From the Big Bang to the Big Rip
Posted: 23.09.2005, 00:48
Hear is a place wear you can post your theories on the begining and the end of the of the universe
Celestia Forums
Real-time 3D visualization of space
https://celestiaproject.space/forum/
From the Big Bang to the Big Rip
https://celestiaproject.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8010
Page 1 of 2
Posted: 23.09.2005, 00:50
lol I got a whole book's worth of stuff about the big bang and possible endings of our universe stuck in my head. I'll let it out soon as I'm done with something.
Re: From the Big Bang to the Big Rip
Posted: 23.09.2005, 03:15
Hunter Parasite wrote:Hear is a place wear you can post your theories on the begining and the end of the of the universe
Just out of curiosity, why are you interested in peoples' "theories" about things when the vast majority of people here don't know much about the subjects? I mean, if you want to learn about the subject, why not just read or ask for some books or papers about it instead of asking for peoples' wild and probably uninformed ideas about it?
I can point you to some interesting cosmology books if you like. Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos" are good reads, there's some fascinating stuff about string and brane theory and folded dimensions in there, and it's very readable - you don't need to be an expert to understand them.
Re: From the Big Bang to the Big Rip
Posted: 23.09.2005, 23:01
I like theories, I for one, and a person who if possible will gain as much knowledge as possible, and theories, being not fact, but still present scientific possibilities.Malenfant wrote:Hunter Parasite wrote:Hear is a place wear you can post your theories on the begining and the end of the of the universe
Just out of curiosity, why are you interested in peoples' "theories" about things when the vast majority of people here don't know much about the subjects? I mean, if you want to learn about the subject, why not just read or ask for some books or papers about it instead of asking for peoples' wild and probably uninformed ideas about it?
I can point you to some interesting cosmology books if you like. Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos" are good reads, there's some fascinating stuff about string and brane theory and folded dimensions in there, and it's very readable - you don't need to be an expert to understand them.
Posted: 23.09.2005, 23:43
HP,
Please be careful with your use of the word "theory". You are confusing the popular usage of the word with the scientific usage, which is a common mistake. The popular usage of the word "theory" has a meaning which is essentially the same as the scientific word "hypothesis." Scientific theories have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please be careful with your use of the word "theory". You are confusing the popular usage of the word with the scientific usage, which is a common mistake. The popular usage of the word "theory" has a meaning which is essentially the same as the scientific word "hypothesis." Scientific theories have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted: 23.09.2005, 23:47
Yeah, I think HP seems to be looking for peoples' ideas about how things work, which may or may not have anything to do with real scientific theories about how they work.
I'm just wondering how practially educational asking for those ideas would be though. In my experience, the only way to really learn about a subject is to read books or papers or ask experts who know about it.
I'm just wondering how practially educational asking for those ideas would be though. In my experience, the only way to really learn about a subject is to read books or papers or ask experts who know about it.
Posted: 24.09.2005, 00:47
selden wrote:Scientific theories have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This confuses me, although I suspect it is just a problem of semantics.
I thought that if something had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, it was a scientific fact. I assumed a scientific theory was something that had been proposed, but was not able to be proved or disproved yet.
Hi, by the way! I joined the forums recently when I downloaded Celestia, but this particular forum interests me the most.
Posted: 24.09.2005, 01:18
Hypothesis...
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific
problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or
investigation; an assumption.
Perhaps this is what we're looking for here. Most of our scientific "theories"
are really one of the two above. Until these can be proven beyond a doubt,
they can be modified when new circumstances warrant it. How we'll ever
prove that Black Holes, String Theories and Parallel Universes do co-
exist in some relationship with each other is way beyond me though.
I also like the following...
1. A proposed explanation that accounts for observed phenomena or
known facts, and that can be used to guide further investigation;
theory.
2. A proposition assumed to be true for the purposes of a particular
argument; premise.:
Take your pick...
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific
problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or
investigation; an assumption.
Perhaps this is what we're looking for here. Most of our scientific "theories"
are really one of the two above. Until these can be proven beyond a doubt,
they can be modified when new circumstances warrant it. How we'll ever
prove that Black Holes, String Theories and Parallel Universes do co-
exist in some relationship with each other is way beyond me though.
I also like the following...
1. A proposed explanation that accounts for observed phenomena or
known facts, and that can be used to guide further investigation;
theory.
2. A proposition assumed to be true for the purposes of a particular
argument; premise.:
Take your pick...
Posted: 24.09.2005, 02:30
speedfreek wrote:selden wrote:Scientific theories have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This confuses me, although I suspect it is just a problem of semantics.
I thought that if something had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, it was a scientific fact. I assumed a scientific theory was something that had been proposed, but was not able to be proved or disproved yet.
Nope - that's a hypothesis
.
As I understand it, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has been proven by observations, experiments and/or gathered data.
The theory of Relativity is an example - a means of testing it was to prove the hypothesis that light bends around large gravity wells. In the 1930s (I think) this was proven correct by accurate measurements of star positions near the sun during a total solar eclipse (they were in a slightly different positions to where they should have been, because their light was being deflected by the sun). That's one of the things that turned relativity into a proven theory and not an unproven hypothesis.
Posted: 24.09.2005, 12:00
Malenfant wrote:speedfreek wrote:selden wrote:Scientific theories have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This confuses me, although I suspect it is just a problem of semantics.
I thought that if something had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, it was a scientific fact. I assumed a scientific theory was something that had been proposed, but was not able to be proved or disproved yet.
Nope - that's a hypothesis
As I understand it, a "theory" is a hypothesis that has been proven by observations, experiments and/or gathered data.
The theory of Relativity is an example - a means of testing it was to prove the hypothesis that light bends around large gravity wells. In the 1930s (I think) this was proven correct by accurate measurements of star positions near the sun during a total solar eclipse (they were in a slightly different positions to where they should have been, because their light was being deflected by the sun). That's one of the things that turned relativity into a proven theory and not an unproven hypothesis.
Im still trying to process this Hypothesis stuff, but I think he has a point.
Posted: 24.09.2005, 14:25
So, in science, does anything ever become a fact?
If the theory of relativity has been proven, is it not a fact?
Everyone used to believe the Earth was flat. Then someone came along with the hypothesis that the Earth was a sphere. Then came the theory to try and prove it. It has since been proved to be a sphere - we have the photos!
Surely the idea that the Earth is a sphere is not a theory then?
If the theory of relativity has been proven, is it not a fact?
Everyone used to believe the Earth was flat. Then someone came along with the hypothesis that the Earth was a sphere. Then came the theory to try and prove it. It has since been proved to be a sphere - we have the photos!
Surely the idea that the Earth is a sphere is not a theory then?
Posted: 24.09.2005, 14:35
The word "fact" is a popular term used to specify things that have been proven. It isn't used in science, but it is often used in arguments about science. It's frequently used as an emotional tool in arguments by people who are trying to promote ideas that are difficult to support formally.
A theory is a description of how things interact.
An hypothesis is a guess about how things interact.
[edit]No, the Earth isn't a sphere. It's very close to being an oblate spheroid, but it is quite irregular. That's why Celestia can't do a very good job of showing you where the ISS is in the sky. Celestia uses a spherical model to represent the Earth's surface.[/edit]
A theory is a description of how things interact.
An hypothesis is a guess about how things interact.
[edit]No, the Earth isn't a sphere.
It's very close to being an oblate spheroid, but it is quite irregular. That's why Celestia can't do a very good job of showing you where the ISS is in the sky. Celestia uses a spherical model to represent the Earth's surface.[/edit]Posted: 25.09.2005, 16:30
Ok, ok, ok, well if we're going to discuss 'facts', 'theories' and 'science', then I'd advise that some familiarity with what is called 'the scientific method' is required. Also, it's worth understanding the philosophies of some key people:
- Francis Bacon on the first popularisation of a scientific method based on induction,
- David Hume on his criticism of induction,
- Karl Popper on a new scientific method based on criticism, and falsification of theories by testable predictions,
- Thomas Kuhn on how science actually works by scientific revolution of paradigm shifts, as opposed to Popper's description of how it should work (more due to human nature really I suppose).
Once you have understood enough of all that, you'll understand:
- what the difference between experiment, observation, and theory is, and what the nature of a 'fact' is
- what is needed to make any idea count as a real scientific theory
- why science never proves theories, but can only disprove them
- that science is nothing more than its method, and resulting knowledge is not to be confused with 'science'
- why creationism is always 'correct' (or cannot be proven wrong), and therefore does not count as scientific
- how to spot pseudoscience.
Spiff.
- Francis Bacon on the first popularisation of a scientific method based on induction,
- David Hume on his criticism of induction,
- Karl Popper on a new scientific method based on criticism, and falsification of theories by testable predictions,
- Thomas Kuhn on how science actually works by scientific revolution of paradigm shifts, as opposed to Popper's description of how it should work (more due to human nature really I suppose).
Once you have understood enough of all that, you'll understand:
- what the difference between experiment, observation, and theory is, and what the nature of a 'fact' is
- what is needed to make any idea count as a real scientific theory
- why science never proves theories, but can only disprove them
- that science is nothing more than its method, and resulting knowledge is not to be confused with 'science'
- why creationism is always 'correct' (or cannot be proven wrong), and therefore does not count as scientific
- how to spot pseudoscience.
Spiff.
Posted: 25.09.2005, 19:09
Maybe examples would keep everyone from being confused:
Theory:
Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe started when a singularity called the primeval atom spontaneously appeared in oblivion (void of nothingness) and started expanding a little, then suddenly inflated and continued to expand, mean while all the energy produced started converting into matter-antimatter pairs and blah blah blah...(then some reasons why this is reasonable and something that explains why this theory cannot be a law or cannot yet become a law)
Law:
The Law of Conservation states that Matter cannot be created or destroyed but converted to a different form. Same with energy. If matter is converted into energy (or vice versa) an amount of energy equal to the matter (or vice versa) being converted to energy will replace the matter being converted to energy (or vice versa). E=mc?? (E=energy, M=matter, C=speed of light [186,000 miles per second]) shows how matter is converted into energy.
Hypothesis:
I think that plant A will grow faster than Plant B, because Plant A will get more nutrition than Plant B.
Notice how each one has a key word in it to tell what it is.
Though I think hearing other people's hypothesis is very important in science. If you will not listen to other's opinions then you ight not get very far in science.
Theory:
Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe started when a singularity called the primeval atom spontaneously appeared in oblivion (void of nothingness) and started expanding a little, then suddenly inflated and continued to expand, mean while all the energy produced started converting into matter-antimatter pairs and blah blah blah...(then some reasons why this is reasonable and something that explains why this theory cannot be a law or cannot yet become a law)
Law:
The Law of Conservation states that Matter cannot be created or destroyed but converted to a different form. Same with energy. If matter is converted into energy (or vice versa) an amount of energy equal to the matter (or vice versa) being converted to energy will replace the matter being converted to energy (or vice versa). E=mc?? (E=energy, M=matter, C=speed of light [186,000 miles per second]) shows how matter is converted into energy.
Hypothesis:
I think that plant A will grow faster than Plant B, because Plant A will get more nutrition than Plant B.
Notice how each one has a key word in it to tell what it is.
Though I think hearing other people's hypothesis is very important in science. If you will not listen to other's opinions then you ight not get very far in science.
Posted: 26.09.2005, 00:10
Though I think hearing other people's hypothesis is very important in science. If you will not listen to other's opinions then you ight not get very far in science.
It is important if there is some way that the hypothesis can be proved or disproved. If it's unprovable, then it's a waste of time. There is no room in science for a belief (which is by definition unprovable).
Posted: 28.09.2005, 02:52
Theories are generally accepted explanations for things, but do not have sufficient evidence to prove them and make them be laws or facts. Sounds like a belief.
Sorry if any posts sound mean. Everyone gets worked up in an argument.
Sorry if any posts sound mean. Everyone gets worked up in an argument.
Posted: 28.09.2005, 07:47
WildMoon wrote:Theories are generally accepted explanations for things, but do not have sufficient evidence to prove them and make them be laws or facts. Sounds like a belief.
NO. It's not like that at all.
Theories have sufficient evidence to support them - and can explain what is observed well enough - that they can be used to accurately predict results. For all intents and purposes, until better data comes along that allows us to refine and change our theories to be more accurate, they are as good as fact (with the caveat that they will be refined later on). Newtonian gravity was a theory that worked perfectly well to explain what was observed til Relativity came along and could be proven by more accurate observations and data. And even then, Newtonian gravity still works well enough as an approximation for most everyday purposes.
I'm not entirely sure what it is that makes something a "Law" rather than a theory, but the point is that 'theories' aren't anywhere near as uncertain as the name implies.
A belief is something that requires no evidence. It is based on faith alone and requires no proof, which means it is unscientific by its very nature. In fact, most beliefs actively deny physical evidence and proof because believers would claim that faith takes precedence over reality. Theories are not beliefs, because theories require proof to be made valid and beliefs do not.
Posted: 28.09.2005, 22:15
I meant belief in a non-religious way, but you're right about the theories thing. Oops 
I would qoute what I've said about the big bang theory from an earlier post an continue but my stomach hurts...TUMS TIME!
I would qoute what I've said about the big bang theory from an earlier post an continue but my stomach hurts...TUMS TIME!
Posted: 28.09.2005, 22:21
WildMoon wrote:I meant belief in a non-religious way, but you're right about the theories thing. Oops
Belief is the same whether it's religious or not - either way it's something based on faith, not fact.
The problem comes when people start claiming that beliefs are fact when in fact they aren't at all.
Posted: 30.09.2005, 20:58
Are we talking about what a theorie is, or about the beggining of the universe?