NOVA's Origins: Back to the Beginning

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, a well-known physicist, narrates a documentary on perhaps the most mind-blowing discovery of all time: a fourth-dimensional star could have collapsed and created the universe we've come to know. The Big Bang Theory (not to be confused with the moronic TV show which airs on primetime) provided an incentive to the origins of the universe, but now there could be something more.

Exploring the possibility of multiple dimensions and things we may consider "supernatural" could very well be explained or theorized in a way where more ideas will come our way. In the link below will give you a 53 minute movie to watch.

Click here and scroll down for the movie: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/p...utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=nova_next

 

Tyson is probably the most well known physicist in the public eye but they need to stop this nonsense about the past and stick to simply present and future. I like stuff with facts and not theories.

 

Science is all about facts. As for the theories behind some of the not-so completely answered inquiries, they come closer to fact due to finding some level of evidence to support those claims. It's not nonsense when revisiting certain things which are left unanswered. Anyone with a scientific brain would understand that and would not call all this nonsense at all.

 

It is nonsense. They make their pronouncements, then later on discover that some element of their theory doesn't make sense given new information or developments and then they release some new theory and so forth. Rinse and repeat. I have no issue with scientific discovery. I do however have an issue with non-believers being shunned. Guys like Tyson,Kaku, and Hawking's words are taken as gospel and subscribers to their ideas or the ideas that these guys are supporting will argue in support of them until they are blue in the face. I'd prefer if these geniuses put their resources and brain capital into solving the Fukushima crisis or perhaps solving basic traffic issues. Fix what can be fixed and save the theoretical BS for the weekends. Higher dimensions, to me, are nothing more than ideas that are utilized to solve real world problems.

 

:smt038 So much of the science community is taking all this extremely speculative shit way too seriously. It's no better than believing the high priests of a religion.

Multiverses? Dark energy? They basically just make shit up to fit holes in their theories

 

Theories are not facts. You or anyone else should not be presenting them to the public until you have actual proof because it would not be the first time that a theory was found to be false(Phlogiston Theory and Einstein's static universe.) Any one with a real scientific brain and understanding of history would be able to think back to theories that were found to be false. You can formulate them in private but do not present them to the public until you have actual proof. Too many people can wrongly interpret them as facts. When the next day, just like Einstein's static universe, they can be found as pure nonsense.

 

This thread proves how difficult it is to get black people to think about anything that isn't right in front of their (frequently ignorant) snouts.

 

ironic in that your comment is the most ignorant one in this thread :!:

the guys here are apparently thinking about it rather than just accepting whatever the "high priests" say

 

And what "stuff" would you be referring to?

 

Textbooks, media, and open forums

 

Would that include textbooks, media and open forums which discuss scientific theories?

 

The reason why people like Tyson, Kaku, and Hawkings are highly regarded is because they are individuals who are well-versed in these specific fields. Also, as scientists, there will always be room for improvement with each thing. Charles Darwin had some ideas relating to evolutionary theory which couldn't be put into practice, and yet decades later, almost all of his theories have been shown to be correct.

Instead of taking an intellectually dishonest position, I'd suggest you read into the field of science. People like the individuals mentioned have contributed to curb disasters like the Fukushima incidents, rivers, and also the known universe in case people might really want to explore beyond the universe. So, keep your anti-intellectualism to yourself if you cannot contribute to the thread.

False analogy, kiddo. Science isn't something based purely on speculation, in which many people falsely claim. There's a little thing called the scientific method, which helps provide factual information towards that scientific theory. Which is NOT the same as your everything usage of the word theory.

Your post is baffling and rubbish beyond reproach.

This is perhaps one of the dumbest posts I've seen in this thread and waste of binary too. First, I'll reiterate the difference between scientific theory and everyday usage of theory:

A scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for all observed results.

A common theory (as used in everyday language) is just a guess. ​

Do you understand what scientists usually have to undergo? As explain above, scientists would have to utilize this thing called the scientific method. I'm sure you remember this back in grade school. It's the pinnacle to prove something to be factual. It's not JUST a theory. Rather, a collection of information factually observed. Need a refresher? Here's a picture...

​

That's exactly how I feel. Being too quick to dismiss something as basic as scientific inquiry only shows that the black community is woefully ignorant on subject matter. Kind of ironic on archangel's part because he relies on certain theoretical ideas via his computer programming techniques.

 

I am more targeting books that are going to the public forums, media textbooks(textbooks at both public and private elementary, middle and high schools) where people do not have the education to question the theory. They can confuse the theory with fact or will simply conform to it.

I'm fine with textbooks discussing scientific theories for the folks who understand it and can question the credibility of it. I said my original post on the influence of what Tyson was doing. My comment would have been different if it was a room full of physicist to question the validity of the theory.

Ultimately, My concern is that people will not understand and/or will misinterpret the information. A theory can be proven wrong the next day or proven right. I'm not sure if the general public puts full thought into that. It can also undermine the public's trust in science. Too many wrong theories can eventually make them lose trust in the scientific community.

 

I think medullaslashin pointed out the irony already.


Computer programming techniques are all based on Facts. They are supplemented with labs to prove that they are facts. Many hard sciences do the same. If anything, it is the exact opposite. You have to prove things are facts on a computer. The computer basically evaluates if something is true or false.



"you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."- Stephen Hawking

 

Fam you're a programmer right?

 

yes

 

Going by your logic, theory of computation, information & coding theory, type theory, etc can be considered just a theory without hard facts. They also have been improved over time as technology has granted them greater grounds for improving measures.

So now you're just walking on egg shells if you quick to pick one are which you're familiar with and dismiss the other as just pure speculation.

Besides, I've already went through the folly of your usage of theory in my previous post.

 

Chomsky's Syntatic Structures, a theory-driven work, has had a profound effect on programming and computer science in general. I'm not sure of what you mean by "facts." It seems like you're attempting to establish certain things as irrefutably true, which oversimplifies all discourse as even the most universally accepted theories or laws are open to future revision.

 

:smt043

Would intellectualism help you piece together a coherent sentence?

you say my post was dumb yet you have no clue how stupid you sound in the statement above.. Poor fella. :smt010

i guess i shouldn't be cruel..

because a couple guys here are (wisely) skeptical of stuff like the "multiverse," the black community is "woefully ignorant".. Now that's scientific thinking!

You schooled us guy! Go beat your chest!

 

A pretty pathetic comeback if you cannot refute my other post, which was directed towards you and it's pretty damning still how you've equate scientific theory to a religious high priest telling people something. False equivalencies are truly your strong point, no?

Besides, it's one thing to be skeptical based on the notion of having some understanding as to why you are skeptical and not simply being skeptical on the sole basis of revisionism based on further factual data collected as our understanding of the universe (and perhaps multiverse for humor's sake) continues to improve.

Upholding skepticism based on intellectual dishonesty just makes the person seem all the more foolish and less of a wise person.