outlandish---
All observations EVER made point to the fact that the big bang occured 13.7 ish billion years ago.
1)firstly the figure of 13.7 is an approxiamtion, not conclusive fact, you seem to have a problem with semntics.
2)secondly my questions to you did not pertain to
when the universe came into exsistence.
3)my questions to you pertained directly to the
nature of the universe, and the
nature of that which exsisted
before it.
knowing when
x occoured does not equate to knowledge of the
nature of
x, the two concepts are clearly separate and distinguishable.
This is somehting which has been studied for almost 100 years.
irrelevant.
You are obviously ignorant about how science actually works,
but am wise enough to acknowledge the fact that the knowledge of exactly
what the universe is,
how it came into exsistence completely transends that which we are able to comprehend and rationalise.
only the completely beligerent and arrogant will try to attempt to dispute this quite clearly fundemental concept.
.
This theory is based on some physical observation or insight into nature.[/quote]
some insight into the nature of x doesnt equate to conclusive knoowledge about the complete nature of x
We calculate things with this theory, and make explicit predictions.
as above.
Then we TEST the theory. This involves building billion dollar, multi-national sattelites and sending them into space to take data for ten years. We then analyze the data and see how well the data fit with the prediction of the theory.
If the data confirm the theory, then it is ``right'' inasmuch as anything can be ``right''.
no, all this shows is that the data concludes the parameters established by the theory.
what you fail to acknowledge is that any theory postulated by man is limited by his ability of comprehension and rationilisation. this is self eveident, since it is impossible to rationalise something outside of our rationilisation, and similarly it is impossible to comprehend something that transends our comprehension. so hence any thoery will be inherently limited, thus as will be any subsequent conclusions drawn.
In this sense, the matter is proved,
So, yes, I can prove how the universe started.
then prove it.
I can prove there was a big bang by looking at the SDSS red-shift data (which shows the universe is expanding uniformly in every direction)
not the same as conclusive knowledge of the nature of the bigbang.
I can prove the Big Bang happened. The question is, can you prove otherwise?
you cant. you can regurgitate data, but
you cant
prove that you have conclusive knowledge as to the exact nature of the universe, the exact nature of how the universe came into being, and the exact nature of what exsisted before it.