Big Bang may be wrong

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/has-the-big-bang-theory-been-busted/story-fn5fsgyc-1226721187118

"
In a nutshell this means that a star floating through a multidimensional plane got sucked into a black hole, half of it got swallowed up and the other half that survived spawned the creation of the universe.

The fact that our universe is expanding in all directions could be a sign simply of cosmic expansion, rather than as the origin of the universe itself, the researchers suggest.

"Astronomers measured that expansion and extrapolated back that the Universe must have begun with a Big Bang - but that is just a mirage," said team member Niayesh Afshordi.

However, the theory has some holes. (Get it, holes?)

So far it doesn't entirely answer how the expansion of the universe occurred.

The European Space Agency recorded slight fluctuations in the temperature of the universe and found that the cosmos contained imprints of radiation that matched predictions made in the Big Bang theory. Obviously this creates a discrepancy in the astrophysicists' research.

The scientists say they're going back to the drawing board to adjust their model.

Stay tuned. Everything we may know about the universe may be wrong.
"

this is why it's better to be agnositc
Cause No One Knows for Sure.... science admits it, so should we.

And to me once we get into Mutli-dimension Physics, it's as much spiritual as anything because we are talking about things beyond the physical plane of our existance.

veya_victaous wrote:this is why it's better to be agnositc
Cause No One Knows for Sure.... science admits it, so should we.

And to me once we get into Mutli-dimension Physics, it's as much spiritual as anything because we are talking about things beyond the physical plane of our existance.

You seem to be creating a false equivalency, as though atheists accept the big bang on faith in the face of contrary evidence, the same way religious people accept their creation myths in spite of their being disproven.

As an atheist, I don't have tenets of faith. Whatever makes the most sense in rational and materialistic terms is what I accept, while always keeping in mind that further research or new discoveries can modify or overtake previous theories.

In a nutshell this means that a star floating through a multidimensional plane got sucked into a black hole, half of it got swallowed up and the other half that survived spawned the creation of the universe.

How could there be a star and a black hole if there is no universe?

http://news.sky.com/story/1143906/alien-bugs-discovered-in-earths-atmosphere


 

Hi Guest! Not to rain on any parades, but previously unknown bacteria are found all the time in the stratosphere. Scientists have only catalogued about 1 percent of all microbial life, and it will take DNA analysis to determine that these things didn't originate here on Earth and were drafted up into the stratosphere by some hitherto-unknown mechanism.

@Lurker
Cause SCIENCE  

@Ben
See above, is our understanding little more than faith?

I will admit we live in different worlds, USA is struggling with the 'because god/jesus' as explainations, we are starting to get the 'because science'.

As an example, If today a kid was sitting an exam in Australia and had the question how was the universe created if they sad anything other than the big bang they would be marked wrong. the probelm is the evidence on which we base our opinionis no where near as solid as it is often presented, so its not 'in the face of contrary evidense' but just not good enough evidense to start teaching furture genrations that 'this is the truth'. It would be a shame to break religion only to replace it with a new dogma. the reality is that most people are not smart enough to fully understand a lot of things so they have faith in people 'smarter' than them tell them. For a long time they though that was priests now they think it is scientists (in Australia at least) but scientists vary(some are little more than shills for highest bidder) and the media does purposly twist results to fit it's agenda and expolit peoples limited understanding.
I think it is better to encourage people to question or at least to keep in mind that we are talking in possiblities not definties. Christianity is a bad example, but if you look at the history Buddhism, you can see in the first few centuries it was constantly questioning and coming up with new explainations. Then some of the explainations started to get generally accepted, before long they were not making new explainations but merely recieting the generally accepted ones. From there is has just built dogma, so that the orginal guy that said 'dont worship me, the buddha is in everyone' now has different coloured statues to corrospond with what kind of luck you are wishing for.    

I wish I could say I had faith in mankind not to do the same to science.

@aliens  
"But the scientists insist the samples could not have been carried from the Earth's surface into the stratosphere - the second layer of our atmosphere, which stretches up to 50km (31 miles) from the ground.

Strict tests were taken to avoid any contamination, they said."

"Professor Milton Wainwright, who led the team, said: "Most people will assume that these biological particles must have just drifted up to the stratosphere from Earth, but it is generally accepted that a particle of the size found cannot be lifted from Earth to heights of, for example, 27km.

"The only known exception is by a violent volcanic eruption, none of which occurred within three years of the sampling trip."

He went on: "We can only conclude that the biological entities originated from space."

Science should not become dogmatic, and I don't think it's in danger of becoming so, but you make a good point about the teaching of science. Let me explain by showing exactly what's wrong with your theoretical exam question:

"how was the universe created"

Totally inappropriate question. Leaving out the erroneousness of "created," the question should always be framed in a way that doesn't imply we know the answer:

"What is the current scientific consensus on the origin of the universe?"

We can never be sure of anything beyond "what's the most recent science." We can be *reasonably* sure, but that's not the same thing.

To sum up, and I'm sure I've said this before, but I'm an atheist based on the lack of evidence for deities. If such evidence were found, I'd change my views. Anything other than that is motivated reasoning; i.e. you don't accept the existence of the supernatural because you prefer it did not exist. It would be wildly exciting to learn that the world really is a battleground between supernatural forces of good and evil, or a computer simulation, or the dream of an autistic child, but so far we can't prove any of that. I guess I have to say that at my core, I'm stubbornly refusing to believe anything without proof. At the same time, I'm willing to admit that evidence can be superseded by stronger evidence.

By saying "multidimensional plane" then that proposes the theory that there are an infinite number of universes separated by multidimensional planes. So a star managed to escape one universe and into a plane that had no universe, get partially trapped by black hole (in what universe?) and it explodes thereby creating a new universe (ours). Was that how the big bang happened?

@ben
I dont actually beleive in anything, you are all figments of my imagination   
And in a prefect world you are right the quesiton would not be asked that way, but I can assure you it does. I'm not talking High school science class I am talking Primary school under 10 year olds, general knowledge questions.
"refusing to believe anything without proof. " is that because you lack faith or have too much faith? should you Beleive the the 'proof'? for it is faith in quantum physics. the Proof of Newtons Science is one thing the Proof of Hawkings Science is a different ball game, because how do you prove what we cant measure?

@lurker
I believe that is sort of what it proposes, the multi dimension thing is defintily part of it but not as in there are multipule but as in a dimension beyond our own, possibly void of time. Quantum physics proposes the idea that there are mutipule dimension that sit 'on top of' one another vibrating at different speeds which a factorials of the speed of light. Since Time and distance at the speed of light start to become the same thing it is confusing as all fuck. I sort of understand black holes are matter vibrating at speeds 'less than 0', which doesn't sound possible  , but creates infinte mass/gravity. where this rouge star comes from get trapped I don't know   but if it came from a previous/other universe than where did that one come from?  

is that because you lack faith or have too much faith? should you Beleive the the 'proof'? for it is faith in quantum physics. the Proof of Newtons Science is one thing the Proof of Hawkings Science is a different ball game, because how do you prove what we cant measure?

Nope, not faith. I runs stuff like that through a little game I call "Truth or Conspiracy?"

I.E.: Either quantum physics as accepted by the scientific mainstream holds up and has validity, or all these really smart, ambitious people have conspired to make us believe that quarks or flavors or whatnot are, you know, a thing.

So I guess if I have any "faith" it's that global communities of intellectuals don't team up to play pointless pranks on the general public. But I would just call that common sense.

the thing is historically that has happend several times before.

All the Smart people circle jerked an Idea till they all beleived it and everyone beleived in them cause they were smart. Even the catholic church was like this for a while and so was Islam (both advanced Mathematics and Sharia came out of Islams Acedemic phase). Unfortunatly the text I want to refer to is a book and I cant find reference to it online. it cronicals the history of the buddhas and up until the 3rd Buddha (still over 2000 years ago) they were much like scientists. the 3rd had a wall which he would write questions in chalk and any of the monks could answer the question or write new questions thus the philosphy was based on a culture of debate. by the 5th buddha they had said their are 5 dimensions and set number of charkra and these were all taken as Fact and the 'community of intellectual' buddhists in following generations still accepted those 'Facts', they stopped questioning the foundations because it had been 'proven' by smart people in previous generations.

They might not do it on purpose but they are still failable humans getting taught by failable humans basing their ideas on the ideas of failable humans. relying on proof from failable humans.
Keep in mind, all those smart people work togther, building on each others knowledge, 'group think' is completely possible. Just because they are smart doesn't stop the social conditioning of our brain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Nothing's perfect. But I still believe the scientific method is the best way of ascertaining the truth, and that the truth may certainly be ascertained ... as long as nothing is at stake.

Even then, we know climate science is solid -- it's not the scientific community that's messing this up. This is perhaps the most-studied phenomenon in human history, if you take "study" to mean "investigation via the scientific method."

But yeah, we're human, we fail at times. That's why faith in anything is bunk. I'm trying to emphasize the difference between accepting something as reasonable, along with applying Occam's Razor, and faith. I accept things like the big bang and evolution as reasonable answers to big questions; however, they are not tenets of my belief system.

Oh, and there is a point in the history of science where you can't really compare what came before to what came after. If the scientific community behaved as the faith community behaves, it would never have been able to allow that Newtonian physics only works in certain circumstances, and Einstein would have been executed or shunned.

thats not quite right
for One-god faiths yes
but some of the others no.

If Buddhism still followed Buddhas teachings it would be very like science, both state their primary goal is the quest for knowledge/enlightenment. the difference is Science wants Mathematic proof and Peer evaluation/confirmation, where as Buddhism only required Peer evaluation/Confirmation, making it more suceptable to Group think. Science is the best regulated system of beliefs we have come up with (yet?) But people have twisted Maths to their own agenda in the past, so it is not infailable.

If Newtown or Einstein lived in the early stages of Buddhism (before the 5th Buddha) they more than likely would have been declared Buddhas themsleves, and their works woven into Buddhist Philosophy.
Keep in mind Modern Buddhism is Like Mordern Chrisitanity; Completely corrupted and twisted by greed, ignorance and the power structures of man.

Agreed; Buddhism in its purest form is actually a really valid and helpful philosophy of the mind that I think many can benefit from. Meditation has proven to have health benefits and to actually change the way the brain works. I know I make frequent use of the breathing technique which deactivates the fight/flight response, as I'm one of those unfortunates who is naturally disposed toward being a bit jumpy.

Which makes the fact that someone tried to literally run me off the road tonight even a bit harder on my constitution ...