"Rainbow Gravity"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2015, 11:05 PM
"Rainbow Gravity"?
Well, this time I have a trouble that a theist (probably Christian) uses "Rainbow Gravity" to debate the word "theory" is changeable, judge me don't understand the characteristics of scientific theory and The Big Bang Theory isn't truth with this news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...lider.html
I am really curious to this topic but speechless to him because I never hear " Rainbow Gravity theory". What should I do first?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 11:49 PM
RE: "Rainbow Gravity"?
(18-10-2015 11:05 PM)Iamtiredforthatshit Wrote:  Well, this time I have a trouble that a theist (probably Christian) uses "Rainbow Gravity" to debate the word "theory" is changeable

What does this mean?

(18-10-2015 11:05 PM)Iamtiredforthatshit Wrote:  The Big Bang Theory isn't truth with this news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...lider.html

This doesn't disprove the Big Bang theory. It goes against what most people think of the theory, but not what the theory actually says.

Your grammar is unfortunately a bit confused, so I can't offer much more than this. If you could clarify what exactly you are asking, we can be of more help.

In the meantime, you may find this useful.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 02:50 AM
RE: "Rainbow Gravity"?
I advise people to replace the word "theory" with the word "model".

We build a model of how some concept of the world/universe works, like infections (germ theory) or falling (gravitational theory), based on all the data we have and the best explanatory model we can build and test for that.

If continued testing or new data show that there are inaccuracies in the model, we fix the model. Usually it's not the whole thing that's wrong, just some fine-scale thing that doesn't quite fit, so we look for why that is, and adjust accordingly.

A good example is the idea of Newton's Laws of Motion. They're not wrong, they simply become less accurate as the speed goes up, so we built a new model (the theory of relativity) to explain the inaccuracies that accrued at extremely high speeds that approach the speed of light. Later, at extremely small scales, we found that there was another set of inaccuracies, which we built the model of quantum mechanics to explain and describe. We're still working on getting a better and more accurate model, always. Sadly, gravity is well-understood at the normal-scale, like Newton's Laws of Motion, but one of the lesser-understood theories/models, when you get into the fine print.

By comparison, the gaps in our knowledge of evolution as a model of how life changes and diversifies on earth are small and insignificant next to what we do know about it. It's one of the better-built models in science, yet ironically the one the Christers seem to have the most trouble grasping, while they think gravity is a settled issue.

Rolleyes

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
19-10-2015, 02:54 AM
RE: "Rainbow Gravity"?
It should be noted that model does have a specific definition in scientific use, that does not equate to theory; however, given the fact that the term "theory" has become tainted, I prefer to substitute the technical use of model for the colloquial use.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2015, 06:09 AM
RE: "Rainbow Gravity"?
Is this really just about the word theory, and not the idea of rainbow gravity?

If the theist in question is contesting the word "theory" as used in the Daily Telegraph, just remind him that this publication is marketed to non-scientists. In actual science publications, such as this one, the big bang and general relativity are referred to as theories, while this rainbow gravity is an "idea".

Tell your friend that he's spot-on! There is a misunderstanding in the general public about what a theory is. He should tell everyone he knows at church that the theory of the big bang and the theory of evolution are facts, while rainbow gravity is just an idea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
19-10-2015, 06:53 AM
RE: "Rainbow Gravity"?
From the article:

Quote:And if the holes are found at a certain energy, it could prove the controversial theory of ‘rainbow gravity’ which suggests that the universe stretches back into time infinitely with no singular point where it started, and no Big Bang.


I think this is a case where they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. If the universe has no "beginning" that means -no god required.

Is he just saying that the big bang theory is another example of a dis-proven theory?

So therefore gawd?

If I had a nickle for every theist that gets on this forum and proclaims that the bible says that the big bang happened, therefore the bible is correct.....

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: