Poll: The Big bang theory, Do you think its true?
- Thread starter Lullabye
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No it doesn't. The Big Bang theory is that the universe today is in its current form because, long ago, all of the matter and energy contained in the universe was in a single spot, which exploded. It says nothing about where it came from, and nothing about what came before.mykalwane said:
They were designed by engineers, not scientists. Engineers and inventors got us to the moon, not venerable men, drolling down their enormous white beards while trying to desperately stay awake in the university staff room. Science has enabled us to understand our universe to an extent that our monkey-like ancestors could never have dreamed possible, but it has made a hell of a lot of mistakes along the way.Maze1125 said:
Science demands skepicisississism, especially when we examine the current state of science. The tools they are using to try and examine the universe are pitifully primitive. Right now, it takes a fair chunk of resources from the worlds largest nation merely to get a man to our moon, I have probably walked that far already during my lifespan. We are still burning fossil fuels to power our technology. Robotic probes frequently fail, and all we have ever really done in terms of interplanetary exploration is send a few Tyco RC cars to Mars.
If this thread is stored somewhere, and is read by physics students in 3009, they will laugh at us, much as people today laugh at those who drilled holes in skulls to let the demons out.
It's a theory, the leading theory in science for now.
There's plenty of stuff to back up the claims, but it can never be proven.
It's probably not completely accurate, but it's the best we have.
That is... which answer? I'd say 2 but I don't have a clue what happened.
There's plenty of stuff to back up the claims, but it can never be proven.
It's probably not completely accurate, but it's the best we have.
That is... which answer? I'd say 2 but I don't have a clue what happened.
"The graph on the back of the shirt is data from the COBE [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE] mission, which looked at the background microwave glow of the universe and found that it fit perfectly with the idea that the universe used to be really hot everywhere. This strongly reinforced the Big Bang theory and was one of the most dramatic examples of an experiment agreeing with a theory in history -- the data points fit perfectly, with error bars too small to draw on the graph. It's one of the most triumphant scientific results in history."
Man, XKCD has everything I would ever need to reply in science related threads.
So you where there to note these fluctuations and what caused them... You have the equations and theories that explain these fluctuations? Something more then 'fluctuations exist, we can ignore the inconstancies.' Cause doing so... isn't science.Maze1125 said:
I guess I am asking 'source?'
See, every minor 'inconsitancy' in physics has to be explained, instead of just waving away as some irreverent detail. That is why Einstein researched gravity as well, seeing that Newton didn't explain everything, and created new, better and accurate theories. We are not arguing that gravity ceased to exist, just that physics abhors inconstancies and there are plenty with the big bang that still need to be addressed.
This is to be expected seeing much of it is assumed, as we where not around to witness it and are observing the after mass at best. On top of that we do not yet understand more then the tip of the iceberg that is our universe and this theory is the big one, the start of it all. This is why we can't begin to hold the big bang as a complete theory!
That is what I am arguing, not that the theory has to be scraped cause of the inconstancies, just we should stop worshiping it as if it is 100% fact when it is a rough draft, at best. Which leads me to conclude.... at this point I think we are just splitting hairs. We are not even arguing from the opposite ends of the table on this, just over minor differences.
At this point we will just keep rehashing those inconstancies as if they where life or death to the theory but you and I both don't believe they are. The inconsistency, and many doubts I still harbor, will likely be explained by some scientists a few generations down the track. Someone much smarter then you or I coupled with far more data to work with. All I am doing is pointing out that we need to refine it better, to observe a larger test group of galaxies' and find ways to observe the very fundamental building blocks of the universe which we still are only guessing at. Then, with this additional observational data, we could can make a more solid theory.
As you see I still believe the big bang theory has to many questions around it to be 'worshiped' as a complete theory. It is likely a large step in the right direction but needs refining that will only come with a few thousand years worth of observational data derived with methods we modern man can not fathom. This is the natural cycle of science and I like it this way, stops it getting stale and old.
No.pimppeter2 said:
You have two choices, either trust science, or don't.
If you don't, then you can't justifiably have an opinion either way without studying the actual theory for yourself.
I don't quite understand, how do you think the DNA test can be right and yet the guy still be innocent?
There are two possible sources for that information.Jinx_Dragon said:
1) A simple understanding of statistics.
2) A complete understanding of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and precisely how their interactions caused fluctuations in the early universe.
Either way, I can't just provide a simple link.
No scientist thinks like that.
The Big Bang isn't complete, no theory is ever complete.
But that doesn't mean it's currently flawed.
1) Just saying 'it is statistics' is no where near science
2) We don't have a solid unification theory! Are you really trying to say a 'complete understanding of how Quantum and relativity react' waves away these fluctuations when we don't even have anything more then a mathematically balanced theory, with no observational data?!
No, more data is needed and better systems to observe thought up. Till then we are just fooling ourselves not to entertain the possibility that we might be wrong. Hell as it stands we havn't even seen the theorized partials of the Quantum, we shouldn't be theorizing how they birthed the universe just yet, I feel.
You have no answer for this cause there isn't one.
As for scientists, no it isn't the scientists* that I am worried about. It is the normal people who treat science as a religion, taking as 'be all and end all.' They bother me quite a lot actually, cause they tend to be just as closed minded as the fanatical believers in any other religion. Look at the arguments raised at just suggesting the Big Bang might of been incorrect, even against people who just think it might not be accurate enough due to lack of significant data....
* Outside a handful of sell out scientists in any case, hey it is easy to call yourself a scientist this day and age even if your accepting large amounts of money to say what some focus group wants you to say....
2) We don't have a solid unification theory! Are you really trying to say a 'complete understanding of how Quantum and relativity react' waves away these fluctuations when we don't even have anything more then a mathematically balanced theory, with no observational data?!
No, more data is needed and better systems to observe thought up. Till then we are just fooling ourselves not to entertain the possibility that we might be wrong. Hell as it stands we havn't even seen the theorized partials of the Quantum, we shouldn't be theorizing how they birthed the universe just yet, I feel.
You have no answer for this cause there isn't one.
As for scientists, no it isn't the scientists* that I am worried about. It is the normal people who treat science as a religion, taking as 'be all and end all.' They bother me quite a lot actually, cause they tend to be just as closed minded as the fanatical believers in any other religion. Look at the arguments raised at just suggesting the Big Bang might of been incorrect, even against people who just think it might not be accurate enough due to lack of significant data....
* Outside a handful of sell out scientists in any case, hey it is easy to call yourself a scientist this day and age even if your accepting large amounts of money to say what some focus group wants you to say....
Saying that a collation of data is no where near science is a complete mangling of understanding what the scientific method is.Jinx_Dragon said:
No, but a knowledge of red-shift and the doppler effect is what led to the big bang theory.
Of course, the curvature of space and relativity make the model a lot more complex... but...
To simplify things:
The further objects are from us, the faster they tend to be moving away from us. Things at a certain distance are moving very close to the speed of light away from us, therefore, if we take that distance, and the speed they are going, we can calculate a theoretical time at which they occupied the same space as us.
Then we take this data, and we collate it across as many different directions as possible. The data tends to agree on a certain point. Most of these objects were, at the same time approximately, in the same place. This is simple math based on observation and data.
Thusly, if all these objects where at the same time and space, and now they are not, then it's pretty reasonable to think there was a huge explosion of matter.
Then you get black holes bending light and mucking up how we think of space/time, which means that we then have to say 'Well, space-time must have also started around that point.'
It gets really complex, but the basis for the theory is actually pretty simple and involves math no more difficult than time = distance / speed.
Quantum mechanics is micro-physics, and once you get to billions of quanta, is no longer really helpful or usable in determining curvatures of space-time on a cosmological scale.
It'll be useful to understand the -why- the Big Bang occured, but before you set out to examine the -reasons- for an event, sometimes it's helpful to examine and prove that the event actually occured in the first place.
There is, however, a burning question which the Big Bang provides an excellent answer for. If not the big bang, then why is the observable edge of the universe retreating near the speed of light at an exact distance as measured by observation, and why do all these objects at the universes edge converge on a single point in space/time when extrapolated back in time?
The simplest conclusion is that 'Well, they were all there.' Hense why that's the one getting the most examination. Occam's Razor and all.
The ignorance about what the scientific method is about is not a counter-argument against the scientific method's results. It's an argument about ignorance...
...as is this.
So how did it get there then? If you can explain that I might agree with you. See the thing with that I don't get is that if that is true something had to happen for matter to come into a single point then? So far there doesn't seem to be an answer.cuddly_tomato said:
Absolutely, there has to be some form of answer to that, if the Big Bang theory is true.mykalwane said:
Now, without any sort of observation or evidence, it's very difficult to answer that question. Science is based on observation and evidence, not on answering questions people demand. The absense of the answer to -that- question does not attack the validity of the Big Bang theory, which is based not on -that- question, but on the question 'Why everything in the universe moving away from a common point in space-time?'
The -hows- and -whys- of that question are interesting, in that -should- observations or evidence come forth with some clue there, they might then be used to support/deny the Big Bang theory. But the Big Bang theory does not -require- those questions be answered in order to be tested and proven/disproven/supported/denied.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. You're demanding questions be answered that no observation exists to even speculate. Instead, try to understand the reasons behind the theory itself, rather than simply asking 'Hey, you can't answer this other thing, so the whole thing must be bullocks.' Speculation without evidence is the province of faith. Science is speculation -with- evidence.
Science also hasn't fully explained gravity yet. But gravity definately exists, and science -can- quantify it, and has observed that it -happens.- Why? Science doesn't yet know. But it does. Doubting the scientific method when it shows evidence a phenomenon happens just because it can't yet explain why isn't a cogent arguement to make.
Statistics are not, in any way shape or form, science. Hell I can go out side and get ten random people, ask them a loaded question and form a statistic. Statistics are just a number, often without purpose. Ones that have not come anywhere close to explaining the fluctuation. Science needs to be accurate, the inaccuracies are what leads to new theories being proposed or else we would still be content to believe all the things we ridicule this day and age, such as the earth being the center of the universe and the likes.DracoSuave said:
As for them being part of the scientific method... you make me laugh so hard with that idea. The method deals with observing data, forming theories and trying to break said theories through experimentation. No where in the method does it say you can ignore some anomalies because you have observed a greater amount of data that fits your theory then you have data that doesn't fit. You can not ignore something that doesn't fit just because 'statistics' are on your side.
No a single observed anomaly is enough to rewrite a theory!
Red shifts just explain an observation of the universe at the current time then we plotted back and assumed it has always been this way. We have no way to plot what changes might of happened during history, changes that likely led to the existence of Blue shift universes which do NOT fit in the current models. Just pointing out their existence is what led to the bullshit excuse of 'fluctuation happen.' Hence we have gone a complete circle, like I said we would, back to: Explain blue shift past 'fluctuations happen!'
And the event hasn't been proven, we have some observational data that indicates the galaxies are moving at an accelerating rate but past that we have very little. We have observed what is happening now and assumed it is what has always happened. We might be right, we might not be right, but again I come back to the fact we need more information. We don't know a fraction of our universe, hell even our galaxy holds large mysteries that we need to explore, and who knows what else might be out there.
I say we need more data.
The question exists, yes, it has always existed and you know what... the big bang does NOT answer it. The question of course being what started the universe and the big bang assumes a singularity which exploded. logical assumption but doesn't explain what that singularity was, what was before it and all that other stuff.
What we have observed is what we have observed but we have not observed a big bang event. Hence we are making assumptions, backed with observational data but still assumptions. Till we have a way to make even a mini big bang we will not be able to say we have proven the theory. All we can say is we know this is currently happening. Far from enough to be screaming from the mountain tops that we are correct.
Hey, I just had a thought... what if we are moving towards a single point and not away from it? If this point has a form of gravity then things that get closer to it would move at an faster rate then things further away. As we are trapped within this movement it would mean anything closer, to the point in question, we observe would be moving away from us, at the same rates of acceleration we would get if we assumed we where pushed away from a center point. Like wise anything further away from the point then we are would move slower, and we would again be moving away from that.
There, using the basic of Hubble I have put forth a theory that also fits the observational data. Things are accelerating away from us cause they are closer to a single point in space that is pulling them towards it with a force that gets greater as they get closer. We don't have to worry about beign sucked in though, a blue shift galaxy will crash into ours before that happens... yay for end of the worlds!
Again I state it: We just don't have the means to make the sort of observations needed to prove/disprove the big bang! Hubble just observed that the galaxies we can see are moving at a set rate... that is as far as I am willing to take his observations, cause those are what where observed. To plot it back to a single point seems logical but it is billions of years of history that could of done who knows what to the shaping of the galaxy.
Like wise the existence of blue shift universes are a fluctuation that needs to be explained. If something in the universe, present or in the past, could change the movement of a galaxy then it has the power to shape the universe in a way we havn't fathomed. If they exist, and blue shifts suggests something does, then who knows what changes to the model we ahve to make to account for this strange movement pattern.
Occam's razor assumes we have all the knowledge at our grasp. Very likely the most obvious explanation isn't the most correct if we are missing large chunks of data. Earth being the center of the universe fir Occam's razor so well only a couple of hundred years ago too. Who knows how much ridicule we will get a few hundred years from now....
Actually, that was my observations on some 'scientists' who have PHDs and everything but are always willing to say whatever the company wants them to say. Others who take money from focus groups to give a 'scientific' opinion to support a political stance regardless of the reality we are facing. Even more that are just as human as the rest of us, taking a view and refusing to budge from it.
And the people without the PHDs tend to be worse....
Or, if you actually know what you're talking about, you have the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Gravity.misterprickly said:
There is no law of gravity, there is Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, but that was proven to be inaccurate.
The term "theory" does not mean the same thing in science as it does to a layman.
And what, exactly, is this law of gravity? Scientificly speaking?misterprickly said:
Based on what evidence? The problem is that this opinion is based on the willful ignorance of evidence, rather than the careful consumption of evidence. This is not a defendable opinion, epistomologically speaking. It's a choice to be ignorant and call it an opinion.
Doppler effect isn't a theory, it's an observable phenomenon based on the nature of waves, and is what is used to show light has a wave nature.
Or, how else do you explain why cars' engines change pitch as they approach and then move away from you? Doppler effect. It happens with sound. It happens with light. Measurable, and exact. Proven by science.
Redshift is just the name for the doppler effect on light as objects move away. Blueshift is what happens when it moves toward. Do notice this happens a lot less often in astronomy... that itself being what lead to the Big Bang theory.