I Am A Armchair Scientist.

[pljames]

I have asked several people how and who created the atom, matter, space gases and why to which, I never got a answer. Now it seems the bible states" God spoke the sun moon our planets into existence. "Dr Hawkins now claims there are no black holes and there are aliens among us. Hello? Theorectical ((bs). Please enlighten me as to the true validity of my argument? Paul

[Turtle]

I have asked several people how and who created the atom, matter, space gases and why to which, I never got a answer. Now it seems the bible states" God spoke the sun moon our planets into existence. "Dr Hawkins now claims there are no black holes and there are aliens among us. Hello? Theorectical ((bs). Please enlighten me as to the true validity of my argument? Paul

There is no who. Space and all in it are the result of the big bang. What -if anything- was before the big bang is an open question, as is whether or not the expansion of space will slow and reverse into a so called big crunch or continue until universal heat-death.

 

Big Bang @ Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

A theory is not some unsupported guess as you imply.

...In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. ...

theory @ Wiki >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

Your argument is as they say, not even wrong.

 

PS It's Hawking, not Hawkin.

[Buffy]

To clarify, while Dr. Hawking did literally say "there are no black holes," he was using the now all too common rhetorical device of hyperbole. This of course riled the press and the physics community, and if you were watching Fox News the main message was "see? another example of science just being guessing." [Public service reminder: Stopping watching Fox News now will greatly reduce your risk of being misinformed.]

 

What did happen is that he's used the scientific method to modify his previous theory to conform to more recent data that shows that an alternative is both possible and more likely. A slightly oversimplified explanation is as follows: the theory of black holes (which do indeed still exist in easily provable ways even though we can't see them), is an effort in reconciling General Relativity (how matter operates at large scales) and Quantum Mechanics (how matter operates at sub-atomic scales), and since we don't yet have a theory that handles them both at the same time, Figuring out how black holes work involves explanations that need to thread between the contradictions of the theories and the observable evidence. The original theory Hawking proposed attempted to reconcile the fact that black holes do indeed have some point where stuff "disappears" and the fact that laws of conservation and observational evidence of fewer and smaller black holes than expected require that this stuff not disappear permanently, so he came up with Hawking Radiation which allows black holes to evaporate.

 

This theory did a great job in explaining why we see the number and sizes of black holes we can see and preserved the notion of an absolute event horizon dictated by gravity, but it had problems with information theory and certain aspects of quantum mechanics, but it was better than anything anyone else had at the time.

 

The new theory basically simply modifies our notion of the Event Horizon so that instead of it being an absolute fixed distance from the center of the hole dictated solely by the laws of gravity (in conformance with General Relativity), it's really "fuzzy" (or "lumpy" as Hawking put it) and fluctuates constantly (which is more in line with Quantum Mechanics). So, by virtue of the fact that it wiggles a lot, matter--not just very specific photons of radiation as under the old theory--can actually escape after venturing past the theoretically computed Event Horizon.

 

That's a lot less earthshaking than "there are no black holes" but to physicists, it's still a pretty big deal.

 

It's not however a whimsical striking of all known knowledge of black holes and replacing it with completely different ideas with no justification whatsoever as some anti-science types have been trumpeting.

 

 

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong, :phones:

Buffy

[Mark007]

This is a simple answer - we have no idea where we came from at this point. It is difficult for individuals to admit this, although we are on the right path learning more and more with each passing year.

 

I would like to make a comment on Hawking: To some degree he is a very overrated figure in the world of theoretcial physics. He is the most famous living scientist, but not nearly the most respected or reveered in his profession. There is a reason why he is never nominated for Nobel prizes and those that nominate are former Nobel Prize winners. The problem with almost everything Hawking comes up with - you can't prove it. I think much better authorities, or physicists to pay attention to would be Murray Gell-Mann, Peter Higgs, Freeman Dyson and Steven Weinberg. I am naming only a few and I am just sticking with living geniuses who all are scientific minds on another level than Hawking.

[JMJones0424]

This is a simple answer - we have no idea where we came from at this point.

This statement is factually incorrect, and easily shown to be false.  It is not at all true that we haven't a clue where we came from, for any measure of "where we came from".

Edited April 7, 2014 by JMJones0424

[Abe40]

One thing that ordinary people seem to forget in discussing the origin of the universe is that all the theories propounded so far are just that: theories. Since the study of science requires that for theories to be accepted as facts, they need to be proven, please tell me who has proven the "big bang" theory.

[Turtle]

One thing that ordinary people seem to forget in discussing the origin of the universe is that all the theories propounded so far are just that: theories. Since the study of science requires that for theories to be accepted as facts, they need to be proven, please tell me who has proven the "big bang" theory.

Let me disabuse you of your notion with a repeat of a reply I gave in another thread today. This time with more emphasis.

 

A scientific theory is not some unsupported wild guess as you imply.

 

...theory (thē′ə-rē, thîr′ē)

 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. See Note at hypothesis. ...

reference: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

 

If you have some specific aspect of cosmology that has been repeatedly tested that you wish to refute then give us a reference to that specific test and your scientifically acceptable test that contradicts it. Anything short of that is hand waving.

 

hand waving

n. Usually insubstantial words or actions intended to convince or impress: resorted to hand waving instead of arguing rationally.

reference: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hand+waving

[JMJones0424]

One thing that ordinary people seem to forget in discussing the origin of the universe is that all the theories propounded so far are just that: theories. Since the study of science requires that for theories to be accepted as facts, they need to be proven, please tell me who has proven the "big bang" theory.

Please tell me what you believe to be the definition of "theory", "fact", and "science".  For that matter, throw in a definition for "ordinary people" while you're at it.