SusanofO
Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
There never was a Big Bang. The Big Bang is not a fact,
* I thought Noah covered pretty well what constitutes "fact" - and that's only if you realize that causality itself is a theory. I never said it was - I merely re-printed part of a magazine article. I'd never positied it as anything other than a proposition just like any other proposition.
I also think a close reading of the article makes it relatively clear that some scientiests, (maybe even the ones who helped investigate the "Big Bang" theory may not themsleves be fully convinced it's "fact" - merely viewing it as another theory or scientific proposition, much as yourself, within the framework of astronomy (or qauntumm physics as it intereacts with astronomical phenomena), they feel driven or impelled to investigate - because tthye simply enjoy the field, it's their job, etc.
but an interpretation of a few observed phenomena. *Okay a "few" then (whatever that word may mean)
In my book I proposed (not proved) a different, "classical" explanation for each of those phenomena. In fact (these days I do not pay attention to these things, but I do infrequently pick up some news) astrophysicists and cosmologists are starting to feel very uncomfortable about their beloved Big Bang theology. I consider Big Bang propaganda the acts of desperate men. (Of course they in their turn will call me a cook or a crank, but what do they know?)
*I mean no disrespect (truly) by the following but am merely asking, Rule: * If you only infrequently pick up some news, how do you conclude that "astrophysicists and cosmologists" (and since you didn't qualify this with the word "some" I am going to assume you mean "all" of them) - are starting to "feel uncomfortable with their beloved Big Bang Theory" - where's the evidence for that conclusion? It's your opinion, obviously (which is fine. Everyone has them. So do astrophysicists and cosmologists.
I never really viewed it as "propoganda" - just simply another theory of how the universe developed - unless someone is trying to posit they see it as evidence that will prove ultimately and forever that God exists one way or the other, I'd not view it as "propoganda", although I am sure it can be interpreted that way by many. Otherwise, I'd tend to view it as a theory with some heavily investigated and supported evidence to back it up - that is neither "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong". I understand what you may be saying, but personally I tend to think that perhaps desperate men might interpet some scientists naming their views of the origin of the universe as a "deseprate" act of "propoganda".
Do you think that the discovery of, and investigating how stars may have formed, merely investigating how they perhaps formed, is an act of desperate men? I see it simply as human curiosity at work.
My view: "Desperate" only if you think that there are No astronomers or physicists who believe in spirituality, apparently (which I a sure isn't true - and that I can posit with some assurance). And if you view investigation of the universe, as a Godless realm, that kind of cancels out your idea of what constitutes spirituality to begin with, mightn't it?
I see even this as somewhat as circular reasoning, but since I know this is true of all interpretations of what consititues "reality" , the "truth" and other absolutist terms, I'll roll with it.
Viewing the Big Bang as "propoganda" suggests to me that it might be viewed from the point of view of someone with an ulterior motive to "prove" some other theory is "more right". I know this is common,(and I don't really care) but I thought Noah covered in his post pretty well that a lot of accepted science is no longer viewed as theory but as fact, not because it is fact, but simply because it's been around for so long, and accepted by so many. Maybe you think this is true of the Big Bang theory (or assume that all astrophysicist think this. If so, I am not sure it is true they all think this, or know how you could be).This could even be true of some scientists who believe in quantum theory. Some scientists believe in string theory who don't believe in the Big Bang. I know some scientists believed the Earth was flat until some others "proved" them wrong, etc., etc. ad infinitum
What is the name of your book, btw?
I think we can agree that some "classical" theories can be construed as less, or more, logically believable - depending on what the source is, how they are contructed, and who is viewing the theory, and who you ask.
Not that "logic" is going to prove much, in this particular case, for reasons already well-covered.
- Susan
< Message edited by SusanofO -- 9/10/2006 11:20:16 AM >
_____________________________
"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson
|
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread