d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Evidence Against The Big Bang > :)
Prev1234569Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 10 2010 09:29pm
Quote (Psycho- @ Sep 11 2010 03:21am)
how could science of ignored them if it was science that is used to determine those things? the big bang theory is undoubtedly wrong but its still more complete than the others.


You know what I mean. I didn't mean science itself, but the scientific establishment. In other words, the mainstream. Plasma cosmology is less complete than the big bang, but it's still a better option than something that's wrong.
Member
Posts: 32,985
Joined: Mar 17 2005
Gold: 6.00
Sep 10 2010 09:34pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Sep 10 2010 10:29pm)
You know what I mean. I didn't mean science itself, but the scientific establishment. In other words, the mainstream.  Plasma cosmology is less complete than the big bang, but it's still a better option than something that's wrong.


there is still the issue of linking all the counter evidence together into a more credible working big picture. the big bang theory will be replaced but only with something that is pretty complete. im all for better ideas but im not for replacing one with a lot of work into it with something less complete.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 10 2010 09:50pm
Quote (Psycho- @ Sep 11 2010 03:34am)
there is still the issue of linking all the counter evidence together into a more credible working big picture. the big bang theory will be replaced but only with something that is pretty complete. im all for better ideas but im not for replacing one with a lot of work into it with something less complete.


What does it matter if one theory is less complete than a wrong theory? If something is wrong, at least in science, it is not acceptable to hang onto that theory just because it is 'more complete'. The big bang is wrong, plasma cosmology is right. Plasma cosmology might not be as complete, but that's only because it doesn't receive mainstream support and hasn't had hundreds of people working to flesh it out.

In plasma cosmology the evidence is linked into a working picture.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Sep 10 2010 09:50pm
Member
Posts: 32,985
Joined: Mar 17 2005
Gold: 6.00
Sep 10 2010 09:51pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Sep 10 2010 10:50pm)
What does it matter if one theory is less complete than a wrong theory? If something is wrong, at least in science, it is not acceptable to hang onto that theory just because it is 'more complete'.  The big bang is wrong, plasma cosmology is right. Plasma cosmology might not be as complete, but that's only because it doesn't receive mainstream support and hasn't had hundreds of people working to flesh it out.


plasma cosmology is 100% undeniably right and can be proven down to the smallest detail?
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 10 2010 10:04pm
Quote (Psycho- @ Sep 11 2010 03:51am)
plasma cosmology is 100% undeniably right and can be proven down to the smallest detail?


I don't know how 'right' plasma cosmology is, but it's certainly more 'right' than the big bang. It hasn't been really developed into a complete working theory yet, although small numbers of people are trying to do this outside of the mainstream. It does explain things that mainstream cosmology and astronomy cannot, though. For instance why the corona on stars is hotter than the more interior layers.
Member
Posts: 32,985
Joined: Mar 17 2005
Gold: 6.00
Sep 10 2010 10:11pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Sep 10 2010 11:04pm)
I don't know how 'right' plasma cosmology is, but it's certainly more 'right' than the big bang. It hasn't been really developed into a complete working theory yet, although small numbers of people are trying to do this outside of the mainstream.  It does explain things that mainstream cosmology and astronomy cannot, though.  For instance why the corona on stars is hotter than the more interior layers.


im all for it if it becomes a working theory. i just don't see a point in replacing a well rounded maybe with a rough maybe+1.

This post was edited by Psycho- on Sep 10 2010 10:12pm
Member
Posts: 18,180
Joined: Jun 5 2009
Gold: 5.00
Warn: 10%
Sep 10 2010 10:14pm
e=mc^2 explains perfectly how matter is created from energy and energy from matter and stuff.
/end thread.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 10 2010 10:23pm
Quote (Psycho- @ Sep 11 2010 04:11am)
im all for it if it becomes a working theory. i just don't see a point in replacing a well rounded maybe with a rough maybe+1.


I've said it a million times, it doesn't matter how complete a theory is if it's wrong. The big bang is flat out wrong.
Member
Posts: 32,985
Joined: Mar 17 2005
Gold: 6.00
Sep 10 2010 10:27pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Sep 10 2010 11:23pm)
I've said it a million times, it doesn't matter how complete a theory is if it's wrong. The big bang is flat out wrong.


the other still can't be proven right either so they are on equal ground except one has more work into it. in time change will happen but only when that change is understandable as a whole.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 10 2010 10:38pm
Quote (Psycho- @ Sep 11 2010 04:27am)
the other still can't be proven right either so they are on equal ground except one has more work into it. in time change will happen but only when that change is understandable as a whole.


Plasma cosmology can be proven right. And it has been so far. They are not on equal ground because the big bang is wrong. I've already shown how the big bang is wrong.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev1234569Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll