Personally I think it prophetic that this comes from a 42 year old stripper and redefines the universe as a giant data processor. Perhaps this a froody dude who really knows where his towel is. It also possible that one day it will print out the ultimate question.
Maybe then it will make me a decent cup of tea.
3 Likes
Hey rknop -
I donāt know that an overenthusiastic article by a TV writer and stripper and admitted crackpot necessarily enthrones ignorance. Thereās no danger that Iāll have a Jenny McCarthy effect on society. And thereās not much danger in saying that the Big Bang is a young theory subject to modifications based on new discoveries. I got a little out-of-hand in saying what I think those modifications might be without further stating that these are my wild speculations.
Yeah. The article starts with interesting factual statements, moves to identification of real problems with current theory, then proceeds to declarative statements of what WILL be discovered based largely conjecture, and then wraps up in full crackpot stoner mode about the nature of the universe.
1 Like
Theory. At this point it appears to be a hypothesis.
Edit
Heh, the words hypothesis, theory, and law are catnip to us pedants 
2 Likes
I think āenthroning ignoranceā is a tad hyperbolic, and if I applied the same standard you are applying to articles on the front page of BB in my realms of expertise Iād never leave my computer.
Yes, these things are important. And yes, they will be sorted out. But the ad hominems are the opposite of constructive.
1 Like
Itās not a joke. I find it very disturbing some people think itās a joke considering the many problems and inconsistencies with the big bang theory. Itās like that theory has became beyond criticism and this is the realm of dogmatism not science.
2 Likes
If you can demonstrate that Rosnerās ātheoryā resolves those āproblems and inconsistenciesā and is a better explanation for the observations which have led to some form of the Big Bang being the dominant model of origins (or at the very least modifies the B.B. theory in a useful way), why, then you might be on to something. Note that hand-waving musings indistinguishable from late-night college stoner sessions will be insufficient for this purpose; a rigorous defense will be required.
Big Bang? No way!!! We all know that the Giant turtle holds the great pumpkin that has the Big Apple inside it, where the universal internet spreads information everywhere !!!
And Big Bang is an atomic explosion, that creates global warming, allowin carvivores to open Calves bowels without mercy, in order to eat their guts in McDonalds hamburgers,
It depends on where.
Nope. Acording to Quantum theory, Where and when exist at the same time. To be and not to be.
The Infinite Monkey Cage: When Quantum Goes Woo --9 Feb 2015
So yeah-- thereās interesting work in this field, but thereās a lot of hogwash as well. Do be sure that you arenāt paying attention to the hogwash.
1 Like
Hey jerwin -
Sometimes itās tough to tell the legit from the hogwash. I take a zillion vitamins and supplements, knowing that 2/3rds of these will eventually be shown to be useless. But itās hard to know which 2/3rds. Until a few months ago, dietary cholesterol was the devil. Now nutritionists are saying itās no big deal.
Theories donāt survive unchanged. Newtonās gravity - clean, simple, essential theory, subject to modification in non-everyday instances. General relativity - elegant, essential theory, subject to eventual modification to mesh with quantum mechanics. Some theoretical hogwash may turn out to be true. You can be aware of it without believing it.
Over the past century, thereās been a bunch of out-there theorizing over the role of conscious observers in the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Knowing about the theories doesnāt mean you have to buy them.
āIt depends on whereā was a reply in jest to:
I have a tattoo that reads BORN TO DO MATH, if that counts for anything.
1 Like
OK, so you really clicked on the link to this post expecting a resolution to the āproblems and inconsistenciesā faced by Big Bang theory, explained with full scientific rigour?
No wonder you were disappointed. You must be very disappointed a lot of the time, I think you might need to recalibrate your expectations.
Iām reading Boing Boing. Late night college stoner session is fine.
2 Likes
Obviously not. I did expect, however, to see some indication that the heavy lifting had been done in another context, and that the result had been subjected to at least cursory vetting by a party with some amount of scientific expertise. Thatās the bare minimum acceptable for a blog post on a scientific topic if the author hopes to be taken seriously, even at BoingBoing, which has had a mostly admirable history in posting about S&T. Since in this thread he has effectively walked back his statements by self-identifying as a crackpot, however, I can see that being taken seriously was never Rosnerās intention. And thatās cool, I suppose. But then can the grandiosity in the headline.
The major complaints here seem to be that the headline wrote cheques the story couldnāt cash, and that the story was complete bullshit.
And yet many commenters making these criticisms by and large seem to accept that the early part of the story identifies significant issues with the dominant account of the big bang.
I guess we ended up with some pretty wild speculation about the fundamental nature of the universe, but every suggested alternative to the big bang I have heard involves some pretty wild speculation, even the stuff that can conceivably be tested. Its college stoner sessions all round.
I donāt know. It was an entertaining 5 minutes of my life spent musing on the big picture, that tied in with a lot of other commentary Iāve been reading about indicating that the big bang is, indeed, going down.
Iām finding all the hand wringing about scientific rigour and clickbait a little hard to swallow. I doubt science has suffered any damage from this article whatsoever, and the people here identifying as knowledgeable in the area are settling for ad hominem arguments rather than engaging in what could be a really fascinating discussion.
3 Likes
Ya, screw the punkers. Itās still science to us.
Re. your response, doesnāt that fit just what I was saying? We get to a point where we canāt see more, and then declare that thereās nothing more to see. If, or when, we see past the CMB, weāll just move the goalposts out a bit, and again say: āThatās all, folks.ā
I suspect thereās a lot more where all this came from.
1 Like
Let me see if I understand thisā¦ They found a flaw in the big bang theory because they caught 42 year old strippers claiming to be 18? Damn, son, I could have invalidated that theory for you years ago!
2 Likes
Elmer -
Hold on, dang it. Of course Iām a crackpot - look at my employment history. But that doesnāt mean I think Iām wrong or that I donāt want to be taken seriously. Odds are low, but you can be a crackpot and right about things. Look at that crackpot SOB Alfred Wegener and his goofy theory of continental drift. The continents fit together? Cāmon! Oh, and heās dead at age 50. Sorry, dead dude, you were right.
I even wrote an article about being a crackpot which includes a list of amateurs who turned out to be competent scientific thinkers.
Mostly wanted to call dibs on whatās gonna happen in cosmology - the discovery of heretofore hidden complexity in the (apparently) early universe (at the very least, a profusion of old-ass collapsed matter), the realization that the Big Bang isnāt the beginning of everything, the rise of an information-processing-based perspective on the structure and mechanics of the universe.
Uverse: āSo whatās wrong with me, Doc?ā
Doc: āOk, so you know how your brain is made of billions of filaments, all connected to each other and transmitting and transforming information between each other, right?ā
Uverse: āMmm Iāll take your word for it Doc.ā
Doc: āHeh, right. Well on one of these filaments, on one of itās cells, on one tiny particle making up that cell, a new form of life has evolved.ā
Uverse: āWhat?! What are you talking about? What is that supposed to mean? Am I infected?ā
Doc: āNo, not exactly. They are much too small to cause any problems.ā
Uverse: āYeah, but why do I keep hearing THOSE WORDS?ā
Doc: āIt seems they are sending out tiny radio signals and you are picking up some of those signals. Just enjoy it.ā
Uverse: āEnjoy it? Enjoy it?! But what does it mean?! YOUāRE MOVIN WITH YOUR AUNTIE AND UNCLE IN BEL AIR?!ā
2 Likes
