loading

Has anyone seen and have an opinion on the tv show Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman?

Specifically, when I watch the show, I end up with more questions then are being answered.  Today, he was speaking of the Big Bang, and the many theories involved lately.  He stated that the uniformity of the universe seems odd coming from an explosion that could only produce a random pattern. Then this was illustrated by dropping a balloon full of paint onto a canvas.  

WHAT?  The balloon itself would disturb the distribution of the paint so that was not a very good illustration.  If they could drop a "round bulk drop" of paint with no "containers" around it, into a vacuum onto a canvas; and if the same thing happened, I'd be more convinced that one "needs" inflation to make things uniform (I am not arguing against inflation theory, but rather that it is needed for uniformity). 

This is merely one example of the many questions I came up with in the first 20 minutes of the one hour show. I had to shut it off...at least for now to stop the explosion of things going through my head. 

Any thoughts and ideas and concerns are welcome. 

Here is the show....
 



 
 
 


Picture of Has anyone seen and have an opinion on the tv show Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman?
Lost Electron.bmp
sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 87Next »
blkhawk4 years ago
Morgan Freeman is a great actor and I think that there is where he should stay. I found some of the shows ambiguous. In one show he even suggested that the idea of God is somewhere in our brains, that only lights up when certain areas of our brains are electrically stimulated.
Goodhart (author)  blkhawk4 years ago
Well, a good example is the current one I am speaking of:  String theory is pretty well established, but to say it is ONLY a theory is wrong wrong wrong.  It is almost like saying an apple is ONLY apple.

The latter part of the current show gets into multiple universes, and the demonstration of this is going to be mostly "just" postulation. At least, for now.
Um, string theory isn't nearly as supported and accepted as to make it ridiculous to deny or dispute. There's considerable disagreement on the subject.
Goodhart (author)  Lithium Rain4 years ago
Well, either it IS a theory or it isn't. Theories are not the same as postulations. Theory is normally pretty well established. But I realize there is quite a bit of disagreement on it, especailly by those that prefer 12 demensional space/time rather then the normal 4 we know of.
Well, yeah, but I think that in combating the "it's only a theory" idea, one can go too far the other way - theory doesn't equal "we know for sure this is absolute truth and that you are wrong if you say anything against the theory." (I don't have the knowledge base to competently argue for or against the validity of string theory, but I'm not aware of any experimental evidence to support it.)

I get the difference between hypothesis and theory...just saying I think it's important not to confer a sense of unquestionable authority to anything that has "theory" in the name. They _can_ become defunct.
Goodhart (author)  Lithium Rain4 years ago
The problem is, if someone says "its only a theory" on national TV, then those without any knowledge take up the chant: SEE ! Evolution, is ONLY a theory. Consistancy is needful.

String theory is sometimes called "unified" theory, because it does just that.
So we should be inaccurate in order to prevent people from being inaccurate? Somehow I don't think that is going to work.

It's great that it is unifying, but without proof, it's got no claim to truth.
Goodhart (author)  Lithium Rain4 years ago
FIrst, how does "Consistancy is needful" translate into inaccurate in order to prevent people from being inaccurate?   I said we should be consistant with how we use certain terms.  If that means to you that you must be inaccurate, then we might as well just go ahead and paint the door black.

If said theory has "no claim to truth" (and proofs are not what science is really all about anyways as, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.), then it can't be referred to as a theory, and all of theoretcal science is hokum and maybe we don't know anything about the universe.

BTW:  Proofs DO exist only in mathematics and logic; just not in science.
It doesn't. "We shouldn't say anything to imply there is any doubt about a theory," however, does. Theory does NOT mean "no doubt at all, no sir" so to act like it does is to be inaccurate.

How does "there's no actual evidence to back up string theory" translate into "all science is hokum"?

Sure. But they don't necessarily consistently apply to the physical world. I can calculate all kinds of things with the mathematics of Newtonian physics(ok, _I_ can't, but you know what I mean). But they're not quite right - they're of no use in quantum physics. So string theory has the math (well...as long as you don't have an issue with some seemingly-arbitrary values which make the equations work), but without experimental results to back it up, it is not unreasonable to speak of it with less than absolute certainty, or to imply that it doesn't have all the answers..
Goodhart (author)  Lithium Rain4 years ago
Theory, in it's purest form, means ACCEPTED. It doesn't eliminate change, since proofs are not present in any case. BTW: where did I write "science" (knowledge) is hockum?

(Yeah I "know what you mean" because I can to some extent. )

and again, the term "accepted"  (theory) then should not be used....it is then a postulation or hypothesis.

Accuracy really does count,  example:  



Grandma.bmp
1-10 of 87Next »