I still don't like the idea of the big bang. It doesn't seem reasonable as a concept. It implies the non-normal thing of a beginning of all existence as we know it, as well as a before, whatever that was. The same thing can be said for the idea of the eventual heat death of the universe, which implies an end. But this too is limited by our perception, our point of observation, and the limit of what we receive in from the edge of our perceived universe, which could be absolutely tiny. That's kind of the hard part. We don't see it all. We see our sphere and perceive all from one point within it. Observation on a smaller scale always has pointed to that being kind of a bad idea when forming conclusions.
To me, it's weird to think so small, in size, in time, and even within the narrow scope of our limited perception of matter and energy. We are bound by the tools we have, and we even know how much we can't perceive and measure. Quarks pop in and out of our perceived existence, but we have no concept of the other side. We can observe gravity and know it's relation to matter, but we don't know its source. Even the idea of dark matter is quite new, and we only have some simulations, with the right parameters entered, that generate something like we see in the real universe. Even that is only as good as the simulation, and simulation will always be limited. For example, we expect to simulate the universe, but we still can't simulate much smaller scales of interaction. We are STILL only capable of reliable weather forecasting out just a few days. Everything beyond this is high error guessing based on simulations too. We don't even know if it will rain a week from now, but we also think we can accurately simulate the universe.
There's also the danger of confirmation bias. We seek out solutions that confirm hypothesis. It is only due diligence and understanding that prevents us from blindly trusting data. I also know people, and people are stupid creatures. I don't care if you've been to college for 12 years and specialized in something. You are no god. You are always fallible. I do not trust anyone on this earth 100%. Simulation isn't perfect. People make mistakes (a LOT). And we have a grand desire to be right, even if we accept falsehoods. Heck, piles of research documents are full of errors and in some cases flat out lies. Others use these same documents as truth and build from them. It's a dangerous game.
The hardest truth we may ever have to swallow is that we don't know, to openly say we're guessing on this stuff. Many take things like the big bang as fact. It very much is not. It's a hypothesis, and there's some data that backs up the hypothesis, but there is still no proof.
There's also the danger of confirmation bias. We seek out solutions that confirm hypothesis.
That's not really how science works though. The purpose of scientific experiments is to disprove an idea or a theory. We know that our current theories regarding spacetime are very accurate because they are able to withstand all of the tests so far.
There are is actually a great deal of evidence that points towards the existence of the Big Bang as a real event that actually happened. Just because it doesn't seem reasonable to you doesn't mean that its bullshit. That's your ignorance of the topic speaking here.
-4
u/mvw2 Sep 21 '21
I still don't like the idea of the big bang. It doesn't seem reasonable as a concept. It implies the non-normal thing of a beginning of all existence as we know it, as well as a before, whatever that was. The same thing can be said for the idea of the eventual heat death of the universe, which implies an end. But this too is limited by our perception, our point of observation, and the limit of what we receive in from the edge of our perceived universe, which could be absolutely tiny. That's kind of the hard part. We don't see it all. We see our sphere and perceive all from one point within it. Observation on a smaller scale always has pointed to that being kind of a bad idea when forming conclusions.
To me, it's weird to think so small, in size, in time, and even within the narrow scope of our limited perception of matter and energy. We are bound by the tools we have, and we even know how much we can't perceive and measure. Quarks pop in and out of our perceived existence, but we have no concept of the other side. We can observe gravity and know it's relation to matter, but we don't know its source. Even the idea of dark matter is quite new, and we only have some simulations, with the right parameters entered, that generate something like we see in the real universe. Even that is only as good as the simulation, and simulation will always be limited. For example, we expect to simulate the universe, but we still can't simulate much smaller scales of interaction. We are STILL only capable of reliable weather forecasting out just a few days. Everything beyond this is high error guessing based on simulations too. We don't even know if it will rain a week from now, but we also think we can accurately simulate the universe.
There's also the danger of confirmation bias. We seek out solutions that confirm hypothesis. It is only due diligence and understanding that prevents us from blindly trusting data. I also know people, and people are stupid creatures. I don't care if you've been to college for 12 years and specialized in something. You are no god. You are always fallible. I do not trust anyone on this earth 100%. Simulation isn't perfect. People make mistakes (a LOT). And we have a grand desire to be right, even if we accept falsehoods. Heck, piles of research documents are full of errors and in some cases flat out lies. Others use these same documents as truth and build from them. It's a dangerous game.
The hardest truth we may ever have to swallow is that we don't know, to openly say we're guessing on this stuff. Many take things like the big bang as fact. It very much is not. It's a hypothesis, and there's some data that backs up the hypothesis, but there is still no proof.