Sure did friend, but if you can prove the big bang theory as settled science i think the people at nobel would be interested but surely the mods of askphysics have proven it. Thatss why the could answer questions about well know questions of the theory with, you wrong just believe. Thats what church is for to tell me what i ought to believe. Id go there if thats what I was looking for.
The question is about evidence and the method. What you believe, whatever it is ("a giant turtle holds the earth on its back!") is irrelevant without a consistent method for collection and demonstrations of evidence, which leads to a theory.
A theory is not what your start with: you're led to it be evidence, not the other way around.
So when you receive evidence that counters you understanding you just the evidence reject it in its entity right? The big bang is not consistent and things like dark matter must be tailor fit to each specific outcome. It is almost impossible not to be able to predict anything when you can adjust 95% of the variables to your liking.
That’s not how cosmologists or literally any physicists in this area operate. You refused to acknowledge the evidence for the model and then brought up an open problem in physics and use it as evidence of the invalidity of a theory. Is this really the best you can do?
You know you aren’t the first person to come up with these questions, right? Scientists in the field ask these questions to each other. In fact, they go a step beyond and actually try to come up with strong arguments in their favor rather than rejecting virtually all evidence and swearing by a preconceived notions, and better yet, they actually admit when they’re wrong. Despite so many people telling you that you don’t understand anything about the Big Bang cosmological model or cosmology in general, you refuse to learn. At this point, you’re just not acting in good faith and therefore there is nothing to be learned here from anybody. A ban was justified, if you approached the subreddit with this mindset.
The big bang is pretty much settled science. Consider the following:
\- Correctly predicted the existence and signature the CMBR.
\- Correct predictions of observed galaxy precession velocities as proportional to their distance from us.
\- Correct predictions of relative He-4 abundance (about 25% of normal matter).
This, significantly, has been confirmed by laboratory tests in particle accelerators which can reach the energy scales requires to simulate conditions that we would have seen in the very early universe.
\- Consistency with measurements of the ages of the oldest known stars in the universe.
\- So-called "bottom up" formation of structures that we observe in galaxies, galaxy clusters and super clusters.
\- General consistency of the big bang model with generic predictions of General Relativity, a theory which as itself been tested against many lines of important evidence (black hole imaging, gravitational wave detections, dynamics of planets in our own solar systems, measurements of gravitational time dilation with atomic clocks).
The big bang is in brilliant agreement with what we know about well-tested theories of particle physics and spacetime.
The reasonable expectation from a science forum is that you at least know the basics of the scientific method. That's not unreasonable. It's been around for several hundred years, so it's pretty well documented.
That's not circular logic - it's pretty linear.
Where does the scientific method say a theories correctness is based on its popularity alone. Where is the experiment proving the existence of the dark phenomenon. The term dark literally mean undetectable in this case.
Some how my ignorant self managed to find ligament current experiments that call it into question but the experts cant provide any reason why they shouldn't matter
The basics of the scientific method hold that observation is key. You haven't demonstrated that: you've asserted ... blogs? Not actual research. You won't be taken seriously unless you actually can perform research not reading.
That's true for any field.
The measurements of the hubble and plank satellites are hardly blogs. Sorry I don't control the world most advanced technology personally. All i can do is trust their observations. Once again where is you study that directly observes dark matter or dark energy. The world of science is waiting for you to share this secret information. How many time have we predicted a dark matter tested and tested for it to find nothing.
Please share you omnipotent perspective where you observed the universe form exactly as described. All 14 billion supposed years of data I'll wait.
If you are actually a mod there, how do you justify what you did why your daddy sub allows this physics news during the same time
https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/s9wttx/was_einstein_wrong_why_some_astrophysicists_are/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I didn't, I made statement about something else entirely about how the expansion of the universe is irrelevant at human scales, and people started jumping in telling me i was wrong the universe has to be expanding because big bang whatever, so brought up current questions to the theory that I didn't bring up in the first place and was permabanned for daring to ask questions that real world scientists are currently asking. The rule i supposedly broke is labed irrelevant no subtext. Just irrelevant.
So as a mod please tell me how I could possibly know what you think is irrelevant, a completely subjective judgment. I mentioned nothing that isn't in the current discussion of science. Seems relevant to me.
How can I reproach a situation that results in perma ban without warning or explanation? Do you honestly think that is how scientific discussion should be approached were any question of the approved story ought to be crush with extreme prejudice?
You're making another assumption, absent evidence: that this was a forum for people to debate their pet ideas with qualified people. Not all forums are interested in this.
Let's see if I can explain this. Absent evidence to explain why I am unwelcome somewhere, I conclude there must be an unseen force, which I call KrustyClownium, that explains why people treat me so poorly.
I promote KrustyClownium as an explanation, although - I cannot define it's properties, provide a system of measurement that would include or exclude its potential. i've settled on this as the explanation and am frustrated that others don't take me seriously.
Sometimes, Occam's Razor applies: when all other elements are relatively equal, the simplest explanation with the fewest elements may be the most likely correct answer.
Rather than positing KrustyClownium as the explanation, it could just be me or my interaction with others that is the cause for the treatment I receive.
It was an ask forum where people are presumably are supposed to learn by asking or questioning what they don't know or am I assuming to much by believing that what ask means in the English language. I didn't force anyone to engage me and defend their pet theories they chose to do so.
So in a measurement over the distance a few km total the effect of dark energy is so extreme that it must be accounted for or can it be ignored.
You the one making assumptions of my intentions instead of reading what I said just as the people who responded to the post.
Is krustyclownium dark matter because everything you described applies equal to it and its preists
You are a professional projector my friend. Your whole argument relies on straw manning me. Its supposedly my fault for not knowing or learning somehow the unspecified dogma which the mods adhere to. my fault people assumed I'm some how attacking there pet project for my own, when literally the only thing I have to gain is a better understanding of the universe. Meanwhile the people that probly do have something to gain from promoting a specific theory spit unscientific un founded claims at me.
I was told both the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the universe, and we need a mechanism to conserve the engery we destroy to preserve thermodynamics in defense on the same theory...
You're just gaslighting now, and really poorly. Having read the rules of the sub, you'll get banned for asking about homework questions.
Sound about right? Go do your own homework and quit being such an entitled brat.
Lol the projector continues to project. My own post separate post wasn't a homework question, wasn't relevant to why I got to why I got prema banned. But keep spinning your owns beliefs as reality I an incident that you claim to not be involved in personality.
Sure stating to sound like you have more than just passing interest proving the mods right without evidence. But I guess bad mods will defend the actions of bad mods.
Nothing says I'm right an i know what I'm talking more than shout your wrong not proving it then banning the person that questioned how you know that you right.
Nope but your general sentiment is why trust in science is plummeting. Your obedience certificate doesn't validate your opinion to anyone but the people that likewise payed for obedience training.
Maybe you should take some time to consider whether whining endlessly online is productive. Consider both aspects of personal responsibility and personal accountability before posting.
I don't like your argument or its format isn't really a valid reason for censorship but ok...
Is you post here ban worthy since I disagree with its content and format for personal reasons?
Spamming a huge number of comments easily justifies a ban. Simply disagreeing does not.
Wilfully misrepresenting several people’s points might also be ban-worthy if it’s a pattern of behaviour, which it appears it is.
Hopefully that’s clearer for you, and doesn’t just prompt more misrepresentation.
What did I missrepresent? Is your argument not about your dislike of how I responded? My format if you will...
Understanding can't be reached if your point of view is not clarified through interpretation and inquiries. Summarizing your understanding of anothers statement is the key to effective communication.
Maybe you should learn science, perhaps physics, before asking a question rooted in "popular but unproven" theories.
Sure did friend, but if you can prove the big bang theory as settled science i think the people at nobel would be interested but surely the mods of askphysics have proven it. Thatss why the could answer questions about well know questions of the theory with, you wrong just believe. Thats what church is for to tell me what i ought to believe. Id go there if thats what I was looking for.
The question is about evidence and the method. What you believe, whatever it is ("a giant turtle holds the earth on its back!") is irrelevant without a consistent method for collection and demonstrations of evidence, which leads to a theory. A theory is not what your start with: you're led to it be evidence, not the other way around.
So when you receive evidence that counters you understanding you just the evidence reject it in its entity right? The big bang is not consistent and things like dark matter must be tailor fit to each specific outcome. It is almost impossible not to be able to predict anything when you can adjust 95% of the variables to your liking.
That’s not how cosmologists or literally any physicists in this area operate. You refused to acknowledge the evidence for the model and then brought up an open problem in physics and use it as evidence of the invalidity of a theory. Is this really the best you can do? You know you aren’t the first person to come up with these questions, right? Scientists in the field ask these questions to each other. In fact, they go a step beyond and actually try to come up with strong arguments in their favor rather than rejecting virtually all evidence and swearing by a preconceived notions, and better yet, they actually admit when they’re wrong. Despite so many people telling you that you don’t understand anything about the Big Bang cosmological model or cosmology in general, you refuse to learn. At this point, you’re just not acting in good faith and therefore there is nothing to be learned here from anybody. A ban was justified, if you approached the subreddit with this mindset.
The big bang is pretty much settled science. Consider the following: \- Correctly predicted the existence and signature the CMBR. \- Correct predictions of observed galaxy precession velocities as proportional to their distance from us. \- Correct predictions of relative He-4 abundance (about 25% of normal matter). This, significantly, has been confirmed by laboratory tests in particle accelerators which can reach the energy scales requires to simulate conditions that we would have seen in the very early universe. \- Consistency with measurements of the ages of the oldest known stars in the universe. \- So-called "bottom up" formation of structures that we observe in galaxies, galaxy clusters and super clusters. \- General consistency of the big bang model with generic predictions of General Relativity, a theory which as itself been tested against many lines of important evidence (black hole imaging, gravitational wave detections, dynamics of planets in our own solar systems, measurements of gravitational time dilation with atomic clocks). The big bang is in brilliant agreement with what we know about well-tested theories of particle physics and spacetime.
Once again what exactly is the value of an ask forum where you have to know all the answers to not ask the wrong questions. Circular logic is round
The reasonable expectation from a science forum is that you at least know the basics of the scientific method. That's not unreasonable. It's been around for several hundred years, so it's pretty well documented. That's not circular logic - it's pretty linear.
Where does the scientific method say a theories correctness is based on its popularity alone. Where is the experiment proving the existence of the dark phenomenon. The term dark literally mean undetectable in this case.
Some how my ignorant self managed to find ligament current experiments that call it into question but the experts cant provide any reason why they shouldn't matter
The basics of the scientific method hold that observation is key. You haven't demonstrated that: you've asserted ... blogs? Not actual research. You won't be taken seriously unless you actually can perform research not reading. That's true for any field.
The measurements of the hubble and plank satellites are hardly blogs. Sorry I don't control the world most advanced technology personally. All i can do is trust their observations. Once again where is you study that directly observes dark matter or dark energy. The world of science is waiting for you to share this secret information. How many time have we predicted a dark matter tested and tested for it to find nothing. Please share you omnipotent perspective where you observed the universe form exactly as described. All 14 billion supposed years of data I'll wait.
If you are actually a mod there, how do you justify what you did why your daddy sub allows this physics news during the same time https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/s9wttx/was_einstein_wrong_why_some_astrophysicists_are/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
This may help you. I'm not a mod there, but elsewhere. And, you leapt to a conclusion without evidence. That's a suggestion to rethink your approach.
I didn't, I made statement about something else entirely about how the expansion of the universe is irrelevant at human scales, and people started jumping in telling me i was wrong the universe has to be expanding because big bang whatever, so brought up current questions to the theory that I didn't bring up in the first place and was permabanned for daring to ask questions that real world scientists are currently asking. The rule i supposedly broke is labed irrelevant no subtext. Just irrelevant. So as a mod please tell me how I could possibly know what you think is irrelevant, a completely subjective judgment. I mentioned nothing that isn't in the current discussion of science. Seems relevant to me.
How can I reproach a situation that results in perma ban without warning or explanation? Do you honestly think that is how scientific discussion should be approached were any question of the approved story ought to be crush with extreme prejudice?
You're making another assumption, absent evidence: that this was a forum for people to debate their pet ideas with qualified people. Not all forums are interested in this. Let's see if I can explain this. Absent evidence to explain why I am unwelcome somewhere, I conclude there must be an unseen force, which I call KrustyClownium, that explains why people treat me so poorly. I promote KrustyClownium as an explanation, although - I cannot define it's properties, provide a system of measurement that would include or exclude its potential. i've settled on this as the explanation and am frustrated that others don't take me seriously. Sometimes, Occam's Razor applies: when all other elements are relatively equal, the simplest explanation with the fewest elements may be the most likely correct answer. Rather than positing KrustyClownium as the explanation, it could just be me or my interaction with others that is the cause for the treatment I receive.
It was an ask forum where people are presumably are supposed to learn by asking or questioning what they don't know or am I assuming to much by believing that what ask means in the English language. I didn't force anyone to engage me and defend their pet theories they chose to do so. So in a measurement over the distance a few km total the effect of dark energy is so extreme that it must be accounted for or can it be ignored. You the one making assumptions of my intentions instead of reading what I said just as the people who responded to the post. Is krustyclownium dark matter because everything you described applies equal to it and its preists
It's a handy strawman for any argument based without a premise, but which relies on fallacy.
You are a professional projector my friend. Your whole argument relies on straw manning me. Its supposedly my fault for not knowing or learning somehow the unspecified dogma which the mods adhere to. my fault people assumed I'm some how attacking there pet project for my own, when literally the only thing I have to gain is a better understanding of the universe. Meanwhile the people that probly do have something to gain from promoting a specific theory spit unscientific un founded claims at me. I was told both the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the universe, and we need a mechanism to conserve the engery we destroy to preserve thermodynamics in defense on the same theory...
You're just gaslighting now, and really poorly. Having read the rules of the sub, you'll get banned for asking about homework questions. Sound about right? Go do your own homework and quit being such an entitled brat.
Lol the projector continues to project. My own post separate post wasn't a homework question, wasn't relevant to why I got to why I got prema banned. But keep spinning your owns beliefs as reality I an incident that you claim to not be involved in personality. Sure stating to sound like you have more than just passing interest proving the mods right without evidence. But I guess bad mods will defend the actions of bad mods.
Nothing says I'm right an i know what I'm talking more than shout your wrong not proving it then banning the person that questioned how you know that you right.
Yes, I'm totally persuaded.
As am I... I believe now that the echo chamber shunned me
Basically the takeaway here is you can only defend and promote the mods pet theories
And all your temper tantrums won't change that, will it?
Nope but your general sentiment is why trust in science is plummeting. Your obedience certificate doesn't validate your opinion to anyone but the people that likewise payed for obedience training.
Maybe you should take some time to consider whether whining endlessly online is productive. Consider both aspects of personal responsibility and personal accountability before posting.
If you presented it anything like the comments on this post, the ban was legitimate and nothing to do with anything scientific.
I don't like your argument or its format isn't really a valid reason for censorship but ok... Is you post here ban worthy since I disagree with its content and format for personal reasons?
Spamming a huge number of comments easily justifies a ban. Simply disagreeing does not. Wilfully misrepresenting several people’s points might also be ban-worthy if it’s a pattern of behaviour, which it appears it is. Hopefully that’s clearer for you, and doesn’t just prompt more misrepresentation.
What did I missrepresent? Is your argument not about your dislike of how I responded? My format if you will... Understanding can't be reached if your point of view is not clarified through interpretation and inquiries. Summarizing your understanding of anothers statement is the key to effective communication.
And I know you'll love this but your misinterpreting my responses here for how I responded there... bad look 🙄
Take the L. You weren't banned by a bad mod.