Jump to content
The Big Bang Theory Forums
Sign in to follow this  
einstein_bro

The Big Bang Theory Needs A More Relativistic Perspective

Recommended Posts

The trouble with the other Big Bang Theory is that nobody knows who/what laid the "Cosmic Egg".  The show inspired my theory about what would initiate a Big Bang Event.  It's taken seven years to find all the mistakes - but any new idea means that while it may add to modern thought, it also means there are a whole lot more ways to muck up that "modern thought".   I have gotten some approvals from other Scientists, and almost got it published in a Canadian Magazine called "Physics Essays" [http://www.physicsessays.com/] but there are a lot more narrow minded Scientists in the world like Sheldon for any really new idea - even if you produce a table of equation validations to more than 1000 decimal places.  I even got Dr. Saeid Nourian, owner of the Smart Math Calculator (http://www.runiter.com/   - the company that sold me the software that let me confirm it that far) to look at it, and he found it mathematically unchallengeable.

 

Admittedly, the academic version is a little boring, but there is also a funnier version at http://www.relativistic-perspective.com/ .  It's also attached.

 

Maybe I wil be even more boring and say that any proper Cosmological theory should have aspects of not just Big Bangs, but Cyclic Calamity's and Steady States too.

 

Hopefully the Moderator will let a new Scientific theory into Season 7.  I cannot imagine how much upset Sheldon would show if he came across a paper that could mathematically reason what would bring about a Big Bang, but not one nearly as Big as the one he's in love with. And as I opened with, there could also be Medium Bangs, Little Bangs and even Itty-Bitty Bangs.

 

Hope the consulting scientists on The Big Bang Theory are more open minded than the establishment ones.  An infinite reality is an idea that we should finally get used to.  For the whole time the human race has been running, the "high thinkers" have always put up fences that were nothing more than as far as we could see at that time.  And besides, what lies beyond the fences?  Isn't it more likely that just like before, we can only see our Local Universe?  Doesn't not setting limits, and presuming an infinity reality, a Ceaseless Cosmos somehow sound more "scientific"?

The Relativistic Space-Time Perspective - non-Academic.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest I'm not dead Cheryl

This show is not the place for that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have Physic Consultants on the show, but they are primarily their to help the actors with their execution and portrayl of Equations, and the fundemental aspects of Quantum Physics. TBBT is not the show to devleop more through that, it is a comedy that is the main purpose to make the viewers laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with the other Big Bang Theory is that nobody knows who/what laid the "Cosmic Egg".  The show inspired my theory about what would initiate a Big Bang Event.  It's taken seven years to find all the mistakes - but any new idea means that while it may add to modern thought, it also means there are a whole lot more ways to muck up that "modern thought".   I have gotten some approvals from other Scientists, and almost got it published in a Canadian Magazine called "Physics Essays" [http://www.physicsessays.com/] but there are a lot more narrow minded Scientists in the world like Sheldon for any really new idea - even if you produce a table of equation validations to more than 1000 decimal places.  I even got Dr. Saeid Nourian, owner of the Smart Math Calculator (http://www.runiter.com/   - the company that sold me the software that let me confirm it that far) to look at it, and he found it mathematically unchallengeable.

 

Admittedly, the academic version is a little boring, but there is also a funnier version at http://www.relativistic-perspective.com/ .  It's also attached.

 

Maybe I wil be even more boring and say that any proper Cosmological theory should have aspects of not just Big Bangs, but Cyclic Calamity's and Steady States too.

 

Hopefully the Moderator will let a new Scientific theory into Season 7.  I cannot imagine how much upset Sheldon would show if he came across a paper that could mathematically reason what would bring about a Big Bang, but not one nearly as Big as the one he's in love with. And as I opened with, there could also be Medium Bangs, Little Bangs and even Itty-Bitty Bangs.

 

Hope the consulting scientists on The Big Bang Theory are more open minded than the establishment ones.  An infinite reality is an idea that we should finally get used to.  For the whole time the human race has been running, the "high thinkers" have always put up fences that were nothing more than as far as we could see at that time.  And besides, what lies beyond the fences?  Isn't it more likely that just like before, we can only see our Local Universe?  Doesn't not setting limits, and presuming an infinity reality, a Ceaseless Cosmos somehow sound more "scientific"?

 

 

I wouldn't count on it. The show is leaving science behind. The science consultant left the show a year ago and they have no real call for him anymore. They have been looking up the science on google ever since. :p
 
I would like Sheldon to have some kind of breakthrough and open himself up to new ideas. It's an exciting time of change in science at the moment but the show won't show any of this. The closest they will probably come is brain mapping, which they might have Amy use to further the relationship with Sheldon. It won't have any real scientific merit though. 
Edited by Spaced_up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not going to endorse any speculative scientific hypothesis which undermines the current one. They do mention string, or rather, M-theory at times, but that's only because it seeks to find out something new. In any case, The Big Bang Theory has become less of a science comedy than it used to be and now caters to people of below average intelligence in an effort to get even more viewers. They consequently talk about science less and less.

 

That being said, it is a pro-reason and pro-science show, often criticising religion and superstition, but that's slightly off this topic.

Edited by viddy9
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wouldn't count on it. The show is leaving science behind. The science consultant left the show a year ago and they have no real call for him anymore. They have been looking up the science on google ever since. :p
 
I would like Sheldon to have some kind of breakthrough and open himself up to new ideas. It's an exciting time of change in science at the moment but the show won't show any of this. The closest they will probably come is brain mapping, which they might have Amy use to further the relationship with Sheldon. It won't have any real scientific merit though. 

 

 

First of all, no. David Saltzberg is still working on the show. He was at Comic Con at the writers panel this year.

 

Secondly, brain mapping has no real scientific merit? And why would Amy's scientific achievement need to related to her relationship with Sheldon? She does exist as a character of her own. 

 

They're not going to endorse any speculative scientific hypothesis which undermines the current one. They do mention string, or rather, M-theory at times, but that's only because it seeks to find out something new. In any case, The Big Bang Theory has become less of a science comedy than it used to be and now caters to people of below average intelligence in an effort to get even more viewers. They consequently talk about science less and less.

 

That being said, it is a pro-reason and pro-science show, often criticising religion and superstition, but that's slightly off this topic.

 

Goodness the arrogance around here is incredible some times. As if this show used to be a physics course in S1-3. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, no. David Saltzberg is still working on the show. He was at Comic Con at the writers panel this year.

 

Secondly, brain mapping has no real scientific merit? And why would Amy's scientific achievement need to related to her relationship with Sheldon? She does exist as a character of her own. 

 

 

Goodness the arrogance around here is incredible some times. As if this show used to be a physics course in S1-3. 

 

It didn't, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest I'm not dead Cheryl

David Saltzberg is the bald guy on the left, pictured at the Comic Con Panel this year. He still works on TBBT.

 

thumbs_my2_0547_rt.jpg

 

And as a fellow Physicist and while I understand the OP's view, again, the show is not the place to push for a new theory, that I read and that, while interesting, it's still one more theory in hundreds that are going around right now.  This is a sitcom, not a scientific-divulgation forum per se.

Edited by Sursonica
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, no. David Saltzberg is still working on the show. He was at Comic Con at the writers panel this year.

 

Secondly, brain mapping has no real scientific merit? And why would Amy's scientific achievement need to related to her relationship with Sheldon? She does exist as a character of her own. 

 

 

Goodness the arrogance around here is incredible some times. As if this show used to be a physics course in S1-3. 

Caters to low level audience lol? Please just because your preferance in the show is not Science every single second, that makes it an unintelligent show? Give me a break from what I saw Science was a huge part of S6, I just dont get where people are coming from. Yes their was more relationship stuff thats great! They are in the mid 20's where careers but more importantly relationships are becoming more of a focus, and thats realistic. I'm assuming you want the same formula of the same thing over and over, because sure thats not predictable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caters to low level audience lol? Please just because your preferance in the show is not Science every single second, that makes it an unintelligent show? Give me a break from what I saw Science was a huge part of S6, I just dont get where people are coming from. Yes their was more relationship stuff thats great! They are in the mid 20's where careers but more importantly relationships are becoming more of a focus, and thats realistic. I'm assuming you want the same formula of the same thing over and over, because sure thats not predictable. 

 

And relationships aren't predictable? Ha!

 

They can change the show in innumerable different ways, why do they have to go down the predictable relationship route every single time? Leonard and Penny is fine. Season 4 Amy and Sheldon was fine. I, for one, believe that their careers should be more important than their relationships, but that's a matter of opinion. To be fair to the writers, they're making sure that Sheldon and Amy don't take it too far (i.e. into coitus), so that's fine. The perceived amount of relationships in The Big Bang Theory is lower than the actual amount, but everybody thinks that there's more because, hmm, I wonder why? Because relationships are utterly predictable and dull.

 

They should definitely do something regarding brain mapping in Season 7 and get Sheldon incorporating science into his conversations again. 

Edited by viddy9
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, they should keep science and academia in the show! It's what sets it apart from the banality of a 'Friends' or a 'Will & Grace'......intelligent characters whose very intelligence is an obstacle in their daily lives.

 

Why not have Sheldon or one of the others get tenure and introduce a new ground breaking idea? A good writing team could make gold with spin offs from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And relationships aren't predictable? Ha!

They can change the show in innumerable different ways, why do they have to go down the predictable relationship route every single time? Leonard and Penny is fine. Season 4 Amy and Sheldon was fine. I, for one, believe that their careers should be more important than their relationships, but that's a matter of opinion. To be fair to the writers, they're making sure that Sheldon and Amy don't take it too far (i.e. into coitus), so that's fine. The perceived amount of relationships in The Big Bang Theory is lower than the actual amount, but everybody thinks that there's more because, hmm, I wonder why? Because relationships are utterly predictable and dull.

They should definitely do something regarding brain mapping in Season 7 and get Sheldon incorporating science into his conversations again.

I like the science and am all for it continuing but I think it is okay to focus more on relationships. There are some people who would sacrifice love and relationships for the sale of career but those people are the minority. Really, what good is success if you have no one to share it with? You need balance in life. Too much of one thing is not good. That's probably why Sheldon is the way he is.

I would also argue that it was science that improved the Leonard Penny relationship in season 6. Penny was the same old Penny until she visited Leonard in the lab and he showed her his work. From that point forward her attitude changed toward him.

I think the guys should be shown more at wrk again but I also believe they need their relationships too. Even Sheldon.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with the other Big Bang Theory is that nobody knows who/what laid the "Cosmic Egg".  The show inspired my theory about what would initiate a Big Bang Event.  It's taken seven years to find all the mistakes - but any new idea means that while it may add to modern thought, it also means there are a whole lot more ways to muck up that "modern thought".   I have gotten some approvals from other Scientists, and almost got it published in a Canadian Magazine called "Physics Essays" [http://www.physicsessays.com/] but there are a lot more narrow minded Scientists in the world like Sheldon for any really new idea - even if you produce a table of equation validations to more than 1000 decimal places.  I even got Dr. Saeid Nourian, owner of the Smart Math Calculator (http://www.runiter.com/   - the company that sold me the software that let me confirm it that far) to look at it, and he found it mathematically unchallengeable.

 

Admittedly, the academic version is a little boring, but there is also a funnier version at http://www.relativistic-perspective.com/ .  It's also attached.

 

Maybe I wil be even more boring and say that any proper Cosmological theory should have aspects of not just Big Bangs, but Cyclic Calamity's and Steady States too.

 

Hopefully the Moderator will let a new Scientific theory into Season 7.  I cannot imagine how much upset Sheldon would show if he came across a paper that could mathematically reason what would bring about a Big Bang, but not one nearly as Big as the one he's in love with. And as I opened with, there could also be Medium Bangs, Little Bangs and even Itty-Bitty Bangs.

 

Hope the consulting scientists on The Big Bang Theory are more open minded than the establishment ones.  An infinite reality is an idea that we should finally get used to.  For the whole time the human race has been running, the "high thinkers" have always put up fences that were nothing more than as far as we could see at that time.  And besides, what lies beyond the fences?  Isn't it more likely that just like before, we can only see our Local Universe?  Doesn't not setting limits, and presuming an infinity reality, a Ceaseless Cosmos somehow sound more "scientific"?

 

Back to your main point, yes Sheldon's scientific view of the world does seem narrow minded today but it might not have done when the show was first created 7 yrs ago. Keeping in mind that it is a TV show and only as accurate as the story allows. I hope Sheldon branches out to new ideas in the future but we will have to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.