Science Admits They Made Up Everything About the Big Bang

[r00t]

So there's this new proposed theory in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics that applied rainbow functions to prove that different wavelengths of light experience spacetime differently. In essence this means that the universe came from a non-singularity (i.e. discredits the big bang theory, which states everything comes from a singularity)

http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2013/10/052/

[r00t]

The paper seems to be implying that at very small distances, the amount of energy can radically change the perceived length. For example, those of us that know about General Relativity know how spacetime can be warped dramatically by gravity. Thus, assuming that energy at such small distances can also warp lengths that would mean different wavelengths of light would behave differently -- And this would be most apparent in a very hot and dense Universe AKA the Big Bang. Obviously we can't notice it today because the Universe is much too cold for it to be apparent.

That is why it would radically change how the Universe would've 'started'. One of the side-effects would be a segregation of how groups of photons of different values would behave, and hence the term 'rainbow' is used. Think of us having to take the equations that describe photons and having to split them by wavelength for example. This is similar to what a prism does through refraction.

[r00t]

Here's another article. In Rainbow Universe, time has no beginning. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...erse-beginning

[r00t]

I can't tell you how great it is being an actual scientist not just listening to what I'm told, applying critical thinking and calling the big bang theory bullshit for years; and now being proven right.

[Bardalicious]

Cannot read article w/o subscribing.

[Bardalicious]

There's a huge difference between discrediting a scientific theory (note: theory) and discrediting it with proof. Where was yours?

[Heebo]

Terrible TV show

[r00t]

Originally Posted by Bardalicious [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's a huge difference between discrediting a scientific theory (note: theory) and discrediting it with proof. Where was yours?

I didn't have any proof, just as scientists had little to support the singularity argument. Burden of proofs on them in science. Also, my search was more for the theory of genesis (not sure if it's the same as the elusive theory of everything Hawkings and such are searching for). I said Big Bang doesn't explain how anything started, or the philosophical question of "What about the second before time began?". Rainbow Universe actually addresses this and proves original thinking of the big bang incorrect.

[Justinuti]

r00t, you're either a terrible "scientist" or a poor troll. Anyone, even without a scientific background, who reads the shit youve posted, can view the author himself, and the general article saying this theory is ungrounded and there's no evidence behind it, its theoretical speculation in physics. This is good and all, but there is no evidence behind this theory.

Also, I like how you italicize the word "theory". The scientific word "theory" has a different connotation than that common version of the word.

You want the big band to be false so badly, that at any sign of it being false you jump on without reading. Did you just read the headline of the article? Heres some copypasta straight from your link:

...

Rainbow gravity was first proposed 10 years ago as a possible step toward repairing the rifts between the theories of general relativity (covering the very big) and quantum mechanics (concerning the realm of the very small). The idea is not a complete theory for describing quantum effects on gravity, and is not widely accepted.

..."So far we have no conclusive evidence that this is going on," says Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, a physicist at the Sapienza University of Rome who has researched the possibility of such signals. Modern observatories, however, are just now gaining the sensitivity needed to measure these effects, and should improve in coming years.

Here, directly from your articles author:

Awad and his colleagues found two possible beginnings to the universe based on slightly different interpretations of the ramifications of rainbow gravity.In one scenario, if you retrace time backward, the universe gets denser and denser, approaching an infinite density but never quite reaching it. In the other picture the universe reaches an extremely high, but finite, density as you look back in time and then plateaus. In neither case is there a singularity

hmmm, proposes theory, isint sure what the consequences are, sounds pretty conclusive.

TLDR; The authors themselves admit theres no conclusive evidence for this idea, hadly "science admits trolltrolltroll". Its a neat idea, but theres no evidence behind it.Ill take my experimentally verified evidence of the big bang theory for now,thankyouverymuch

[Justinuti]

Also, before you jump your vagina off the ship, Ill be the first to admit, like any logical person, that we don't know the big bang happened as we think it does, the model of that theory is just the most consistent with our current understanding of nature and the universe. Nothing more, nothing less.