Why is the Big Bang treated as untouchable in cosmology?

[deathtical]

It is nonetheless true.

You described the BB as an explosion. That is a misconception. No more info needed.



You have on many occasions heard non-scientists interpret what they think scientists are saying, thus getting it wrong. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you haven't heard scientists saying that.

WOW! You people keep bringing this up. When I already explained that YES I have heard scientists describing the Big Bang as being like an explosion. It was in reference to the way all matter in the universe was spread out from a central point. Some scientist do come off their high horses and try to explain things in a way that more people can understand them. They did not say it was like a stick on TNT exploding. Now, will you people please keep the comments to the actual discussion at hand and quit nit picking at something you obviously have nothing constructive to add to.

 

[deathtical]

There is what is known as a preponderance of evidence.
Many, many observations and models from many independent camps over decades all make predictions, and when those predictions match findings, that is compelling case that the models and estimates are correct.


No one model or theory can hope to overthrow centuries of accumulated data. It must occur slowly, as ( nay, if!) more data accumulates, showing why the incumbent model is wrong.

If science did not progress this way, theories would come and go daily, like cell phone models.

Thank you. This is much more useful.

 

[DaveC426913]

WOW! You people keep bringing this up. When I already explained that YES I have heard scientists describing the Big Bang as being like an explosion.

Don't believe you. Insist you heard an interpretation. But could be wrong. Exactly what scientist told you this?

Now, will you people please keep the comments to the actual discussion at hand and quit nit picking at something you obviously have nothing constructive to add to.

It is relevant when you contimue to make assertions. Phrase your posts as questions so we can root out the misconceptions. You can't simply come here, state whatever you want, then handwave every time someone corrects you. This forum has quality standards. And it is the misstatements that are contributing nothing productive, not the corrections.

Thank you. This is much more useful.

Well, glad I could help. You must understand, learning new stuff requires clearing away old stuff.

Also, these posts remain in perpetuity, for other students to read. We have an obligation to set the record straight, not just for the OP, but also for anyone who reads the thread.

 

[deathtical]

Don't believe you. Insist you heard an interpretation. But could be wrong. Exactly what scientist told you this?


It is relevant because you are still making assertions. Phrase your posts as questions so we can root out the misconceptions.

You can't simply come here, state whatever you want, then handwave every time someone corrects you. This forum has quality standards. And it is the misstatements that are contributing nothing productive, not the corrections.

I was watching something on the Science Channel and a Cosmologist was trying to break it down for everyone watching. Her explanation started with that and got increasingly more specific from there. By the time she had finished her explanation it was evident that she was trying to convey that it was not an explosion in the tradition sense but was just a way for her to simplify that some event caused all the matter and energy in the universe to move away from the universe's "center" very rapidly.

Now, may we please get back on track? Thanks.

 

[deathtical]

Also, these posts remain in perpetuity, for other students to read. We have an obligation to set the record straight, not just for the OP, but also for anyone who reads the thread.

I understand. Thanks.

 

[SYahoo]

The [Big Bang] theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations.

I think that is "Why everyone is so stuck to the idea".

Quote From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang"

 

[DaveC426913]

... By the time she had finished her explanation it was evident that she was trying to convey that it was not an explosion in the tradition sense but was just a way for her to simplify ...

In other words, you knew we were telling the truth all along (since the TV said the same thing), you were just being contrariwise? And you're accusing us of being argumentative? Hm??

Now, may we please get back on track? Thanks.

Which was what? I thought we'd convinced you why BB is really the only theory that holds any water. What else was there?

 

[deathtical]

Which was what? I thought we'd convinced you why BB is really the only theory that holds any water. What else was there?

Oh no. Science Channel has done it again. They just had a great show called "What Happened Before the Big Bang?". Very interesting and informative. Not only did many genuine scientists describe the BB using the "e" word but they discussed several very interesting new ideas about cosmology that either built on the BB, threw out the BB, or said "What BB?". It's on again tomorrow at 12:00am (or tonight I guess) and again on the 20th at 4:00am. So set those DVRs so you too can hear a genuine scientist say the BB was an expl... well... I won't ruin it for you

 

[bcrowell]

This thread seems to have run its course, so I'm closing it.