothing else should matter more than that it must have an ever expanding, and apparently, an accelerating, spherical edge. Forget about intrinsic expansion and observable universe etc, you must agree that for a Big Bang to have occurred, there must be a central point where it started, and an outer sperical edge to where it has expanded to up to this day? Anyway, the generaly excepted hyphotesis is that the universe is about 13.75 billion years old, give or take a couple of million years, even though this number seems to change constantly as well. It should theoretically be quite simple to calculate the size it has expanded to up to now. But wait, they can't, because they don't know the speed of the expansion, even though they can use red shift to "accurately" measure the current expansion. :D Which conveniently brings me to another point. Directly after the Big Bang the universe started expanding beyond superluminal speed, (which, according to special relativity should not be possible) then, for no logical reason dramatically slowed down it's expansion to a certain point, (why should it, it's not bound by any laws, as we don't know (or apparently care) what's outside the sphere) and then with exactly the same amount of gravity, dark matter, dark energy, normal matter and anti-matter the universe ever had, after it slowed right down, it decided to start speeding up again, as "proven" by Hubble's red shift observations. And yes, I am aware of the theory that it was "space itself" that was expanding. Not relevant to my question. [b] Keith Mayes wrote: "If you do not believe in the Big Bang Theory then how do you explain the fact that the universe is expanding?" [/b] Simple, it's not. The red shift is caused by the distance they are from us, not the speed they are moving away from us. Of course there are galaxy's out there moving away from us, there is also galaxies moving towards us. Andromeda to name but one. The popular reasoning is that if a galaxy's peculiar velocity is directed towards us, and it's velocity is larger than its Hubble recessional velocity, then its light will appear blueshifted. However as galaxies gets further away, their Hubble velocities would be dwarfed by any peculiar velocities they might have. However, Hubble only accounts for red shift by the doppler effect, and does not compensate for red shift caused by distance. If he did, he would have noticed that there just happens to also be a heck of a lot of blue shifted galaxy's out there, and this whole ridiculous Big Bang Theory would never have seen the light of day. As someone once said to me, "Look it up." :P |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 20, 2010 Views: 851 | RE: Occam's Razor Your remarks regarding Red Shift and that it was used to confirm the Big Bang Theory show an amazing amount of ignorance about the subject. I will not waste any more of my time on Red Shift because it would pointless with you, you just don't get it. I shall restrict my comments to just one point. You say the universe isn't expanding, which I have to say is ludicrous! Never mind, I will press on regardless. If the universe is not expanding then what is it doing? There are only two options. 1) It is static, neither expanding or contracting. 2) It is contracting. As both of these options are ridiculous please explain which one you think it is and provide a theory to explain it. This should be a good laugh! |
| Posted By: George Posted On: Dec 20, 2010 Views: 849 | RE: Occam's Razor I'm sorry, I was under the impression that this was an adult discussion site, where one could point out contradicting views, and still treat each other with respect. Judging by your tone, this is not the case. I don't know how old you are, but judging from your comment's, I'd have to say you sound like a 2 year old, who, when something happens he does not like, starts to trow out all his toys from the pram. That is a shame. It is an interesting subject, the Big Bang Theory that is. Anyway, sorry my view upset you so much. If I inadvertantly insulted you somehow, sorry for that too. It was not intentional. I will carry on my discussions on other sites with other adults. Kind regards, and good luck. George |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 20, 2010 Views: 847 | RE: Occam's Razor As I thought, your idea that the universe is not expanding is so ludicrous that you are unable to come up with a theory to explain how it could either be static or contracting. It's so easy just to say a thing is wrong then run away when challenged because you have no explanation. Very childish of you, I am glad you are leaving. There is no point in making silly remarks that you cannot substantiate. |