Is big bang proven to be solid true?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Saint, Jun 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Is big bang proven to be solid true?
    Just because we observe that the distant galaxies are flying away from us, we postulate that the universe was born from a big bang?
    So far, how true is big bang according to the latest astronomical observation?
    And, any evidence to prove otherwise?
  2. leopold Valued Senior Member

    yes, my opinion is the "big bang" can be regarded as fact.
    in '53 miller-urey conducted their "primordial" experiment and produced a number of compounds in various proportions. this experiment simulated earth as it would have formed from the big bang.

    over the next 40 or so years scientists have also found these same compounds in the same proportions in space debris (meteorites).

    this, in my opinion would confirm the big bang, at least locally.
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2009
  3. Meursalt Comatose Registered Senior Member

    The answer is No.

    No "opinion" is going to change that.
  4. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    nothing can be "proven true" only more correct than it was yesterday based on observable data we have collected today. Look at newton's theories, they were correct enough at the time but we now know they are wrong (though they are right enough we can still use them for most things) and have been replaced with enstine's theories. Something else will come along eventually to replace enstine as well
  5. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Asguard is exactly right here. No scientific theory can be proven in an absolute sense to be true. Science operates in much the same sense as does the law. Just because someone is found guilty of a heinous crime does not mean he truly is guilty. The standard in criminal trials is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Scientists do not hold formal trials to deem whether some conjecture can be called a theory. The trial of a theory takes place in scientific conferences, scientific journals, and laboratories. A conjecture becomes theory over time, after enough scientists have pored over the logic that underlies the theory and tested the predictions made by it.

    As far as the big bang, it is the only game in town that explains things like the observed ratio of hydrogen and helium in the universe, the observed expansion of the universe (this observation is what killed the steady state theory, the model that preceded the big bang theory).
  6. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member


    The big bang is one particular take on certain evidence and a number of unproven ideas, like singularities and inflation. It has a number of serious problems with it that have not been addressed.

    We cannot know for certain that galaxies are flying away from each other. We would have to live millions of years to see that. One take on the red shift suggests that everything is moving away from everything else (local gravity aside).

    At 10^-32 (that's 0. 31 noughts 1) of a second, matter was created so we have the whole universe in a size smaller than a cricket ball. A density trillions of times that needed for a black hole and black holes don't inflate or expand. Of course, a singularity is magical, so can ignore the laws of gravity.

    The big bang may turn out to be true in the end and it may not. We should not have all our eggs in one basket if it is shown to be wrong one day.
  7. John99 Banned Banned

    what makes you think that?

    theory: the earth is flat.

    proven false

    theory: the earth is round.

    someone had that theory and now we know what the earth looks like. it is round.

    theory: the heart pumps blood.
  8. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    john99, I suggest your read up a bit on the philosophy of science. The wikipedia article is a good start. I also suggest you read up a bit on falsifiability. Scientific theories can be proven false. In fact, they must be able to be proven false. That is one of the hallmarks that distinguish scientific theories from non-scientific conjectures.
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    the things i mentioned in the previous post were theories at one time. i like the earth example because it demonstrates a theory proven false and proven to be true.
  10. Tyler Registered Senior Member

    The flasification theory is far from the only or most accepted theory. It is necessary, but not sufficient as a definition.
  11. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Of course not.

    Anyone who would claim it is soundly dismisses their own credibility, and their basic understanding of science.

    The evidence that theory is based on is SO thin. The conclusions drawn form that evidence are quite elementary.

    But it's the current theory science is proceeding on.

    Recent discoveries are shedding more light on why a red shift would be seen in all directions form earth.
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    But the flat earth was not a "theory" as the word is defined in science. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and peer-reviewed intensively without being falsified. Every time the flat-earth hypothesis was tested or peer-reviewed with any rigor, even in ancient times, flaws were discovered in it. Didn't both the Greeks and the Egyptians calculate the curvature of the earth with surprising accuracy?

    It's not reasonable to call any theory "scientific" that predated the dawn of science halfway through the last millennium. Those are more like the theories of psychologists and economists: handy models until they break down. Or the theories of a police detective: a useful hunch for solving a riddle that has already occurred, not for predicting the future behavior of the universe.

    Yes, scientific theories are occasionally falsified, but it happens so rarely that the canon of science never comes crashing down on us. It's more usual for one to just be elaborated, such as the Einsteinian elaboration of Newton's Laws.

    The scientific method really does work.
  13. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Wrong and wrong. The evidence is very solid and deep: redshifts; the cosmic microwave background radiation; the relative abundance of [sup]1[/sup]H, [sup]2[/sup]H, [sup]3[/sup]He, and [sup]4[/sup]He.

    Any theory that supplants the big bang theory will need to explain these observed scientific facts.
  14. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    I would argue that the flat earth is to the round earth as Newton's classical physics are to Einsteinian relativity. Both a flat earth model and Newtonian physics work great at certain scales. When you move beyond those scales you need a different, more refined model. There are many circumstances under which you can assume that the earth is flat and have things work out just fine.
  15. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    And all other 'takes' thus far put forward have flaws in them. And if you entertain sufficiently tenious 'takes' then even if we observed for a billion years and saw things move apart you could come up with some convoluted non-expansion explaination.

    Considering we have no working model of matter at such times and energy scales I'd question the validity of the statements you make. Further more, I'd also repeat something I've told you many times that densities only lead to black holes if the material is in casual contact, something inflation prevents. Hence the BB is not saying a black hole expanded out of its own event horizon.

    No one is. But no one has provided a model which can compete with its descriptive power.
  16. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Dear me Leopold. I don't know how you do it. Such incredibly wrong ideas about so much. An encyclopedic cornucopia of incomprehension.

    The Miller-Urey experiments simulated a hypothetical primordial atmosphere. We now know its composition to have been wrong. Moreover, at this point the BIg Bang theory was not the favoured hypothesis. The selection of the atmospheric components did not depend in any way on the Big Bang or Steady State theories. The experiment certainly did not deal with the formation of the Earth.

    Actually, they have not found the same compounds except in a very general sense. Even if they had it would say nothing especially relevant about the Big Bang.

    The Big Bang is not a local event, it is metaphorically and literally universal. Your opinion upon this point is completely wrong.

    Personally, I have always thought it was uphill all the way.
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Such as...???
  18. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    i agree with you to an extent. Everyone knows (or should) that the earth is round but we ALL carry flat earth stuff (ie maps) which work well except close to the poles
  19. Saint Valued Senior Member

    1) I can't understand how should I imagine the space-time of this universe? Is it like an expanding baloon? Baloon has an edge, the peripheral, how about the universe? What is beyond the edge of the universe? You call it event horizon? What actually it is?

    2) Could there be more than one universe? I remember I read that there are scientists postulated that more than 1 universe is possible.
  20. jmpet Valued Senior Member

    Understanding the nature of dark matter and dark energy will determine whether the Big Bang is true or not. Evidence so far indicates it is true.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page