The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world

When you don't know anything about anything when it comes to explain the universe, scients are no smarter than lay people, since neither knows the real truth of reality.

Yes,, but physics is strictly based on mathematics, so it's basically mathematics-all those models.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed, this is why, buoyed by your wisdom of reality, I have begun construction on an atomic bomb. Nothing can possibly go wrong, since -being a laypeson - I know as much about plutonium physics as any scientist.

After all, subatomic particles are too small to see. Their so-called "atomic models" of fission (which are totally bogus, since they predict radiation and explosion) are no match for my plucky, greasemonkey know-how.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I already explained above just because something works it doesn't mean the explanation is correct until it is actually proven, not mathematically proven, really proven, this is why I said these are all trials and errors.
The only good thing that comes out of this are new technologies and that's about it.
Well, scientists did build atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And you explained wrong.

Again, this phrase "really" proven is naive.

You are arguing against stance that no rational scientist holds. You have invented a straw man.


But back to your wisdom:

That's impossible of course.

Since atomic bombs can only be invented with an intimate knowledge of protons, neutrons and atomic fission, and scientists can know nothing about these things since they're smaller than the human eye can detect, it is impossible for them to have been invented. Congratulations, you have reinvented history.

(Here's a hint: they were not invented by trial and error of simply building bigger and bigger incendiary bombs, until magically one went atomic. Atomic bombs cannot have been invented without first having a model of what atomic nuclei are made of. A predictive model. Made of math, based on observation.)

 

Now, I explained right, because for you everything that works, than the explanation is correct-and yet there is no evidence that supports it, since you cannot observe the process in it and the particles that are suppose to exist-this is not a straw man-this is reality, there is no way that any of those hypotheses can be actually directly proven, all the evidences that are suppose to prove exist only in equations, not in the real world-you obviously are too stupid to understand that.

Everything in science is trial and error-everything, deal with it, and models are also made by trials and errors, deal with it, when you assume and speculate with something that you have no idea what it is, than it's all about trials and errors, since it's speculations and assumptions-deal with this.
You are presenting science like you know everything about everything, but the fact is neither your or science knows truly nothing about anything, let alone the evidences of these assumptions and speculations.

Models that create atomic models were also made by trials and errors, because the mathematics is all about speculations and assumptions like the science is also.
I bet anyone who doesn't know atomic physics would eventually find out how to create atomic bombs, without using any model-you simply have to try it and learn on mistakes, if you look at all those inventions, it was all about trials and errors in the first place.

 

No rational science-minded person claims that anything is "correct". Ignorance-based straw man.

No rational science-minded person claims that anyone knows everything about anything. Ignorance-based straw man.

Not only are your arguments irrational, but the stance you think you're arguing against doesn't even exist.

You are warring with your own misguided beliefs.

 

No, rational person would know that we know nothing about anything, that is the only truth.

That is not true, because you all behave like you know everything, because mathematics says so.

They are not irrational, they are rational, I seek for evidences of these hypotheses, and when you fail to show any evidence, than you still say it is proven-mathematically proven, and yet there is nothing truly proven.
I'm simply asking for evidences, so where exactly I'm misguided, science is misguiding itself, just like you do.
All arguments based on real-world facts and real world are rational and reasonable, all arguments based on mathematics that remained unprovable are 100% irrational, they are guided by religious fanatism.
So, what if mathematics can help with technologies like nuclear power plants, it doesn't mean that it is correct-something that does work does not prove that its hypothesis is correct-the only way to determine that it is correct is through experiments and real-world evidences based on experiments, plus with correct interpretations of these same experiments, NOT what mathematics claims to be mathematically correct hypothesis-facts.

 

Ah, so this is a personal, experiential anecdote.
So, not fact.

I'm sorry you feel like everyone knows more than you. Have you considered that there are places where you can learn more? For example, what science seeks to accomplish?

Until then, this isn't really much of a discussion; it is you fighting with your own preconceived ideas.

No rational science-minded person tries to "truly prove" anything in nature. Ignorance based straw man.

Mathematics does not "prove" nature. Ignorance based straw man.

And evidence we have by the truckload. Centuries of it.

But evidence is not proof. Science does not seek proof. Your entire premise is malformed because it is based on an ignorance of what science is.

 

The very fact you try to explain and prove with mathematics and than you claim it is proven, proves my points.
If you are so humble you wouldn't claim that any hypothesis in mathematics that are unprovable are proven at all in the first place.

Than stop use math as explanation of nature since you cannot prove it.

Again none is talking about the waste, we ara talking about if the hypothesis behind it is correct in the first place:
They are not irrational, they are rational, I seek for evidences of these hypotheses, and when you fail to show any evidence, than you still say it is proven-mathematically proven, and yet there is nothing truly proven.
I'm simply asking for evidences, so where exactly I'm misguided, science is misguiding itself, just like you do.
All arguments based on real-world facts and real world are rational and reasonable, all arguments based on mathematics that remained unprovable are 100% irrational, they are guided by religious fanatism.
So, what if mathematics can help with technologies like nuclear power plants, it doesn't mean that it is correct-something that does work does not prove that its hypothesis is correct-the only way to determine that it is correct is through experiments and real-world evidences based on experiments, plus with correct interpretations of these same experiments, NOT what mathematics claims to be mathematically correct hypothesis-facts.

If science does not seek proof, than it's a waste of time to even have science in the first place-this is what all science is all about, not what you claim it is.

 

No one does this. Argument from ignorance.


Mathematics can contain proofs. Physics does not deal with proofs.

Explanation is your term. (Remember, fighting with yourself)

This way why I am introducing you to the concept of predictive models.

Our theory of gravity is a predictive model of what the Moon will do.
It most emphatically does not say "what gravity is".

Same with SR, GR and QM.
They predict very well and we can build on them.
What things "really are" is a philosophical question.

 

No, arguments based on facts, if you actually believe in mathematical fairy tales without the need of showing any real evidences, than you subjective believer and not a rational and reasonable scientist who accepts only true evidences an facts that are shown in those experiments.

No mathematics creates models, but models are useless if you cannot prove them.

Yes, explanation if crucial, otherwise everything is useless, predictive models, they are not predictive if you cannot prove them with experiments-to prove that models are actually correct or not.

At least we can directly observe the effects of gravity.

However, if models do not take everything into account, like flaws in determining what is actually affected by gravity in all those experiments (this something that scientists ignore frequently, they only see what math shows, not really what is truly shown in experiments, so they are not objective or rational in any way; than the model is useless, and quantum mechanics is also useless since you are blind and can never directly observe anything to see what is true and what is false here.

 

This can't go on usefully, Gravage. You hold egregious misconceptions about the thing you argue.
I've been patient, but virtually every statement you make contains a naive, preconceived view of what science is all about.
It is simply not about the things you attribute to it.
You are stuck in a bucket, seeing only its walls, arguing about things you think are going on outside the bucket.

As Pauli put it: "You are not even wrong."

 

I'm just stating facts, there are no misconceptions in having facts and evidences, not models, you simply cannot understand that model no matter how good it is, it is still unprovable until experiments are done, so the model maybe useful for technologies, but not for explanations that are not supported by evidences and with correct interpretations.
So, you cannot say that your models are correct, if you cannot prove their accuracy.

The facts are the following: You simply cannot know if the model is right or wrong, just because it can predict things-the only thing you can actually do, is to directly see/observe the effects of what you are experimenting with-but you have no idea, what is behind all those effects and if the models that explain processes behind all those effects are right or wrong-since there is no way you can even prove the existence of subatomic particles, let alone if the models are correct in the first place.

 

You have yet to state one.

Still a misunderstanding of science.

Still true. Except no one but you talks about "knowing". It is unscientific.

Our physical models of the world simply predict. The ones we have (the Standard Model) predict nature extremely accurately. That means we keep them.

Make no mistake. GR and QM are two of the most tested theories in the history of civilization.
Every single experiment has born out the predictiveness of our models with exquisite accuracy.

They don't tell us what reality is; they merely tell us how it behaves.

This is what we have been saying all along.

If you have a need to "know" what reality and nature is, you are barking up the wrong discipline. You're seeking religion.

 

I really don't follow your logic

I agree with you about not seeing the nutrenos making tracks in cloud chambers

No one has ever seen them

No one has ever seen the TV signal traveling between the studio and my TV set

The signal is known to be there because the the studio is certain they are sending and I can see I am receiving, I have the picture

You said it's technology. OK it's technology

And all the technology which goes into all of the technical items present started out with ideas and trial and error

The errors become less and less as the results of previous trials become better understood

There is a concept of baby steps

We don't go from a 10cent small amount of rocket powder to the next stage building a Saturn moon rocket although the concept is the same - action and reaction

The blind-elephant ear-leaf really does not mean anything except there is a plant with very large leafs which resemble in a superficial way elephant ears

I do know about people who have always been blind but have had absence of sight corrected

When they are asked to draw a bus, a mode of transport they have been using regularly, their drawings only consists of the area where they boarded the bus

Even though they can now visually see the front of the bus it does not appear in the drawings until either a long time later or sooner if they walk around the bus touching the front area

But that's a digression

EXCEPT

' If you try to explain only the tip of an iceberg what you can actually directly observe, you will always fail '

Nooooo

I will be spectacularly correct in describing the TIP

I will miss in a description of the part under the water

But I will observe the tip appears to act differently to what I expect

I will deduce something else must be present

I will explore and discover the underwater section

Then I will spectacularly described all of the iceberg

That is UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING

Try them sometime

 

How far did you get?

If you have a working model will you go into commercial production so I can buy one at Kmart?

Are you going to be like me and stop feeding trolls?

 

BB is a primitive cosmological theory .