3 ms·
>>but science knows that to be false now. >That's absolutely not true. It absolutely is true, I was specifically talking about the steady state theory: "While
by jedimind 6y ago
>>but science knows that to be false now.
>That's absolutely not true.
It absolutely is true, I was specifically talking about the steady state theory: "While the steady-state model enjoyed some minority support in the scientific mainstream until the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict" [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoIt was renamed Dark Energy. (j/k) And the observational evidence is interpreted as pointing to a Big Bang. There are other interpretations which don't require a finite age or an initial singularity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
- jedimind 6y ago"It receded from serious consideration in the early 1980s after inflation theory emerged as a solution to the horizon problem, which had arisen from advances in observations revealing the large-scale structure of the universe. In the early 2000s, inflation was found by some theorists to be problematic and unfalsifiable in that its various parameters could be adjusted to fit any observations..." Ex nihilo nihil fit.
- solipsism 6y agoBefore the steady state theory was proved wrong, some would just say that there was no first cause and that the universe had no beginning and no end, but science knows that to be false now. it's the steady state model that science knows not to be true, but not the fact that the universe has no beginning and no end, and not the fact that there was no first cause. Science doesn't know anything of the sort.