http://spaceindustrynews...ons-paper-explains/3945/

about time

I'm not too fond of this kind of theoretical tea leaves reading any more. They probably have to revise major parts of the whole origin of the universe theories and now they wanna tell me, that they can tell me that
We need to find a few really good and serious alternative theories, test them with available observation and then try to find methods that could disprove them.
Where is the research that tries to disprove the big bang in a serious manner? It's a bit like making a puzzle, finding a small part of the picture, deciding "it's shows a grey tree" and then later insisting on this interpretation, despite looking more and more like an elefant while the picture grows.
For example Darwin's theory of evolution is pretty sound by now, because all kinds of people tried to disprove it from all directions! The theory exists until today, not because everyone insists that it must be true, but because nobody managed to disprove it with good reason. And all new observations fittet neatly in the theoretical framework, adding better understanding. Darwin would probably be amazed by the development of our understanding of nature and history on this planet, on base of his theory.
The physicists are just getting ever more confused, because their grey tree begins to grow tusks and ears and everyone puts all available effort into finding evidence of the roots (dark matter...), that their theoretical tree is suppossed to have!
I think Newton and Einstein would be very much ashamed of this lack of insight into todays amazing observations.

Sorry for the offtopic, but the point is: some change in a blurry radiopicture with the errors bigger than the actual data is supposed to be evidence for universes? Sounds stupid!

I don't have a better explanation, but I just wished that some of the really great minds we have in physics today, would be allowed to try to find them!

can you edit your post? we can't click the link when its in the code thing

until then, heres the link for folks to click :]
http://spaceindustrynews...ons-paper-explains/3945/


btw there is a similar discussion here where people are compiling links (including that one) that you might find interesting

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=51219

nicita, i agree with some of your points

and in any case it always seems that our picture of reality is in a constant state of flux, and that at any given time we know very very little. Not to mention that its nearly impossible for peoples theories to take into account all of the new data coming in everyday, and adjust their ideas accordingly.

It seems like a lot of people *coughmyoldastronomyprofessorcough* like to act as if we pretty much have the full picture of the origin and future death of the universe, and how it works in general... and that there are just a few minor holes in our picture here and there which will be filled in due time, but surely nothing that will re-write any major facet of it. Some don't seem to really follow the incoming data, because it is constantly re-shaping how we think the universe works, and often in big ways.

i can't help but feel that a loaded dmt pipe would help a lot of folks in these sorts of fields

Mandatory phisics introduction practicum: DMT 101

how do tryptamines elaborate on gravitational interference on background microwave "radiation"?