Page 3 of 3
Re: Origin of the Universe
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:39 pm
by Fred the Cat
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:01 am
saturno2 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 11:34 pm
I read a news:
Bruno Bento, researcher at the departament of mathematical scienses at the University of Liverpool, England, states that," perhaps, ( in the Universe), there was not even a beginning"
Proposes an infinite past and sees the Big Bang as one more event " in a cosmos that has always existed".
I was happy to read this news.
This means that I am not alone in stating that the Universe did not have an absolute origin, and that the Universe has always existed.
When he proposes it in a peer reviewed journal and supports it with evidence, it will mean something. (He is a student whose research interests are all centered on speculative stuff without evidenciary support, not necessarily even rising the the level of scientific theory.)
Speculation is natural and a good start for later stages of theory. Perhaps, periodically, it flips from inverse to an
un-inverse.
It has a nice symmetry though one too many “n’s”.
Re: Origin of the Universe
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:53 pm
by Chris Peterson
Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:39 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:01 am
saturno2 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2024 11:34 pm
I read a news:
Bruno Bento, researcher at the departament of mathematical scienses at the University of Liverpool, England, states that," perhaps, ( in the Universe), there was not even a beginning"
Proposes an infinite past and sees the Big Bang as one more event " in a cosmos that has always existed".
I was happy to read this news.
This means that I am not alone in stating that the Universe did not have an absolute origin, and that the Universe has always existed.
When he proposes it in a peer reviewed journal and supports it with evidence, it will mean something. (He is a student whose research interests are all centered on speculative stuff without evidenciary support, not necessarily even rising the the level of scientific theory.)
Speculation is natural and a good start for later stages of theory. Perhaps, periodically, it flips from inverse to an
un-inverse.
It has a nice symmetry though one too many “n’s”.
Consensus is one of the most important parts of science and the scientific method, though. Speculation is for experts. Starting with a conclusion and then cherry picking for evidence that peripherally supports it is not scientific, and is unlikely to lead to accurate understanding.
Re: Origin of the Universe
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:39 pm
by Fred the Cat
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:53 pm
Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:39 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:01 am
When he proposes it in a peer reviewed journal and supports it with evidence, it will mean something. (He is a student whose research interests are all centered on speculative stuff without evidenciary support, not necessarily even rising the the level of scientific theory.)
Speculation is natural and a good start for later stages of theory. Perhaps, periodically, it flips from inverse to an
un-inverse.
It has a nice symmetry though one too many “n’s”.
Consensus is one of the most important parts of science and the scientific method, though. Speculation is for experts. Starting with a conclusion and then cherry picking for evidence that peripherally supports it is not scientific, and is unlikely to lead to accurate understanding.
I agree but even the experts had to start
somewhere.
Re: Origin of the Universe
Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:41 pm
by Chris Peterson
Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:39 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:53 pm
Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:39 pm
Speculation is natural and a good start for later stages of theory. Perhaps, periodically, it flips from inverse to an
un-inverse.
It has a nice symmetry though one too many “n’s”.
Consensus is one of the most important parts of science and the scientific method, though. Speculation is for experts. Starting with a conclusion and then cherry picking for evidence that peripherally supports it is not scientific, and is unlikely to lead to accurate understanding.
I agree but even the experts had to start
somewhere.
I wasn't making any objection to
your comment here!
Re: Origin of the Universe
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:34 pm
by Fred the Cat
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:41 pm
Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:39 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 3:53 pm
Consensus is one of the most important parts of science and the scientific method, though. Speculation is for experts. Starting with a conclusion and then cherry picking for evidence that peripherally supports it is not scientific, and is unlikely to lead to accurate understanding.
I agree but even the experts had to start
somewhere.
I wasn't making any objection to
your comment here!
Thank you for the clarity you offer to all of us. You class is bigger than just the students in school. We've all had teachers that changed our lives and pushed us to think better.
Re: Origin of the Universe
Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:36 pm
by Chris Peterson
Fred the Cat wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:34 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:41 pm
I wasn't making any objection to
your comment here!
Thank you for the clarity you offer to all of us. You class is bigger than just the students in school. We've all had teachers that changed our lives and pushed us to think better.
Thank you. For me, nothing is more amazing than the way nature works, and how much we are able to understand its rules (even if somewhat broadly at times). That's a beauty I feel compelled to share.