[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 156 KB, 576x432, 1297303644639.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4592405 No.4592405 [Reply] [Original]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions#Physics
>The Big Bang theory does not provide an explanation for the origin of the universe; rather, it explains its early evolution.
read it and weep nerds.

>> No.4592413

Whats the point you're trying to make?

>> No.4592428

>implying we didn't know

>> No.4592429

Big bang is actually supposed to be just
Part of a cycle

>> No.4592438

>Previously misunderstood theory of big bang
>Discovers actual meaning
>Assumes everyone else was under the prior assumption

If that really surprised you then you might want to stay away from theories of nothing coming from something ie:quantum fluctuations etc.

Or just Quantum Mechanics as a whole.

Or just science as a whole.

Yeah that's seems better.

>> No.4592440

>>4592438
I never misunderstood the theory. I just didn't realize there was something so explicit on Wikipedia. Also I'm pretty once I turn my back on /sci/ they'll just revert to the misconception for the sake of being secular crusaders.

>> No.4592441

>>4592440
Nah, if you are a scientist and have that misconception, sorry, but you're not a scientist.

>> No.4592444

>>4592441
I'm pretty sure you mean physicist although you'll insist on continuing to say scientist.

>> No.4592445

>>4592440

>"The Big Bang theory does not provide an explanation for the origin of the universe; rather, it explains its early evolution.
read it and weep nerds."


>"read it and weep nerds"


You seemed to imply that this was something that /sci/ did not understand.


It can also be deduced by your picture as well as your response in that your assumption that /sci/ did not know this was drawn from your own realization of this.

As such

>"I never misunderstood the theory."

Is clearly a fallacious statement.

Which is understandable as you clearly had trouble grasping the big bang theory so it is very well possible you may have trouble with a basic understanding of the meaning of words like "misunderstood" and "surprise" even simple terms like "out of the loop" or "late to the show".

>> No.4592447

>>4592444

I'm pretty sure he meant scientist as in /sci/ considering the board is not full of idiots who can't properly understand one of the most widely publicized theories in the history of science.

>ie: you are not a /sci/entist

>> No.4592449

>>4592440
>I'm pretty once I turn my back
No, you're not pretty in any position, faggot.

>> No.4592451

>>4592445
>You seemed to imply that this was something that /sci/ did not understand.
You seem to think nobody else has already inferred that

>> No.4592453

>>4592451

>you don't seem to realize OP clearly is incapable of comprehending a statement after only hearing it once, as subject to OP's discovery of his misconception concerning the big bang.

>Plainly speaking, OP needs to hear it more than once or it won't get across.

>> No.4592454

>>4592447
well this seems to be the only time you guys are up in arms to defend the notion (that you already knew) that is only about the rapid expansion of the universe and not the beginning of the universe.

le so brave.

>> No.4592458 [DELETED] 

>>4592453
You're implications are experiencing feedback and implying on themselves.

Please don't tell me this is how you normally post.

>> No.4592459

>>4592453
Your implications are experiencing feedback and implying on themselves.

Please don't tell me this is how you normally post.

>> No.4592461

>>4592459


>"implications are experiencing feedback"

>Naw

>> No.4592462

>>4592454
No, the only thing I am saying is that he shouldn't assume that everyone on this board has the misconception.

>> No.4592471

>>4592462
I know you guys got all defensive but is it ok to assume that some people on this board had that misconception?

Or are you we looking to re-reinforce the no true Scotsman fallacy that's already been made?

>> No.4592479

>>4592471
I did state a fallacy and I thank you for pointing that out. However, "read it and weep nerds", is where I have a problem. He implies a large portion, if not all, of the people on this board did not know this. On the other hand, if he were to have been more humble, I'm sure this would have been more of an educational thread.

>> No.4592481

>>4592471
>I know you guys got all defensive but is it ok to assume that some people on this board had that misconception?

Yes, I'd wager you almost all of the high schoolers asking some basic physics/calculus/chemistry/EE homework questions here had that misconception.
I also do not consider them part of this board (guests if you will), so as far as I'm concerned you'd be only half right.

>> No.4592491

>>4592479
I'm pretty sure you could have just ignored the thread if he were any more of less humble.

>> No.4592501

>>4592491
And miss the chance of talking to you? Fate has crossed our paths, my friend.

>> No.4592517 [DELETED] 

>>4592481
oh, you mean they're not part of your herd worth defending?

Got it.

>> No.4592521

>>4592481
oh, you mean they're not the part of your herd worth defending?

Got it.

>> No.4592596

>>4592521
Considering you can't even comprehend what I'm writing suggests me that perhaps you should stop "trolling" /sci/ and go back to whatever your native board is.
Not because I don't enjoy your company or this thread being on page 0, but because the demographic you're trying to drag into a conversation is surely more plentiful elsewhere, I'm doing this for your sake, to ensure your thread ends up being succesful and populated, so that you'll feel accomplished.

Please don't squander my generosity and take my small, humble piece of advice.

>> No.4594466

I AM /sci/ AND I HAVE NO MISCONCEPTION. LEAVE ME ALONE.

I SWEAR TO SAGAN I AM SMART!