0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It fails. If you had stated that 'describing nature in the simplest form possible, was key motivator of science I would have agreed with you. Since you were arguing that generations of scientists somehow support your case that the modern 'standard model' should be thrown out on the grounds of over-complexity then this is extremely important.
Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).
Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.
Quote from: peppercorn on 19/10/2010 10:43:25It fails. If you had stated that 'describing nature in the simplest form possible, was key motivator of science I would have agreed with you. Since you were arguing that generations of scientists somehow support your case that the modern 'standard model' should be thrown out on the grounds of over-complexity then this is extremely important.This is what I call bullying, you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing, and do not appear to be seeking intelligent discussion or understanding.
Quote from: peppercorn on 19/10/2010 10:43:25Maybe you are getting confused with repeating an experiment (the other half of empirical science).No, this is bigger than repeating the experiment. For example consider Galileo's uniform acceleration experiment; rolling balls down incline planes, and dropping balls off of the leaning tower of Pisa. Then forty four (44) years later Newton validated this experiment with his Universal Gravitation Theory. Then some three hundred (300) years later, we put satellites in orbit to validate this experiment even more. Three different experiments which predict the same thing; and hence three slightly different mathematics can be used to calculate those things.
Quote from: peppercorn on 19/10/2010 10:43:25Obviously the more an experiment is reproduced by independent teams, the more solid its findings become.Your statements validate my point. This is my point of an additional requirement to the Scientific Method.
This thread has moved away from the main issue. Do you think that any explanation of matter would also explain what created the matter and why times arrow is one directional?
With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed?
Quote from: Ethos on 20/10/2010 16:54:05With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed? I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce. The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.
Quote from: peppercorn on 20/10/2010 17:14:01Quote from: Ethos on 20/10/2010 16:54:05With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed? I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce. The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.Then you agree, gravity creates matter?
Quote from: Ethos on 20/10/2010 17:16:21Quote from: peppercorn on 20/10/2010 17:14:01Quote from: Ethos on 20/10/2010 16:54:05With no matter present shortly after the Big Bang, how could gravity have existed? I thought the only reason no matter existed directly after the BB was because the energy state of universe was far too high for matter to coalesce. The gravitational force certainly does not cease to exist just because there is nothing for it to act on.Then you agree, gravity creates matter?Does it look like I agree?!
Yes,,,,,,it looks like you agree!
The mainstream has theorized that time and space began at the BB. That assumes nothing exists outside our Universe.
But it's still incorrect to claim that mainstream science says that there isn't anything outside of the universe, which is how you started your post.