- #1
superwolf
- 184
- 0
Personally I regard the ToE as a fact, but is the BBT just as much of a fact? Can we trust both theories 100%, or are there gaps that need to be filled first?
humanino said:There is no serious evidence to doubt the general ideas presented by the big bang theory, although some details of the specific implementation into models are not fully clear.
Nothing is ever "certain", and the general question is extremely vast.superwolf said:What is it exactly that is certain, and what is not?
Most probably it is not worth, this being a personal opinion given with all the above commentaries ! There has been numerous attempts, and there are still some, to alternate theories to the big bang expansion, but none of them had the simplicity and the elegance necessary. The evidences for the big bang make it really difficult to build an alternative model.superwolf said:Is it for instance not worth doubting that the universe expands?
Then shouldn't it be FoE?superwolf said:Personally I regard the ToE as a fact, ...
humanino said:there still is negligible doubts that the Earth will still orbit around the Sun tomorrow.
jimmysnyder said:Then shouldn't it be FoE?
xxChrisxx said:RAGE
I hope you were being funny, as anyone who uses the phrase 'Fact of Evolution' with conviction should be taken to a hole in the ground and have a building dropped on them.
I really really hate how people mistake facts and theories.
/RAGE
xxChrisxx said:When people say Fact of Evolution they mean to imply that
THEORIES ARE BLIND SPECULATION!
Theories explain facts therefore it cheapens them to say 'fact of anything that is a scientific theory'.
In that case why is it not 'fact of gravity' 'Atomic Fact'.
Slight correction: you can't regard a theory as a fact. Evolution is an observed fact. The theory of evolution is not.superwolf said:Personally I regard the ToE as a fact...
No, people say "only a theory" when they are trying to cheapen it. No one is trying to cheapen it here, they are only accidentally mixing the very real issue of the fact of evolution (which is observed) vs the theory of evolution (which is the explanation of the fact).xxChrisxx said:When people say Fact of Evolution they mean to imply that
THEORIES ARE BLIND SPECULATION!
Theories explain facts therefore it cheapens them to say 'fact of anything that is a scientific theory'.
russ_watters said:Evolution is an observed fact.
russ_watters said:...fact of evolution (which is observed) vs the theory of evolution (which is the explanation of the fact).
Yes, it is. But if you are meaning to imply that the expansion of the universe is the big bang, well...superwolf said:Is the expansion of the universe an observed fact?
That depends on what interpretation of "creationism" you use. What the word typically implies is wholly incompatible with evolution. You can, however, consider the creation story as an allegory (or something else), which would allow compatibility.kasse said:Does it make sense do believe in both evolution and creationism?
russ_watters said:That depends on what interpretation of "creationism" you use. What the word typically implies is wholly incompatible with evolution. You can, however, consider the creation story as an allegory (or something else), which would allow compatibility.
I think many cosmologists would object to that. The big bang theory describes everything that happens after a given initial state, the past of which is sick in the model. The sickness is correctly named "singularity". I mean to say, although this is merely a semantic issue, the science is in what is after, not what is initially.russ_watters said:The big bang is a single event that happened a long time ago and cannot be directly observed.
Be careful with terms like "God" and "creationism". Discussion of the beliefs of individual religions are not allowed here. So, let's not go there.superwolf said:You can believe that God guided evolution.
superwolf said:Personally I regard the ToE as a fact, but is the BBT just as much of a fact? Can we trust both theories 100%, or are there gaps that need to be filled first?
Yes.superwolf said:So, in the same way as observed micro evolution suggests that humans have evolved from lower species, the expansion of the universe suggests that there was a big bang once?
Once again:humanino said:I think many cosmologists would object to that. The big bang theory describes everything that happens after a given initial state, the past of which is sick in the model. The sickness is correctly named "singularity". I mean to say, although this is merely a semantic issue, the science is in what is after, not what is initially.
The term "event" is something very specific in general relativity. It refers to the intersection of two light rays. There is no reason that all light rays should converge in the past to the same spacetime point, or "event", unless the Universe is compact, which is not what ΛCDM suggests. I am sure you are aware of these, but I just want to make it clear. Please correct me if I am wrong.russ_watters said:Big bang = event
Maybe we could simply disagree on that, but the initial singularity is sick in the model, considered to be outside the big bang theory, and usually not what cosmologist refer to when they use the term "big bang". There has been, and there still is, many attempts to remove this initial singularity. There are many hopes that a correct theory for quantum gravity will remove all singularities, including the initial one, which reflects the common belief that infinities do not actually happen in Nature, but pop up in the calculations at the border of our abilities. So I believe that cosmologists do not interpret the initial singularity as a physical prediction, but only as a mere artifact. The sufficient assumption for them is a uniform hot initial state.russ_watters said:Big bang theory = theory that predicts the big bang happened and models/describes/predicts what happened after.
troyerryan said:Neither are thrustworthy. BBT everything came from nothing or ToE Humans evolved from rocks through billions years of evolution. and people don't beileve in super powers
kasse said:Does it make sense do believe in both evolution and creationism?
wildman said:
russ_watters said:Yes, it is. But if you are meaning to imply that the expansion of the universe is the big bang, well...superwolf said:Is the expansion of the universe an observed fact?
The expansion of the universe implies a big bang but it is not the big bang. The big bang is a single event that happened a long time ago and cannot be directly observed. It is a prediction of a theory, not a fact.
You are right that Russ is wrong in a sense, but not in the sense that you think. Russ is wrong in the sense that the expansion of the universe does not imply a big bang. What can be said is that the observed expansion of the universe (a scientific fact) is consistent with the big bang theory (a scientific theory). Scientific theories cannot be proven true. They can however be proven false. The observed expansion of the universe is inconsistent with the steady state model, which is why that model fell out of favor 40 years ago. The big bang theory makes a number of other predictions about what we should see in the universe. What we see so far is consistent with the big bang theory. Some future observation might well disprove the theory, or at least mandate a modification to it.matt.o said:I don't think I agree with this, russ_waters. The redshift of a galaxy is an observational fact. The explanation for this redshift is that it is due to the expansion of the Universe, which is a natural consequence of the standard cosmology, which is rooted in general relativity.russ_watters said:The expansion of the universe implies a big bang but it is not the big bang. The big bang is a single event that happened a long time ago and cannot be directly observed. It is a prediction of a theory, not a fact.
D H said:You are right that Russ is wrong in a sense, but not in the sense that you think. Russ is wrong in the sense that the expansion of the universe does not imply a big bang. What can be said is that the observed expansion of the universe (a scientific fact) is consistent with the big bang theory (a scientific theory). Scientific theories cannot be proven true. They can however be proven false. The observed expansion of the universe is inconsistent with the steady state model, which is why that model fell out of favor 40 years ago. The big bang theory makes a number of other predictions about what we should see in the universe. What we see so far is consistent with the big bang theory. Some future observation might well disprove the theory, or at least mandate a modification to it.
Could you explain that a little more - I don't see how your explanation disagrees with the word "implies". It doesn't seem to me to address the usage of the word at all!D H said:You are right that Russ is wrong in a sense, but not in the sense that you think. Russ is wrong in the sense that the expansion of the universe does not imply a big bang. What can be said is that the observed expansion of the universe (a scientific fact) is consistent with the big bang theory (a scientific theory). Scientific theories cannot be proven true. They can however be proven false. The observed expansion of the universe is inconsistent with the steady state model, which is why that model fell out of favor 40 years ago. The big bang theory makes a number of other predictions about what we should see in the universe. What we see so far is consistent with the big bang theory. Some future observation might well disprove the theory, or at least mandate a modification to it.