Why? Because it is a nearly irrelevant theory about the beginnings of the Universe**:** Who will ever know for sure? Who, other than the theorists, will ever care? Yet we spend huge amounts of money, physical resources, and media-coverage space (that could and would otherwise be devoted to MEANINGFUL, “MATTERFUL” scientific research) on this, to be generous, esoteric near-garbage, based on “VooDoo mathematics”.
Why bother? Because one of the “meaningful, matterful” research areas that is very UNDER-funded–and which has almost NO funding for observational experimentation to validate it; or to even point the way toward “useful” research-directions–is the (Super) String Theory from mathematical physics.
Some thinkers believe that both the “mind” and the “soul” can (literally) be found in some of the posited dimensions of this elegant theory. Can anything be more pertinent? More practical to everyday life?? Of greater interest to large numbers of the general public???
As to the “Big Bang” Theory: Can anything have less practical use than studying something that happened BILLIONS OF YEARS ago, so far away from Earth that it’s very location isn’t even guessed at??
Let Congress OUTLAW the “Big Bang Theory”, I say (–just as they outlaw any resource-draining adictive substance). Let’s get on with REAL physics; physics that has REAL practical implications (–other than making its inventors rich from book-publishings!).
:rolleyes:
Let me introduce you to a little something called the First Amendment. With a few notable exceptions (among them obscenity and “clear and present dangers”) it prohibits Congress from doing any such thing.
If you’d like to debate whether Congress should be funding such research, that’s a separate question altogether. Astronomy is such an interdisciplinary field at this point that restricting any funding involving “Big Bang” research would have rather far-reaching repercussions.
I’m with ya, brother! This could be the first step in a brave new nation! Let’s have ‘em outlaw ALL theories that don’t serve the interests of science as defined by Congress. Come to think of it, let’s outlaw any language that uses the ideas Congress has banned; we could call our new national syntax something sexy and eye-catching, like… oh, idunno… newspeak or somethin’.
This is a joke right?
Sarcasm? A leg pull?
Or Is this the proof that America, despite its technological achievements still going to stun the rest of the world with its popular support of anti intellectualism?
I don’t even think that it’s possible to outlaw a scientific theory.
OK, this is the second idea from sea sorbust that I’ve seen that is simply ridiculous. The first was that the maximum number of people the world can support is 60 million. Yes, million, as in far less than the current world population. I really have to wonder about this person.
Sea Sorbust, banning the big bang will affect research that will either verify, modify, or refute Superstring theory. You are not only wrong because of the First amendment, but also because of REAL physics.
I knew there was a connection between Superstring theory and the Big Bang: The Physical review newsletter (Focus) has this article:
We should outlaw the Theory of Relativity. I mean, a cosmic speed limit is so damn inconvenient. If we’re going to be serious about space exploration, we need to be able to visit other stars, and be able to get back within our own lifetimes.
And why just ban theories that are impractical or inconvenient? Why not just ban entire scientific disciplines?
How about having Congress outlawing archaeology? I mean, what’s the practical use of digging up a bunch of dead people who lived thousands and thousands of years ago, just to find out what they wore and ate? Who cares? I’m more worried about what I’m wearing and eating now, and couldn’t care less about what some ancient mummified Italian mountain climber was wearing.
While we’re at it, let’s outlaw meteorology. What’s the point of studying the weather? It’s changing all the bloody time, and the weather forecasters still are only correct about half the time. Why spend all that money on what is little more than educated guesswork?
And really, what’s the point of linguistics? People talk, they use language, so what? What does it help to know how a speaker uses the sounds of language? How can that help me put food on my table?
I’m sure there are lots of other scientific theories and endeavors that are ripe for banning, but I’ll leave it up to the OP’er to suggest them.
…Changing to widely scattered light in the morning.
Seriously, Sea Sorbust, do you really think it was possible to ban knowledge? I can’t imagine such a thing.
And how exactly would you propose this banning be enforced? Would American scientists be forbidden from engaging in any kind of research related to the Big Bang Theory? Would they be forbidden from writing about it? Would students be forbidden from learning it? Would television programs such as Nova, which airs on public television, be prevented from airing material that mentions the Big Bang or is related to it?
Not even to mention all of the Constitutional problems that would arise from such an action.
Any way you look at it, this idea is as impractical as it is ignorant.
And if he got caught and placed in jail would you have an outlaw inlaw indoors?
How about if he got paroled and found a job as a groundskeeper, would you have an indoor outlaw inlaw outdoors?
What if he got a pet jackdaw?
[sup]Is this officially silly yet?[/SUP]
Now just in the interests of stirring up a debate, I think the big bang should be outlawed not because it wastes money, but because it’s only a theory that can’t be proven, and equal time should be devoted, both in school and research institutions, to the theory of Creation By The Great Green Arkelseizure. I’m convinced that if we look hard enough we will find traces of background booger at 4[sup]O[/sup]K and that this is in fact the dark matter of the universe. The big bang is all a conspiracy intended to take our guns, mistreat our animals, fake the moon landing and…and… and…
