This statement is true...but I think your critique of SithLord's use of the word "know" is unjustified...

These are reasonable connotations, I don't really see a problem here..."know" and "think" differ in the degree of confidence we have in an inference...

Ask a physics professor if we "know" quantum mechanics is right, and they will tell you YES...do we unequivocally without any doubt whatsoever know that quantum mechanics is absolutely correct?  DOESN'T MATTER...we have enough evidence to say that we, for all intents and purposes, know the model is correct, and it is understood that further evidence may change what we "know"...

Gravitation, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, the standard model...take your pick, they are all based on theory, and to insist we can't "know" if a theory is right or not is just silly...if you are going to insist on absolute certainty then really no use of the word "know" is justified...everything we "know" is based on inferring from observations, and if that wasn't good enough then we would never get anywhere with anything....

That something is defined as a theory is not enough to "dismiss it until further evidence" or insist "one must say we think instead of we know"...I will grant that the Big Bang is more in question than something like QM or the Standard Model, and that is an acceptable reason to insist that we think, rather than know...but that it is a theory alone is not enough to question the word usage...

For example, I know I am a human being. I have never tested it. I've never had anyone look at my DNA and verified 'yep, that thar be human'. I only have alot of circumstancial evidence. I look like other humans. I have human ailments and tendancies. I was born (or so I'm told. I wasnt actually there to witness it), and have aged like other humans. This may sound silly, but it gets to the heart of our view points. From your perspective you/I dont 'know' anything. May as well get rid of the word because nothing is certain enough to qualify.

But, let us take the advice of Selueceia. You seem to want to call into question particular parts of the 'Big Bang Theory' (which, to be honest isnt any 1 theory. It's a category of science at this point). I am interested to hear what parts you disagree with or find a lack of credibility.

I will now dissect that last post; please feel free to point out specific points you would either like elaboration on or doubt  the credibility of.

Ok, maybe my explanation was too brief on this. The galaxies are moving away from each other, and in all directions. To visualize this, imagine dots placed on a balloon that is then inflated. The dots move away from each other in all directions. And just so I'm clear: You can say the galaxies are moving if you so choose (though you would be hard-pressed to explain their motion strictly from this view). You can also say the galaxies are not moving and they appear to move simply because the space between them expanded. Both views are true depending on your point of view.

I also didnt bring up Redshift in my explaination, and I should have. I'm sorry for that. Now, light from very far galaxies has been shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Red light has a longer wave length. So, the light from these far off galaxies has been 'stretched' to resemble redder light. This directly correlates with the distance to such a galaxy. The light itself has only traversed empty space. Therefore, space has stretched the light as it traveled.

Even your idea that the galaxies are just moving suggests a big bang; it is an extremely simple idea (part of it's beauty). Now as for the final part of that sentence... everything we can see, touch, and measure are, in fact, the logical result of the such a process. Now, I can agree that time isn't necessarily a part of that. The standard big bang models don't touch time. The only thing we know about time for certain is that it is wrapped up with space, and both are heavily affected by the presence of energy/matter. Time slows down, in effect, when there is enough matter. Well, you have all the matter of the universe concentrated in a small area. It's way more than enough to rip a hole in space and stop time. To be frank though, this is an open area of science with lots of competing ideas, and no mathmatically rigorous support. You need quantum mechanics and general relativity in 1 framework, and no one knows how to do that yet.

Well, it depends on your point of view to some extent, and there is no consensus on whether the universe is infinite or not. We certainly dont see an edge, but it could very well be beyond our ability to see (due to expansion). I also saw a few months back a mathematical theory that started with one dimension, supposed expansion of that dimension, and a stable 4 dimensional world was created as a result. I would guess that the first dimension would be time, but I dont know much more about the idea.

There are certainly theories derived from the Big Bang theory that have such qualities... and some that dont.

What you seem to be implying is that scientists constructed a train and put some sort of rudementry O2 sensor on the train, ran it in an automated way at speeds exceeding 30 mph, and the results showed a lack of sufficient oxygen on the train during the 30+ mph part of the trip. I highly doubt such an experiment was performed. As such, I will claim this 'knowledge' to be superstition, which is the antithesis of science and, really, knowledge.

And don't forget HHGTTG .... those pan-galactic beings only appeared as white mice.....

...to us....

So, you're saying people should be more scientific then? I agree.

I disagree. I have had many discussions with many people. The result is they have learned something they didnt know before, and I understand what I already knew in a deeper context. Look at this thread, it's gone on for quite a long while and no one seems to be any worse for the wear.

I, for one, am of the opinion that more discussions like this should be occurring throughout society. There should not be 5 channels of news coverage on the pros and cons of getting a Beiber-haircut or whatever it is up there this week. Sure, everyone is different and for some that might be the most interesting thing in the world. But I think the overall goal should be to increase the intelligence level of our discussions. I would, in fact, pay to watch a well versed scientist discuss things with someone else similar to the way Sin-Imperium and I discussed things here.

Gee...that's quite a telling statement....

You teach...others only learn.

It must be great to be on top of the cerebral woodpile....

Probably time for me to stop being 'learned'....and just go back to policing threads....

Nice quotes.

Lol, I think this is from the tv show Farscape.

That's entirely possible... I did pull it from a wiki quote site, and people attempt to 'sneak things through' all the time.

On the other hand, I've caught Sci-fi shows stealing lines from quotes as well; In Battlestar Galactica (the new one), the Engineer-guy (forget his name at the moment) is trying to organize a strike and quotes Mario Savio's "Operation of the Machine" speech line for line.

Almost all of the others I have read from other sources. The "we are at the very begining of the.." quote i dont recognize either, but it looked interesting. I'd almost want to quote the whole 'cargo-cult science' speech he gave, but I'll just settle for the hyper-link.

Which is a similar but subtly different take on the same theme.

Everyone is.

Man!   You two, The SithLord guy and SINPERIUM, are you studying physics in college or something??

I don't understand why those atom/particle things are "huge breakthroughs". Seems like babysteps to me.

I was expecting a "huge breakthrough" would be when they know how to build a CPU that works in a quantum computer.

A friend of mine once told me that water boils at 98 - 102C though science says it boils at 100C (though he didn't mention if it was in the same place as I just read read that the boilingpoint depends on the height.

Hi Campaigner.

I just read science stuff a lot and have since I was a kid.  No genius here.

But as to what a real 'breakthrough" is depends on how you view it.

Computers now are on the order of 200x more powerful than they were less than half a dozen years back and are coming up on 1000-2000x.  You can say, "So computers or faster--so what?"  but here's what they are already producing:

• We're approaching real-time micro-climate prediction--predicting tornadoes before they spawn.
• Developing means to predict volcanic eruptions and earthquakes with better accuracy.
• Developing "meta-materials" that don't exist in nature but allow things like the construction of circuits and switches a quantum computer will need, materials that are invisible to microwaves or heat or sound--or even visible light.
• Modeling genomes, DNA, viruses, bacteria, enzymes and molecular structures so we can learn how to turn off cancer cells or stop aging--all of these areas have had multiple breakthroughs in just the past few years simply becasue of increased computing power and at cheaper prices.  We've developed new medical techniques and drugs as a result.
• When the laser was theorized, it was an "invention waiting a use".  No one had any really good ideas of what to do with it.  Lasers now are what we have used to make physics breakthroughs, fabricate meta-materials and run all sorts of devices.
• When we start putting out the first quantum computers they will be much the same.  Simple ones already exist and there is a lot of debate about what they will actually be effective for.  What's not in doubt is they offer a way to get answers on a scale and speed impossible with what we use today.  They also get those answers in a very different way than a classical computer--which means we may start finding avenues of discovery we didn't even know existed.

Basically, quantum machines will give us whole new areas of knowledge and multiply what we are already capable of without them.  It's exciting and terrifying at the same time.

Here's a sample of something we can almost do right now...

Imagine police being given a pair of polarized glasses or helmet visors as part of their standard uniforms.  The glasses connect with a quantum encrypted "wifi" (it may be far more than this) signal to a central database and "mother computer".  Every face and fingerprint and dna signature of every known criminal and suspect are at their disposal.

As they walk down the street, one of the persons crossing the officer's field of view in a large crowd is suddenly outlined in his visor.  He blinks and a ten year old warrant and criminal history of the suspect is displayed.  He blinks again and his visor shows him the level of wariness and aggression of his suspect and tells him if he's watching the officer.  The officer whispers a report to HQ and thermal and aural sensors in his clothing activate--giving a heat image and sound recording of everything happening.  His helmet camera begins recording in the visual spectrum and transmitting as well.  Simultaneously, he's given automated advisement on what the best method is with which to approach the suspect.

The officer grabs and cuffs the suspect and meta-materials in his visor allow him to zoom in as he views the hands and eyes of his suspect--retinal and fingerprint ID confirm he is the right the right person. A pair of cuffs looking like soft rope but made of titanium are twined around the suspect's wrists and he is tethered to a nearby lamppost.  The officer files a verbal report and continues his beat while a squad car is dispatched to pick up the suspect.  A computer has already filed for additional warrants and a court date and also provided a time analysis of the officer's performance.

Nothing I wrote above is far fetched--it's all practically possible already.  So this is sort of "breakthrough stuff".

I think quantum computers will force social and psychological evolution--potentially in catastrophic ways.  We mostly don't believe in "evil people" anymore.  We don't ponder what a "new Hitler" might be like.  A Pol Pot, Mao or Stalin with the sort of emerging technologies we can see would be a nightmare for humanity.  Cheaper and more powerful tech also means the chance of a small group or individual causing enormous damage to societies, cultures and nations becomes more and more possible as well.

Gives a whole new meaning to a bank opening a new branch.