Are you proposing that the best information available today should be ignored on the grounds that humans didn't have that information in the past?
Of course not. I am saying that things may be different than we think. I remember when Mars canals were debunked and every planet body past Mars in our system was frozen methane and ammonia. Venus was a warm prehistoric jungle.....
I imagine so. We must never try to figure out anything until absolutely everything ever has been discovered. And there is a vast difference between being "wrong", and having incomplete information.
You remember? That was well over 100 years ago, how old are you? And the same with Venus. It has been known for well over 100 years that it was incredibly hot. Do not confuse what science fiction authors were writing, and that it is the same as what scientists knew. Even Heinlein and Asimov knew that the stories they were writing were completely impossible. But it did not matter, they were telling stories. Many people may have thought those things, but scientists have known for well over a century that was not so. So I seriously doubt you "remember" like you claim. Unless even back then you were following junk science.
I immediately thought about confusing science fiction and science fact. That is probably the fact of the matter. But ...it wasn't a hundred years ago they thought all the bodies of the outer solar system were frozen.
Apologies, my mind doesn't work like it used to. I am old but my vision of the universe has changed. And so has the science.
Humans will never know everything. So, the best we have is to base our analysis on our best current information. As for being "wrong", there is also the problem of not caring. For example, homeopathy does not have ANY concern about what is wrong. We also see that in other areas of popular medicine - Dr. Oz, Alex Jones, Robert Kennedy, etc.
Yes, and that is exactly the point. I know not advanced physics. So maybe the big bang didn't happen. Two branes could have collided.
Actually, they have known for hundreds of years that the gas giants were, well, "gas". Obviously not frozen, as the clouds of gas could be seen moving and changing. So quite obviously since the time of Galileo they knew they were not frozen. And any time before that does not matter, as they thought they were simply other stars prior to that. Some were speculating on gravity and heat way back in the 1800s, and that the more massive a body was, it was likely the hotter it would be. However, it would take dozens of years until the first thermal cameras were developed to prove this correct. And the same with "Flat Earth". Hell, Natural Philosophers had proven that our planet was a sphere over 2,600 years ago. But once again, do not confuse "popular science" with what actual "scientists" (or the equivalent of the era) knew at the time. As I said, not sure at all where you are getting your science, but it is not real science. Once again, it sounds like you are taking bits and pieces of golden age science fiction and confusing it with what was really known at the time. Heck, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the planet back in around 200 BCE, and was off by only around 2%. He was also almost dead on in figuring the degree of axial tilt of the planet. Not bad, considering all he had were measuring lines, protractors, and levels.
My science came from my local library in the 1960s. I didn't have a science degree in grade school. I believed what was written. And what was written has changed.
Anything is possible. It could be that pré BB the potential for the matter we see today was always there, but in a different form. Maybe à gas? Then some change happened to make it unstable and take on the current laws of physics we have today and which define our universe. The idea goes somewhere towards the string theory idea of vibrrations that caused an imbalance. So gases changed to solids and liquids with properties commensurate with gravity as the baseline...IOW the force between positive and négative charges being either attractive or repellant is what forms solids, liquide or gases.. So pré BB could have been just one huge clout of gas that became destabilised.
Yes. In fact, it should be an objective for human knowledge to increase. What we've gained from that is gigantic. It is a key reason that the USA, only 4% of the world population, has the largest economy. The only issue I have here is that rapidly increasing knowledge is a success, not a justification for discrediting the means of that increase or for ignoring that new knowledge.
True. I'd also say that physicists almost never say something is impossible. To say something is impossible really implies that there is a complete understanding of the universe. Physicists do comment on likelihoods, however. So far, the big bang is a big winner in the range of what astrophysicists see as likely. I think your idea may cover the other issue - the singularity that came before the big bang.
seems the James Webb Telescope did not prove it did not happen, but actually confirmed the expansion did happen "Did James Webb Prove Big Bang Theory Wrong? Here Are The Facts" it would be like learnign new things about Gravity and claiming gravity is not real, when we all know it is
I watched a video too, and it was over an hour long and hosted by Paul Steinhardt. Paul Steinhardt - Time to Take the ‘Big Bang’ out of the Big Bang Theory? (May 5, 2021) Well, actually... I hate to break it to you, and gravity may appear to exist, but it actually isn't a force. There is no graviton. It's just a warping of space. They lied to you in school.
Gravity does exist, may still learn more about how it works, but we all know it exists - the theory of Gravity may not be correct I do not recall saying it was a "force" or anything about "gravitons", you added those in, then attacked them. I just said that gravity exists as we know it, and I also made clear we do not know everything about it
If gravity actually existed, we could have detected the graviton and unified the forces of physics already. But that didn't happen. And rather than having a quantum form of the equation of gravity, instead, we have to use classic physics and the inverse-square law of gravity. That's because gravity isn't a force. It's a warping effect caused by mass. But not a force.
jump up, you will come down, gravity exists your talking about theories of Gravity I agree, gravity could be from another dimension, an effect caused by the warping of space by mass, many theories, but we know it exists as it affects us in real life just like we know an expansion happened, we do not know what made it expand or what happened before the expansion, many theories again, I never said it was a force, or that it was gravitons
