Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[Subduction Zone]

The Big Bang theory made predictions that were not known at that time. The biggest prediction was that a cosmic background radiation would be detected. They even predicted roughly what its temperature would be. That prediction was a test of the theory since we were able to detect that radiation. It was very close to the prediction. If it was wrong it would have meant that the theory was wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I would hear the bang if someone recreated it lol

Very funny. There was no "bang". That name actually came from a detractor. It was adopted partially as a way of rubbing his nose in his error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What falsifies set theory?

What falsifies thermodynamics?

Set theory is not a scientific theory. It is a mathematical one. And thermodynamics is more of an observation than a theory, but observing a nonconservation of energy would falsify it.

 

[Noxot]

what about m theory and string theory? aren't they just maths?

p.s. I hope they don't try to replicate the big bang, i'm scared that humans will heat up part of space too hot and then some unknown thing will happen like some other part of the universe rips through into our normal stabilized universe or heat at a certain point alters the laws of physics in a way that ruins our universe or at least our planet.

some say that past the plank limit we would find time is scattered so who the heck knows what would happen if you make the universe too different than what it currently is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

what about m theory and string theory? aren't they just maths?

p.s. I hope they don't try to replicate the big bang, i'm scared that humans will heat up part of space too hot and then some unknown thing will happen like some other part of the universe rips through into our normal stabilized universe or heat at a certain point alters the laws of physics in a way that ruins our universe or at least our planet.

some say that past the plank limit we would find time is scattered so who the heck knows what would happen if you make the universe too different than what it currently is.

Properly speaking I do not think either is a theory yet. Until they are testable they are mere conjectures. That is also why there is a fair amount of controversy about these subjects.


And events do not need to be repeated to test those events. So no worries there.

 

[pat34lee]

Set theory is not a scientific theory. It is a mathematical one. And thermodynamics is more of an observation than a theory, but observing a nonconservation of energy would falsify it.

Like stars forming out of gases in open space?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like stars forming out of gases in open space?

Yep, we know what causes that. It is called "gravity".

 

[Astrophile]

Like stars forming out of gases in open space?

Stars actually form out of gases in cold dense interstellar molecular clouds. This is a matter of both observation and theory. As you can see from pictures of the Milky Way, for example in Cygnus, in Scorpius and Ophiuchus, and in the Coalsack in Crux, we observe the dense interstellar molecular clouds as dark nebulae silhouetted against the bright Milky Way. We also observe young stars (massive OB stars, T Tauri stars and Herbig Ae-Be stars) concentrated in areas of dark and bright nebulae, indicating that the stars have formed from the dense interstellar clouds.

As for the theory, Sir James Jeans (1877-1946) established the stability conditions for an interstellar cloud, and, in particular, the minimum mass (the 'Jeans mass') above which the cloud will collapse under its own gravitational attraction. See Jeans instability - Wikipedia and Jeans, J.H. (1902), 'The Stability of a Spherical Nebula', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 199: 1-53. If you can read the paper and refute Jeans's calculation, let me know; better still, submit your own paper to Philosophical Transactions and explain to them why Jeans was wrong.

 

[Tinker Grey]

9-23-17 but let's give it to Oct 1, since Sept. 30 is the Day of Atonement. If nothing starts by then, then my daughter will be married on Oct. 4th and I will celebrate for more than her marriage. I will be pleased if I don't see the wrath of God in my lifetime and pleased if I was wrong - thank you very much. I will also be 62 in November so would like to also enjoy a decade or so of retirement. Oh, I will openly apologize for being misleading and wrong about my interpretations.

So I given it till almost Thanksgiving. Did we get an apology? Did I miss it?

 

[Ronald]

So I given it till almost Thanksgiving. Did we get an apology? Did I miss it?

My daughter got married, I'll be 62 next week and make it to Thanksgiving. I started a thread where I made a statement: REVELATION 12:1, A Sign in the Heavens

 

[ruthiesea]

I would agree to an extent. Scientists have always had doubts about evolution. It is whether they want to accept or state those doubts as there is too much at stake for voicing their concerns. Many professors lose their jobs just for stating doubts & criticism towards evolution.

That would be for stating doubts about evolution based on religious beliefs and not on scientifically valid evidence or methodology. Rejecting science is something that a person who teaches science probably should not do.

 

[ruthiesea]

Very funny. There was no "bang". That name actually came from a detractor. It was adopted partially as a way of rubbing his nose in his error.

Correct. It was not big because nothing existed with which to compare it and there was no bang because there was nothing in existence to carry sound waves.

 

[Tinker Grey]

My daughter got married, I'll be 62 next week and make it to Thanksgiving. I started a thread where I made a statement: REVELATION 12:1, A Sign in the Heavens

Well, I can't "quote" from there, but here's the link: REVELATION 12:1, A Sign in the Heavens

The relevant bit appears to be

I will admit that I misunderstood and misinterpreted these End Time prophecies and will leave it up to the rest of you to sort out. When it happens, it happens. There are so many views and I will soon contend that mine was wrong.

Good for you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Big Bang theory made predictions that were not known at that time. The biggest prediction was that a cosmic background radiation would be detected. They even predicted roughly what its temperature would be. That prediction was a test of the theory since we were able to detect that radiation. It was very close to the prediction. If it was wrong it would have meant that the theory was wrong.

It was predicted closer to the mark by those that simply used the reflected light from dust in space. The original prediction by proponents of the Big Bang were 47 degrees off the mark.

Those simply using thermal emissions first predicted 5.3k, those under the Big Bang first predicted 50k.

Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

Plus the radiation has nothing to do with cosmic background radiation, it is foreground radiation emitted as the solar wind comes to an almost complete stop in a 360 degree sphere at the suns heliosphere. It is this discovery which falsified every solar formation model we had.

Heliosphere - Wikipedia

“The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region.”

So theory couldn’t even get things right just next door cosmologically speaking, let alone claims of billions of light years distant.

Discovered after claims of the CMB and to date this radiation has not been accounted for. Which quantum electrodynamics and quantum mechanics demands that particle deceleration emit radiation equal to their acceleration.

I mean they couldn’t even see the “brightest thing in the sky” by a factor of two to three until we got a probe out there, so claims of foreground radiation being accounted for is null and void.

“Initial data from Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), launched in October 2008, revealed a previously unpredicted "very narrow ribbon that is two to three times brighter than anything else in the sky."”

Another unpredicted discovery falsifying their theory.

In actuality they removed the background radiation and left the radiation from the deceleration of the solar wind, which occurs in a 360 degree sphere at the suns heliosphere.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Stars actually form out of gases in cold dense interstellar molecular clouds. This is a matter of both observation and theory. As you can see from pictures of the Milky Way, for example in Cygnus, in Scorpius and Ophiuchus, and in the Coalsack in Crux, we observe the dense interstellar molecular clouds as dark nebulae silhouetted against the bright Milky Way. We also observe young stars (massive OB stars, T Tauri stars and Herbig Ae-Be stars) concentrated in areas of dark and bright nebulae, indicating that the stars have formed from the dense interstellar clouds.

As for the theory, Sir James Jeans (1877-1946) established the stability conditions for an interstellar cloud, and, in particular, the minimum mass (the 'Jeans mass') above which the cloud will collapse under its own gravitational attraction. See Jeans instability - Wikipedia and Jeans, J.H. (1902), 'The Stability of a Spherical Nebula', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 199: 1-53. If you can read the paper and refute Jeans's calculation, let me know; better still, submit your own paper to Philosophical Transactions and explain to them why Jeans was wrong.

No, stars form as plasma pinches along filamentary pathways. The observations actually falsifying the standard model of Star formation. Except the data also falsifies the Jeans mass limit, as large stars are forming not according to gravitational collapse models, but with significantly less mass than standard theory requires, along those filamentary pathways. Every model of Star formation under standard theory has been falsified. Now we just await for the astronomers and cosmologists to quit trying to tweak their epicycles and come back to real science in the light these discoveries shed.

Herschel views deep-space pearls on a cosmic string

 

[Ronald]

Well, I can't "quote" from there, but here's the link: REVELATION 12:1, A Sign in the Heavens

The relevant bit appears to be

Good for you.

When I'm wrong, Ill admit it. I learned that while being a parent. I used to apologize to her whenever I was wrong or to harsh. Its a good place to start practicing humility.
Still, I just saw a news report on the Yemen, the war causing famine - Saudi Sunnis are starving them ... Cholera epidemic ... People don't realize the turmoil in much of the Middle East - just sayin.