Posted: Jan 11, 2019 7:54 am
newolder wrote:truelgbt wrote:newolder wrote:The thing about science is that it's incapable of giving a shit as to what humans wish to be true.
Correction. 100% PURE, true, unbiased 'science' SHOULD NOT be affected by what humans wish to be true.
Unfortunately, fallible humans are the ones always involved. Scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc. have as many personal biases, personal issues and blind spots as anyone else. The personal 'baggage' which they bring into the equation will muddy-up or muck-up the end result which they present to the rest of us and skew that result.
Since the results are repeatable, it doesn't matter who brings what baggage since the baggage is dispensed with in further tests.An increase in education does not automatically imply an increase in wisdom. We should never think to ourselves that
a higher degree or job title means their words and claims are to be implicitly believed.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the topic of origins, many do just that - implicitly accept what they say. They don't even question the a-priori assumptions, premises, presuppositions, etc. which went into the whole thing or don't even know what they are to begin with. So sad.
This is not how it works at all.So, maybe you or someone here can list for us the assumptions and premises that cosmologists commonly use for the big bang, and how those assumptions and premises were demonstrated or somehow verified.
Of course, for those NOT demonstrated or verified, why should we go along with it?
The big bang is not assumption. Observations of universal expansion and the cosmic microwave background radiation lead inexorably to a hot dense state at early time (a big bang). These observations are demonstrated daily (nightly) at telescopes around and above the planet.
There is currently some tension between "near" and "far" field observations that calculate different results for the Hubble constant. This is an active area of research but, in no way, does it disprove the early hot dense phase.
ETA: For a study of a one-parameter dark energy model and associated assumptions in cosmology: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.05141.pdf
Where is the LIST? Not articles, unless you want me to also start linking articles about the sham that the Big Bang is.
We are waiting for somebody who knows enough about the Big Bang to list them here.
Is there nobody here who can make a list of the assumptions and premises in the Big Bang
? This means we are a bunch of ASSUMERS. None of us should say "we know that the Big Bang is true because "they" are telling us it is. In fact this means "we" don't know. "They" are telling us that "they" know and we are assuming it to be true.
This brings us to one main point: If we believe the Big Bang model, it is not because we understand everything "they" are describing. We are taking "their" word for it to some degree. Not good....and
nobody here seems to want to admit this truth. Too much personal pride and even arrogance. Sad.
Once again, where is THE LIST?
Please, no deflecting, avoiding, or flaming NON-answers. No links either. Just THE LIST. We either personally know the material or we don't (in which case we are taking "their" word for it).
Thank you.
Top
As DEMONSTRATED in the OP, many cosmologists claim that EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING OR NOTHINGNESS - AS STATED IN THEIR OWN WORDS which some forum members here cannot seem to accept. These forum members tell us:
1) The cosmologists really didn't mean NOTHING and NOTHINGNESS when in fact they actually used those words and as cosmologists, understood those words which they used.
2) The cosmologists could have used other words such as 'energy' or 'energy field' but THEY DID NOT.
These cosmologists look in the mirror of their own narcissism and
see themselves as highly sophisticated members of society who put themselves in a position above the rest of us 'peons' in order to tell us what we as humans cannot possibly know with any significant degree of certainty. Yet, some forum members here
are more than happy to 'believe' and 'accept' with open arms these UNdemonstrated and UNverifiable claims/theories/assertions/postulations. Sad.