Jump to content

Is the big bang and evolution sciences theory of everything.


PrimalMinister

Recommended Posts

Scientists are so overwhelmed by the universe, it appears they have failed to realise that the big bang and evolution is a theory of everything. I have stood back and looked at it objectivity, the big bang and evolution is, whether you have realised it or not, a theory of everything, it looks like a theory of everything, it should be called a theory of everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

it looks like a theory of everything to me.

To me it does not look like a theory of everything. It looks like two different theories describing different aspects of nature. I beleive that a theory of everything would describe how GR and evolution follows, and is explained by,  "the theory of everything".

*)I usually use "theory of everything" as a notation of a theory explaining fundamental forces including gravity. In the context of this topic I am prepared to deviate from that.

Edited by Ghideon
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Scientists are so overwhelmed by the universe, it appears they have failed to realise that the big bang and evolution is a theory of everything. I have stood back and looked at it objectivity, the big bang and evolution is, whether you have realised it or not, a theory of everything, it looks like a theory of everything, it should be called a theory of everything.

That is your opinion. But it seems to depend on using a different definition of “theory of everything”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can tell the big bang/evolution is a theory of everything. I keep using the term theory of everything but I want to tell you what it means, the "theory of everything" is a romantic idea about the universe and John Wheeler quote captures that romance. The theory of everything is a simple idea that given enough time, science will explain everything. You closed my thread, its fine it was a mess anyway, lets start here with a fresh simple look at things here. When I say theory of everything I am referring to the romantic idea that science, given enough time, can explain everything. The big bang/evolution is a theory of everything, it explains everything does it not?

Edited by PrimalMinister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, please use this theory to predict the boiling point of water.

Marvlous, absolutly no idea why you have said it. I am just trying to point out the big bang/evolution is obviously a theory of everything, because it explains everything, including what we don't yet, scientists like Richard Dawkins say it is just a matter of time, but science will explain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The big bang/evolution is a theory of everything, it explains everything does it not?

Can you explain why I would take the above statement as a fact? I have lots of scientific questions regarding the first time after Big Bang, where the theory applies. I have lots of other questions that I think would need new theories outside of Big Bang to answer. Are you suggesting that my second set of questions about nature is invalid? Or maybe that future revisions of Big Bang theory will explain them all? I think all theories are applicable within some scope. Why is Big Bang + Evolution "complete" making it a theory of everything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

The big bang/evolution is sciences story about how we came to be, and there is lots of evidence to support it. Why don't we just declare the big bang/evolution the theory of everything, because it is a theory of everything if you think about (I am hoping to get people thinking).

Calling it a story is much better. But it isn’t a theory. It is a story based on two theories.

But it has gaps. For example how life started. So it isn’t even  a story of everything. (It also doesn’t say anything about quantum theory or how your computer works.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Why is Big Bang + Evolution "complete" making it a theory of everything?

Because it explains everything, including things we don't know yet. There is plently of evidence to suggest the big bang and evolution happened so why don't we don't we just say this is truth, this is the theory of everything and trust the scientific process will fill in the gaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of everything is a made up idea, I think it is a romantic idea about the universe, that everything is explainable with science. I claimed in another thread I had realised science can explain everything, but it was I got accused of Soapboxing, this is all new to me, so I am sorry for that, it wound have been nice to have it explained to me in clear, consise, scientific langauge that I was soapboxing, it would have stopped before you gave me the warning, but oh well, you are the adminstrators, you decide how this plays out on here. Anyhow, the big bang/evolution theory explains everything, including things we don't understand yet, the scientific process, given time, will explain what we don't understand. So I am now making another claim, I hope this is different.

Edited by PrimalMinister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Anyhow, the big bang/evolution theory explains everything, including things we don't understand yet,

Is the Big Bang intended to explain the universe or the observable universe?

Lets try this angle: Why is evolution theory needed, why does it not follow from an "improved" Big Bang theory?

Or, the other way around, why are two theories enough? Why is there no room in the universe for new discoveries that does not fit within big bang/evolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Is the big bang and evolutionary theory sciences theory of everything, it looks like a theory of everything to me.

It looks like it a theory of everything because it explains everything doesn't it? Yes there are gaps in our knowledge, but the overarching story is tight is it not?

 

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Scientists are so overwhelmed by the universe, it appears they have failed to realise that the big bang and evolution is a theory of everything. I have stood back and looked at it objectivity, the big bang and evolution is, whether you have realised it or not, a theory of everything, it looks like a theory of everything, it should be called a theory of everything.

 

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

The big bang/evolution is sciences story about how we came to be, and there is lots of evidence to support it. Why don't we just declare the big bang/evolution the theory of everything, because it is a theory of everything if you think about (I am hoping to get people thinking).

 

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

You can tell the big bang/evolution is a theory of everything. I keep using the term theory of everything but I want to tell you what it means, the "theory of everything" is a romantic idea about the universe and John Wheeler quote captures that romance. The theory of everything is a simple idea that given enough time, science will explain everything. You closed my thread, its fine it was a mess anyway, lets start here with a fresh simple look at things here. When I say theory of everything I am referring to the romantic idea that science, given enough time, can explain everything. The big bang/evolution is a theory of everything, it explains everything does it not?

 

You keep repeating your falsities. That does not add any validity to this nonsense you keep repeating, just makes  you sound rather desperate in the ignorance your posts have shown. Again as you were informed in your last nonsensical thread, the BB does not tell us the why, the how, or the where that spacetime came from. All we can do at this time is speculate on those aspects. The BB says nothing about anything prior to 10-43 seconds. Therefor it is not a TOE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

The big bang/evolution is sciences story about how we came to be, and there is lots of evidence to support it. Why don't we just declare the big bang/evolution the theory of everything, because it is a theory of everything if you think about (I am hoping to get people thinking).

It's not, though. Big Bang is a subset of Cosmology, which is a fraction of Physics and Astronomy. So you are excluding parts of thermodynamics, optics, mechanics (both classical and quantum) solid state physics, atomic physics, nuclear and particle physics, and relativity (and perhaps more areas I have overlooked) which all have applications to areas of physics outside of cosmology (much less the Big Bang) 

So stop already, and learn a little about existing science before spouting this tripe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand science, its not some mystical thing only the scribes can understand. I know the big bang/evolution story, our story of how we came to be, and I know it does not explain everything, that there are gaps, but the solution to these gaps is simple, more science. I am here, please explain how I got here, to explain this you are go to invoke the big bang and evolution, I can see how it is a theory of everything, I dont think its the right theory of everything, but lets run with current science.

46 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's not, though. Big Bang is a subset of Cosmology, which is a fraction of Physics and Astronomy. So you are excluding parts of thermodynamics, optics, mechanics (both classical and quantum) solid state physics, atomic physics, nuclear and particle physics, and relativity (and perhaps more areas I have overlooked) which all have applications to areas of physics outside of cosmology (much less the Big Bang) 

So stop already, and learn a little about existing science before spouting this tripe.

I am not excluding any parts, I am simply pointing out that the big bang/evolution looks like a theory of everything. Why is this so offensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If the four forces make up everything then unifying them would constitute everything, would it not?

Some people call that a grand unified theory. But to be honest, I’m not sure what else would make it “everything”!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am not excluding any parts, I am simply pointing out that the big bang/evolution looks like a theory of everything. Why is this so offensive?

But those two theories do exclude all the things mentioned so, by saying They are a theory of everything, you are also excluding them. 

49 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

By the way, I just wrote a long post on facebook to my friends, it contained a discussion of my mental illness, and the assertion I have realised how the universe, I am getting lots of positive responses, its different here and I know why.

I’m sure you would get a lot of sympathy here if you wanted to discuss your mental illness.

For example, it makes me much more understanding of the idea that you have a theory of everything but are unable to explain it. 

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.