I agree with this ! Gen Z is power!
I grew with you on this though especially the last part as long as it’s not for some reason conditional or it wasn’t manipulation on the older persons part cuz that’s just beyond not okay even if a person is 20 were still manipulatable but at least being an adult sort of makes it easier to catch those things but I could see how that could be a lot different for a 20 year old just starting to date.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Lol, JJ. What are you doing? Haha
Tell me about it 😂 I don't even know myself 😂
The 21st century's version of The Hitler Youth have been programmed to do so.
What’s wrong with the big band theory?
@AllThatSweetJazz Well it claims that the universe is 13.5 billion years old (give or take). The problem with this is that the observable universe is about 28 billion light years across, despite this fact we see starts all across it. That means all that matter and light had to travel faster then the speed of light by orders of magnitude to get to that point and according to scientists this is the observable universe i. e. their is more universe out their and we are the center of our observable universe so the distance that light/matter would have had to travel would be even greater unless the earth is the literal center of the universe (which we have no reason what so ever to believe).Then you have the issue of the universe expanding from a central point despite the fact that we have no evidence of the universe having a central point (as all of space would be expanding at the same rate meaning everything would be expanding away from that central point and each other).This is also an issue in that they claim that the universe is expanding in all directions which explains the redshift of light that we see coming from other stars i. e. they claim all things are moving away from us. . . except for all the things that are not, like the andromeda galaxy and Sgr dSph which is currently colliding with the milky way. We also have directly observed galaxies colliding which should be impossible if space is expanding at the rate that its claimed to be expanding at (faster then the speed of light). The only way to explain this is to either state that the universe is not expanding (or at least not at any significant rate) or that the speed of light is not the universal speed limit. One of these must be wrong for this theory to function.
@AllThatSweetJazz Then you have the issue that their claims of expanding universe only seem to apply to space and nothing else i. e. why is the space between atoms and molecules not expanding? Why do we not see expansion between planets and moons or their stars? Between people? In addition in order to explain this expansion they have come up with dark energy, an energy that no one can prove exists because its not observable, measurable, replicatable (all of which is needed to prove that it actually exists and be considered an actual theory (hence the term "dark"), an energy that not only is not observable or provable but one that also violates the laws of thermodynamics by being able to spontaneously create itself, at an exponential rate, in order to fuel this expansion. On top of that you have the issue that they claim the math checks out except it doesn't. It claims that it created equal parts matter and antimatter which would have annihalated each other resulting in no matter yet we clearly are a universe of matter. In addition we have no evidence of antimatter existing within the universe. Then you have the issue of Methusala stars, stars that are older then the universe itself. Now its entirely possible that we are misreading the data and these stars are not as old as we think, however what is more likely, that our understanding of stars which we can clearly observe and have been doing for centuries with many many examples of them to work from, is flawed OR our cosmological theory, the big bang, which happened only once, has never been observed and has substantial other issues with is the one that is flawed? To me I would trust the one we have substantial data on rather then the one that we have no data on that directly contradicts known scientific facts and principles.
@AllThatSweetJazz lastly you have the monopole problem. According to the math for the big bang theory their should be monopoles but like antimatter we see no evidence of them existing in our universe (we have created synthetic analogs in the lab recently (about six years ago) but no evidence of them existing in nature). All of these are HUGE issues and flaws with the theory (this is just off the top of my head, I'm sure their are plenty of others), ones that are completely ignored and as far as I can tell no one has as of yet provided any explanation for. This is why I stated the big bang theory (in its current iteration at least) is provably wrong.
@AllThatSweetJazz Like all of successful theories of modern physics, the big bang theory is not a complete picture, this is not controversial at all. (popsci explanations)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZDa6d93ywEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPStj2ZuXughttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmKLXVFJzkThe problem is people criticizing it by parroting popular known arguments in mainstream physics without understanding what the theory says.Also this science denier just doesn't understand what "provably wrong" means in science. This is what happens when you cherry pick all the things a theory doesn't explain, ignoring all the things that the theory explain, then slap a "provably wrong" on it. Literally all of physics are "provably wrong" in this approach when you simply look at the edge cases, because we don't have a theory of everything. For every incomplete theory there are always anomalies, and there is always a choice to discard the central idea of the theory (and thus leave 99,999...% of the phenomena unexplained), OR to modify it. Science currently does not have good reason to discard the Big Bang theory. So it's incomplete, being updated, if you want to slap the "provably wrong" label, use it for science, or in fact, use it for any action that involves observing the world and drawing conclusion.
by the way turns out most of what he wrote are just typical misunderstandings of lay peopleastronomy.com/.../extreme-galactic-distancemath.ucr.edu/.../centre.htmlmath.ucr.edu/.../dark_matter.htmletc.Generally it is a mistake to apply the geometry and the dynamics you "see" in daily life to the geometry and dynamics of large scale objects, that's the point of relativity theory. So then he doesn't understand the math or the reality at large scale at all. "the math doesn't check out" is a ridiculous criticism when you don't understand the math and have never done any computation to see why there is a flaw... Another example, Dark energy is not well understood, but people who understand the math at least know that it, like all forms of matter, satisfies the divergence free requirement for energy-momentum tensor, aka the relativistic energy conservation. So it is a strange extension of what we call "energy", but if a person doesn't understand what "energy" means or what a Tensor is, then saying Dark energy violating any law of physics is just parroting. @hellionthesagereborn hello friend, sorry for the intrusion, I know you hate me but I just can't help it lolfreedom of speech and all!
I know it’s not a complete theory, but I thought it was likely his reasons were bunk, so I was basically baiting.I have a physics degree and I minored in astrophysics. I’m no astrophysicist but I know what’s up, and yeah surprise surprise it’s not always intuitive. Reminds me of the flat earther mistakes. They just hear facts that have been oversimplified for public consumption and then plug them back into each other as if science has been either lying or completely absentminded for centuries.The bottom line is that the math is hard and you shouldn’t say it doesn’t add up unless you’ve dedicated yourself to understanding it.
@AllThatSweetJazz Okay, explain how all of those issues could exist while having the big bang theory be true? I'll wait (I'm not even trying to be a smart ass, no one has an answer for these and some of them are real simple and should absolutely have an explanation). Incredulity is not an argument, just because you cannot consider the possibility of being wrong (which is moronic, the history of science is rife with wrong theories, thats what makes science what it is, it is constantly questioning those theories and discarding them if they don't add up), doesn't mean your not. So far I pointed out the list of issues I have and your response is. . . to say how stupid I am for disagreeing with you. Thats not an argument. I have no issue with the big bang theory being right or wrong, I'm just pointing out these are huge gapping holes in the argument being made (and despite popular beliefs and people like @betaTester try to claim, their are plenty of scientists who question this theory (as they should, again that is the nature of science). So again, explain these large gaping holes in the big bang theory that I have pointed out (and so have others), and I will accept that I am wrong on this (I have asked this again and again and again and all i ever get is the same bullshit responses i. e. I am wrong because reasons (not very scientific or logical an argument)).
"cannot consider the possibility of being wrong" You are making things up now, this is not even close to what he or I wrote LOL. Like before you just don't understand what I wrote. What I wrote implied scientists, or people who understand physics, generally know there is something wrong with the Big Bang theory, see links above. Scientists all know there is "something wrong" with all of modern physics. That's why we say it's an incomplete description. That's why we don't have the theory of everything. That's why QM and GR are not united. These are not controversial.Yet we do not say all of modern physics are wrong or "provably wrong". No actual physicist would say the Big Bang Theory is "provably wrong" lmao. That level of confidence is only seen in uneducated lay people. The point is you just don't understand what it means for a scientific theory to be wrong.A scientific theory is not a SINGLE statement. It's a collection of interconnected statements. When you find something that cannot be explained by the theory, but it still makes correct predictions in the vast majority of cases, we don't say the entire theory is wrong. Because it's possible that:1. One of the statements is wrong, but we don't actually know which one. We need to wait until we have a better theory.2. They are all either correct (like the earth is round), or approximately correct at a different scale like F = ma, but the theory needs to be rebuilt from new principles.
The legit issues that you mentioned (aside from the misunderstandings) do not actually point to a specific statement in the Big Bang theory like "the universe started 13.8 billions years ago from an explosion" or " universe was once smaller and hotter and has been expanding over the last 13.8 billion years". Many people think the big bang theory means roughly these two statements. First of all, no, TBBT includes many more statements, including General Relativity, plasma physics, entropy, etc. You would know this if you had read any textbook about it. It could be those theories that have flaws that led to the anomaly, and we don't know which statement in those theories is flawed either, we just know they are well supported by evidence, again and again (check physics Nobel prize 2020)Secondly, the above two statements are actually supported by massive amount of evidence from the last century, from Hubble (in 1929) to Bethe (in 1948) to the estimation of temperature in 1964 en.wikipedia.org/.../Big_Bang They help explain many things, so even in later version of Big Bang, it's unlikely physicists will change these two statements, but they will likely change other details of the theory. Like in 19th century, Newtonian mechanics gave wrong prediction for the orbit of Uranus, instead of throwing away Newtonian mechanics, physicists postulated a new planet, and they turned out to be right. That's the story of the discovery of Neptune.
by the way I dont think a person can understand General Relativity and claims Dark Energy violates thermodynamics or energy conservation. You probably want to say General Relativity and the idea that spacetime is curved are "provably wrong" had you understood more physics. A lot of your misunderstandings are related to trying to visualize physics of large scale objects using flat geometry. Kinda like flat earth people saying: "look, the area of my rectangular room equal width times length. Therefore the spherical earth theory is provably wrong'.
I was more suggesting you were ignorant, not stupid. Most people don’t understand this stuff, and because of my education I would say I’m only slightly less ignorant. It’s a challenging subject. But I’ll take a quick stab at your questions.“That means all that matter and light had to travel faster then the speed of light by orders of magnitude to get to that point”Not matter and light, but space.“Then you have the issue of the universe expanding from a central point despite the fact that we have no evidence of the universe having a central point”Right, it doesn’t expand from a central point. So you suggesting that science asserts that is does is a strawman. “Central point” implies that there was a pre-existing space and space expanded out of there, but rather, all of space expands all at once from all points, not a central point.“they claim all things are moving away from us. . . except for all the things that are not”Correct. Your mistake is thinking that is a problem. Basically, you are just neglecting gravity.“space is expanding at the rate that its claimed to be expanding at (faster then the speed of light)”Not locally.“why is the space between atoms and molecules not expanding?”It is, but again, the local expansion is not significant. The “faster than light” expansion is the cumulative value. Eventually expansion may be so great that it’s able to pull atoms apart. See “big rip”. For now, the local expansion is negligible. I did the math for you. Brought to the scale of the earth the expansion is about 28 micrometres per second. Gravity is overcoming that force and keeping all the material together. Same for atoms. At the scale of atoms, it’s less than a millionth of the diameter of a proton per second across a carbon-carbon bond in graphite, but again that just translates to a tiny force which is overcome by binding energy between atoms.
“Dark Energy”Well dark energy is tricky. Your assumption that energy can’t be created is the problem in addition to your concept of energy itself. Traditionally energy isn’t created, but like I said you’re taking facts for public consumption and deciding they must be absolutely true. For an expanding universe with a constant non-zero energy density for empty space energy can and is created from nothing. We believe this is the case because we observe that spacetime is flat – and since we’re talking about spacetime you have to think 4D flatness, not 2D flatness like a tabletop. Basically, a dense universe (full of matter[energy]) should curve spacetime on a grander scale and deform the universe into an anti-DeSitter spacetime, but that’s not what we see. This implies additional energy bringing overall energy density toward uniformity, and it turns out that a constant vacuum energy density also explains the accelerating expansion through relativistic effects.This should all sounds bonkers and should be in no way intuitive – because it’s not. I studied this as part of my course, but I am in no way an expert. I have at best introductory knowledge on this, the most basic version of dark energy. Other versions use varying cosmological constants and all sorts of craziness. Do not look for some simple intuitive explanation for dark energy, there isn’t one. If it interests you, then go study it.“It claims that it created equal parts matter and antimatter which would have annihilated each other resulting in no matter yet we clearly are a universe of matter.”You’re assuming that the anti-matter and matter must have been in exactly equal parts and would have totally destroyed each other. All it takes is a tiny fraction of matter to be more one type than the other to provide material for the universe.“In addition we have no evidence of antimatter existing within the universe.”We can and do literally make anti-matter particles.
“Methusala”Yes, it’s weird. It’s almost like we don’t know everything. Stop taking it as dogma and then criticising it for sounding like dogma. Methusala means there’s gaps in our knowledge or flaws in our methodology. It doesn’t mean that everything about the big bang is flawed and we need to throw it all out.“To me I would trust the one we have substantial data on rather then the one that we have no data on that directly contradicts known scientific facts and principles.You don’t actually know the known scientific facts and principals though. That’s the problem. You assume that you do. You could just be open-minded to all the possibilities but instead you’re flipping out over your own misinterpretations of data. The gaps are smaller than you say they are.“their should be monopoles”They should be *possible*, but rare.“All of these are HUGE issues and flaws with the theory”It’s a huge flaw in your understanding. Not that it’s shameful, they’re hard subjects.
@betaTester No, it is what you wrote, you can't accept that maybe something that is well estabilished could in fact be wrong (despite the long history of that which is well established being wrong).Many scientists disagree with the Big bang theory, that is why we have so many alternate cosmological theories, because this one is clearly wrong, you have just been raised with it to the point were you have accepted it as fact because your so familiar with it not because it is a particularly good theory.
“No, it is what you wrote, you can't accept that maybe something that is well estabilished could in fact be wrong (despite the long history of that which is well established being wrong)”Actually I’m usually the first to point out its limitations in that things get a bit murky since the universe is opaque at <400k years and I want people to keep an open mind, but my position is that most of your particular issues with it are not really issues.“Many scientists disagree with the Big bang theory, that is why we have so many alternate cosmological theories”No shit. People disagree about a lot of things. That doesn’t mean it has no merit. There’s 3 different main models of atomic nuclei, each only get some things right, but we use all three for different kinds of problems. Chill.“because this one is clearly wrong”It’s not “clearly” wrong. It’s not perfect -- because very little is -- but the legitimate criticisms of it seem to go over your head. The things you talk about are not good examples of flaws in the model at all.
@AllThatSweetJazz A for your points:1. Yeah, the universe is being claimed to be expanding (not proven) and according to the numbers, the observable universe (not THE universe) is 46.5 billion light years across, the universe itself is being claimed to be expanding at a rate of 44.7 miles per second per megaparsec, a megaparsec is about 3.26 million miles which is about.007% of the observable universe. Now I'm not particularly grate with math but having the expansion explanation of the universe (which has the issue that either the universe expanding at this rate would force all mattter and energy apart resulting in no planet or star formation or gravitonal forces would be strong enough to cause all matter to collapse into itself when the universe was still "small" so we still have monumental issues with this) doesn't fit with those numbers.2. But we would be expanding from a central point relative to all else i. e. the universe is expanding in all places (except of course between our atoms, cells, planets and moons, planets an stars, inside of galaxies etc. because otherwise this would rip these things apart unless gravitational forces were greater in which case matter would never have dispersed to begin with (as I mentioned above), but relative to all of that we should all be seeing ourselves drifting from a centralized point as we started in a tiny space that rapidly expanded, like putting dots on a ballon and then blowing it up, they would appear to be moving away from each other, and would appear to do so from a centralized point (the center of the inside of the balloon). We do not see that, any of it. That is a problem.
@AllThatSweetJazz 3. All the things moving away from us but not is absolutely a big problem. The argument presented is that dark energy repels with GREATER force then gravity can account for. The argument is that the universe (your first argument) is expanding FASTER then the speed of light ergo, you cannot have a galaxy moving as the result of gravitational attraction towards a distant galaxy because YOUR THEORY LITERALLY SAYS IT CANNOT HAPPEN, and it cannot be doing so greater then the expansion of the universe which is being argued is faster (substantially faster) then the speed of light can possibly keep up with hence the observed red shifting of light from distant stars. So yeah, still a monumental problem. Either the theory of dark energy is wrong, the theory of the expanding universe is wrong, both are wrong, or magic is real (take your pick).4. Yes, that is the problem, we are saying the rules are consistent but also not, because reasons, we cannot explain it but trust it when we say it. So the universe is expanding, just not around us, outside of our galaxy it is but not here. Really? Why would we presume that? Why would we presume that the laws that govern our universe vary dependent on region? Occams razor, what requires the least amount of assumptions is usually the correct one. So either the universe behaves differently in different areas for no perceived reason OR we are wrong, which is more likely?
@AllThatSweetJazz 5. See previous points (either gravity is greater then dark energy it which case all matter should have collapsed in on itself in the beginning OR everything is pulling itself apart now as we speak, you cannot have it both ways (well not without having it be bullshit). Also yes, I'm quite familiar with the purely speculative idea of the big rip (and the big freeze)).6. Incorrect. Again, your letting your ego show, maybe instead of presuming that your the most brilliant person in the world, consider what is actually being said (because your ignoring everything being stated right now to regurgitate what you have been taught to say (and it answers none of my points). So Again, explain to me how something which we cannot measure or observe or replicate in a lab and thus have no means of proving it exists, can violate the first law of thermodynamics which is well established and observable and measurable? Again, you are using incredulity as an argument, its a pretty shitty one. So in essence your argument is we presume space time is flat (and it is a presumption), ergo the explanation to what you see is infinite self creating energy. Again, not a good argument (your relying on an idea to back an idea to back an idea that directly conflicts with everything we observe and know to be true. To say its convoluted is an understatement.).
@AllThatSweetJazz In addition, the arguments given are all to push this idea of expansion which again, is not a given its an assumption. Its a circular argument, the universe is expanding, we know its expanding because x, y, z, we know x, y, z are all true because the universe is expanding. That is not a logical or cogent argument. Your arguing this, I'm arguing that x, y, and z are not true. This is why we are at an impasse, you have decided these things are absolute facts because of you were taught the idea of the big bang theory is absolute law and you have never questioned it, I am point out that what is being said doesn't match with what is observed and you are now just reiterating assertions instead of providing evidence. We are going to get nowhere if you are not willing to at least suspend your assumption of the rightness of this theory and argue it as if the conclusion was not already written (the only way to get to the truth, you have to let the evidence lead you, not the conclusion, your doing it backwards).7. Yeah, in fact I mentioned how we have antimatter, the argument was that the only example of it is man made and yet the big bang theory posits that enough should exist that their should be entire galaxies of the stuff (if it didn't wipe out all matter (which it should have) first). Again, its like your not even paying attention. So yeah, not an argument try again.
@AllThatSweetJazz 8. Are you fucking with me? I feel like your fucking with me because their is no way in hell your telling me that I need to stop acting like we know everything when my ENTIRE FUCKING ARGUMENT IS THAT YOU NEED TO STOP ACTING LIKE WE KNOW EVERYTHING! This was my point, we don't know everything so why the hell are you comfortable with saying that the thing that we can observe and measure and have multiple examples of is wrong (which I pointed out is entirely possible) but the thing we cannot observe and measure is ABSOLUTE? That was the argument, its like your programmed to not think this through. So why are we more likely to be wrong about methusala stars then we are about the big bang? We have evidence for the stars, we can directly observe them, we have multiple examples, for the big bang we don't have ANY direct evidence of it, we cannot observe it at all, and we have NO examples of it. That was my argument, one could be right the other wrong, but why would we presume that we are wrong about the stars and right about the big bang? Its an assumption and one that has not rational basis. At no point did I say this one thing was enough to throw out the entire theory, that is why I listed off ten different major issues, because this is one nail out of many, for the big bang theories coffin. So your argument is "don't question the narrative", its a pretty crap argument.
@AllThatSweetJazz 9. Monopoles are not rare, they don't exist except for one anologue we created in the lab and as far as we can tell is the only thing close to it despite the fact that it should be naturally occuring and observable through out the universe. Dismissing a statement is not an argument, try again.9. So again, your elitism is showing. I have not shown ignorance of this subject, I have pointed out issues, you have ignored issues, I have pointed out even more issues you argument is that I am wrong because you know your right and you know your right because your right and I am wrong which makes for a shit argument. You then dismissed everything else, so again, your going to have to try harder then that. Further more your argument (argument from authority (i. e. you studied this once so you are the authority, or that scientists say this is true ergo it is (which of course is not how reality works (2+2=4 is not something that is subject to debate, if all mathmaticians in the world argued it equaled five they would all be wrong, authority isn't an argument, a consideration sure but not an argument), is flawed in that their are plenty of astrophyscists who disagree with the big bang theory i. e. I am not arguing that I disagree with it because I must be ignorant (which is your argument, I don't know any better (again highly elitist of you and also not a good argument), is not a viable argument as those who have far more authority on the subject then you or I also question this theory (as they should, that is the nature of science).
“the universe is being claimed to be expanding (not proven)”Hubble showed expansion, and two concurrent type 1-A supernova studies in the 90s independently concluded that not only was it expanding, but that it was exponential.“the universe expanding at this rate would force all mattter and energy apart resulting in no planet or star formation”You’re doing the math for universal expansion, but locally expansion is not significant. It will contribute to things such as the binding energy of nuclei, but it is negligible.“gravitonal forces would be strong enough to cause all matter to collapse into itself when the universe was still "small"”The expansion is not uniform across time. There was a period were is it was small (for a tiny fraction of time) and then had exponential growth (inflationary epoch, also a tiny fraction of time), then it slowed but kept expanding, then as dark energy became the dominate energy contribution in the universe, the expansion accelerated again and that’s the era we’ve been in for a while. Exactly what caused inflation is theorized but not agreed upon.“But we would be expanding from a central point relative to all else”“like putting dots on a ballon and then blowing it up”So mistake there is thinking that the volume of the balloon represents the volume of space. Consider in the balloon analogy, that the 2D surface represents our 3D space. The expansion pulls the dots away from each other, but they don’t expand from a single point in that 2D space. So ask yourself, if the 2D surface of the balloon represents all of 3D space, then what is the middle of the balloon equivalent too? Clearly its not part of the 3 spatial dimensions, the obvious one is that the radius of the balloon would correspond to time. So there the 3D volume of the balloon is analogous to 4D spacetime. But maybe it could also be a model for 3D space having a “center” in a higher spatial dimension.
Another way to think about this might be: You can point to the center of a piece of paper, but what if I wrap it into a ball, and it’s magically sealed so that there are no edges to the paper. Now, where is the center of the piece of paper? In the middle of the volume? Well now you’re talking about a 3rd dimension beyond the surface of the paper. See the problem? Tell me what the center of the balloon or the paper ball is and that’s your answer to the “center” of the universe.“except of course between our atoms, cells, planets and moons, planets an stars, inside of galaxies etc. because otherwise this would rip these things apart”Those things do experience spatial expansion, but they also move through space. Space can expand and then the force that hold things together keep everything in place. Things aren’t fixed in space. At the current rate of expansion, it’s not enough to rip everything apart, although a quadrillion years from now that may happen.“dark energy repels with GREATER force then gravity can account for”Again, that’s universally, not locally. It doesn’t expand fast enough to pull atoms apart, to pull me from the surface of the earth, nor to drive apart celestial bodies when they’re close enough for gravitational potential to dominate. Things far enough away (and depending on their relative velocity) are beyond gravitational influence, but that’s a very large distance.
“we are saying the rules are consistent but also not, because reasons, we cannot explain it but trust it when we say it.”More or less. We teach rules that have been well studied and work for the overwhelming majority of applications of day to day life: e. g Newtonian mechanics, general chemistry. But beyond that, the frontier of science is fuzzy. The rules are good enough for use, but no they are not absolute. We say energy is conserved because for virtually all systems, it is. Why don’t you take into account time dilation when you drive your car? It’s happening, it just isn’t a big deal. Quantum mechanics should be enough to tell you that the world isn’t what you think it is. Outcomes are entirely probabilistic, but statistical mechanics is why the macroscopic world appears static, so you don’t need a quantum mechanical approach to structural engineering. Newton mechanics works just fine.“So the universe is expanding, just not around us”Not *significantly*. The continents are drifting toward and away from each other, but I don’t really need to worry about where my country is going to be next year. I can assume it’s static relative to others.“Why would we presume that? Why would we presume that the laws that govern our universe vary dependent on region?”Generally, we don’t. What you’re talking about is not a variance in physical laws by region, but rather a question of scale. Expansion is only significant on a galactic scale.“Occams razor, what requires the least amount of assumptions is usually the correct one.”Yes, but here the “simplest answer” is not synonymous with “easy to understand”. Also, it’s important to recall *usually*. The reason we have all these wild interpretations of reality is because we ruled out all the “easy” ones, and the simplest answers now are quite hard to comprehend.“5. See previous points”See my previous points about the local insignificance of cosmological expansion.
“So Again, explain to me how something which we cannot measure or observe or replicate in a lab and thus have no means of proving it exists”Have you ever seen the nucleus of an atom? How do we know it exists? We measured it. It exists because numbers tell us so: maths. What about gravity? What *is* gravity fundamentally? You don’t know? But we still agree that grtavity exists right? Same for dark energy. What we measure is spatial curvature of the universe and compare it to expansion rate and find that there is a cosmological constant in Einstein’s field equations that is critical to reconciling spatial curvature and expansion rate. It *does* exist, as in it necessarily has some physical meaning. The exact physical nature in all it’s detail is unknown, but there is a physical meaning to the cosmological constant which says that there is additional energy tied up in this term – energy which is not in the term about matter, hence dark energy.“So in essence your argument is we presume space time is flat (and it is a presumption)”It’s not a presumption. We measure it to be so. The problem is that based on the amount of matter in the universe, it *shouldn’t* be flat, so then why do we measure it to be an expanding Minkowski space when it should be anti-DeSitter space? The hole in the math takes the shape of dark energy – yes, we don’t know exactly the true nature of what that is, it’s almost like science is hard.You think quantum mechanical wavefunctions and sub-atomic particles aren’t incredulous assertions? They’re pretty bonkers. But we accept those even though just like dark energy, they come from measurements and maths.“that directly conflicts with everything we observe and know to be true.”It doesn’t though. Step outside Newtonian mechanics and things get weird.“this idea of expansion which again, is not a given its an assumption.”It’s a measurement.
“you have decided these things are absolute facts”I’ve decide the measurements and mathematics are trustworthy and that’s literally the best you ever get from science. Everything you think is supposed to be the absolutely true rule about the world comes from trust in measurement, trust in math, and trust in logic. If you can’t do this work yourself then it’s literally only about trust.“you were taught the idea of the big bang theory is absolute law and you have never questioned it”I think you were told not to question it and you’re salty about it for some reason. I was explained from first principles why we think what we do and where it’s limitations are.“your assumption of the rightness of this theory”I don’t need to assume it’s right. Your criticism is flawed and/or overblown.“the argument was that the only example of it is man made”We have detected anti-particles in space.“yet the big bang theory posits that enough should exist that their should be entire galaxies of the stuff”Yes, and? It’s a mystery that people explore. Did you know people don’t know everything? It doesn’t mean that we’re going to ditch the big bang theory, it’s still a good model that does better than anything else we have. That’s how this stuff works. Do we have to have an indisputable Grand Unified Theory of Everything before we can speak to the public about what we’ve found? You’re complaining that the people venturing into the realms of unexplored knowledge haven’t got it all figured out yet so they can neatly package it for the lay person. Get over it. There’s things they don’t know, and things they do know which you just plain don’t get. Don’t call it incredulity, when it’s *you* that doesn’t it. Go to a university and berate the astrophysics PhDs about how you know better than them.I’m done. You not understanding this stuff is not going to change the course of human history. Good luck with your ignorance.
I am happy that two mentally deficient science deniers are triggered enough to downvote this 😂
So you’re the anonymous poster !!!
No I don’t do that
What would you say is conservative views and what way does the conservative want our country run?
You will find there is lot less racial hate in the U. S. than you think. Most likely its a narrative pushed by a political party to harvest votes.
@Kiss_Me you might be right never know.
Have you studied the Bible, or are you just repeating things you have heard?
@Kiss_Me I’m just saying old books tend to have backwards thinkings that may not be right in modern times as things such as spontaneous generation has been declassified.