|
New evidence found that may show previous universes (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Yeah but the trouble is that the current model explains the data so well that a competing theory (especially one like this that would turn our understanding of cosmology on its head) is going to have to have a lot of strong evidence in its favour to be taken seriously. From the second article I posted it seems like Penrose is basing his conclusions on a single set of anomolous data from the CMBR (that cosmologists were already familiar with) and some pretty creative inferences. Physicists aren't just arguing against it because they want to protect their own idiosyncratic cosmological theories, they're arguing against it because it represents a serious departure from an established model that has a staggering weight of evidence in its favour and which would require a much stronger case than the one Penrose is presenting to see it overturned.
|
Absolutely, it's understandable why Physicists would argue this model over current, more 'provable' models (even though it totally goes against the Inflation Model, but that's a different topic).
But I feel it's worth mentioning the following.....
1) Physicists were content with Newtons laws of motion, but then Einstein came along and advanced on the idea and included relativistic effects.
2) Physicists in the early 1900's were content in their knowledge on the structure of the Atom, until Rutherford produced the 'Rutherford Model' and it was blown out of the window.
3)....the list goes one.
I'm not saying Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is what's happening, but occasionally, rouge ideas produced by silent geniuses have drastically altered our perception of Physics.........just maybe, maybe Sir Roger Penrose is one of them :p |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| Oh looks, it's the standard argument everyone uses when they want to contradict accepted scientific knowledge. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Relativity was not accepted based on its sexiness or elegance as a hypothesis. It was accepted because it tied together the best available evidence, and explained stuff that Newtonian principles could not. The verdict on a new theory, even one created by a "genius," should be "wait and see."
Try telling that to the breathless news media, though. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Try telling that to the breathless news media, though. |
Obligatory post:
 |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Relativity was not accepted based on its sexiness or elegance as a hypothesis. It was accepted because it tied together the best available evidence, and explained stuff that Newtonian principles could not. The verdict on a new theory, even one created by a "genius," should be "wait and see." |
I have to add that imho the most defining characteristic of a new and revoluionary scientific theory should not be that it "better" (whatver that means) explains something or that it explains some other phenomena as well. This makes it a good theory, but a brilliant one is when it makes some predictions that oppose current knowledge are verfied later. All really great technological revolutions have that in common, Einstein's relativity is for the most part (read: everyday life, where relativistic effects play no role) no better than Newton's mechanics. Which also means that it doesn't disprove Newton, just extends his theory. But relativity made some really outragous claims about more extreme conditions, which sounded bat crazy at the time but turned out to be true. I expect the same from whatever wants to replace the Big Bang theory.
Edit: Wait, did I just make a post on science philosophy? , I'm going to bed. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Edit: Wait, did I just make a post on science philosophy? , I'm going to bed. |
Oi, whatever happened to the para para mix? I'm waiting, you know? :mad: |
|
|
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Oh looks, it's the standard argument everyone uses when they want to contradict accepted scientific knowledge. |
Contradiction against the 'normal'?
Yeah, I guess you're right, but is that not how our knowledge advances?
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Relativity was not accepted based on its sexiness or elegance as a hypothesis. It was accepted because it tied together the best available evidence, and explained stuff that Newtonian principles could not. The verdict on a new theory, even one created by a "genius," should be "wait and see."
|
I'm willing to be corrected, but relativistic effects predicted by Einstein weren't even investigated properly until Einstein's equations came to existence. Even then they weren't even proved, but still widely believed. As a quick reference, this is why Einstein won the Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect and not Special/General Relativity.
I believe the milestone was when light was observed to 'bend' around the sun due to gravitational lensing. That's when Einstein's relativistic effects were finally proved.
Physicists believed in the equations, the math and the theory, despite the fact it wasn't proven at the time.
Anyway, I guess I'm trying to say that one shouldn't rule out the improbable, merely because it appears so.
EDIT -
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
I have to add that imho the most defining characteristic of a new and revoluionary scientific theory should not be that it "better" (whatver that means) explains something or that it explains some other phenomena as well. This makes it a good theory, but a brilliant one is when it makes some predictions that oppose current knowledge are verfied later. All really great technological revolutions have that in common, Einstein's relativity is for the most part (read: everyday life, where relativistic effects play no role) no better than Newton's mechanics. Which also means that it doesn't disprove Newton, just extends his theory. But relativity made some really outragous claims about more extreme conditions, which sounded bat crazy at the time but turned out to be true. I expect the same from whatever wants to replace the Big Bang theory.
Edit: Wait, did I just make a post on science philosophy? , I'm going to bed. |
OK, so perhaps I should of been quicker posting my reply :p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
I have to add that imho the most defining characteristic of a new and revoluionary scientific theory should not be that it "better" (whatver that means) explains something or that it explains some other phenomena as well. This makes it a good theory, but a brilliant one is when it makes some predictions that oppose current knowledge are verfied later. All really great technological revolutions have that in common, Einstein's relativity is for the most part (read: everyday life, where relativistic effects play no role) no better than Newton's mechanics. Which also means that it doesn't disprove Newton, just extends his theory. But relativity made some really outragous claims about more extreme conditions, which sounded bat crazy at the time but turned out to be true. I expect the same from whatever wants to replace the Big Bang theory. |
Yeah, that was what I meant by "explained stuff Newton could not." For Newtonian mechanics certain observations under extreme conditions are not predicted. So the new theory subsumes and extends the old, as you said. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Oi, whatever happened to the para para mix? I'm waiting, you know? :mad: |
Note to self: shut up more often. :stongue:
Don't expect it too soon, I'm lazy busy and need time to research the cheesy world of Para Para and Eurobeat. |
|
|
| Lira |
I'll be waiting. Eagerly.
And I expect your mix to be available for Dance Dance Revolution. |
|
|
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
I've been saying this very thing for years now. I bet there's even a post on TA somewhere. Not because I have a convincing reasoning or evidence (what this guy has is far from impressive btw, not much evidence and lots of interpretation) but just because I think it's a cool model. People should in read the crap I post more carefully. :o |
TA is the place to publish your brilliantly conceived of theory of the universe.  |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| Taking into account all the ridicule and bashing that goes on here, if a theory survives TA, it must have some validity. |
|
|
|
|
