RE: Did the Big Bang happen?
May 18, 2022 at 12:41 pm
(This post was last modified: May 18, 2022 at 12:54 pm by highdimensionman.)
The big bang theory hey..
Well the universe could be modelled with quantum modelling and could be made to fit in a continuous way but would be off from reality a bit which could be massaged in. Or you could continue to find better concentric circles so to speak until the big bang theory fitted better or we may make some more conclusive discoveries clearing things up a bit in the long term. Therefore there is possibly a fundamental flaw with the scientific method at this level of scientific development. However you look at it you could be left massaging the model skewing away from more intuitive models. Good results may take much more Everett level micro modelling before finding a good optimal fit relative to reality close to plank length that scaled up to a micro/macro level of reality in tune with our own. The decisiveness in comparative methods used within such parallel microverse modelling may have less of a clear winner and a more intelligently rated approach. This is where the scientific model needs to move forward with such issues it will need to be more concise and even less driven by first past the post thinking in order to hit a sweet spot in terms of understanding the science of reality.
Doing this kind of study should come with a warning that many broken models and egos pave this path of scientific pursuit. It's best to know that you want to know more than to think you can replace 42 with anything relevant to science.
In short no one really knows quite how it all fits and progress will take time here.
Well the universe could be modelled with quantum modelling and could be made to fit in a continuous way but would be off from reality a bit which could be massaged in. Or you could continue to find better concentric circles so to speak until the big bang theory fitted better or we may make some more conclusive discoveries clearing things up a bit in the long term. Therefore there is possibly a fundamental flaw with the scientific method at this level of scientific development. However you look at it you could be left massaging the model skewing away from more intuitive models. Good results may take much more Everett level micro modelling before finding a good optimal fit relative to reality close to plank length that scaled up to a micro/macro level of reality in tune with our own. The decisiveness in comparative methods used within such parallel microverse modelling may have less of a clear winner and a more intelligently rated approach. This is where the scientific model needs to move forward with such issues it will need to be more concise and even less driven by first past the post thinking in order to hit a sweet spot in terms of understanding the science of reality.
Doing this kind of study should come with a warning that many broken models and egos pave this path of scientific pursuit. It's best to know that you want to know more than to think you can replace 42 with anything relevant to science.
In short no one really knows quite how it all fits and progress will take time here.
