ChatterBank2 mins ago
Time after the Big Bang
Its remarkable how we can look back billions of years soon after creation. If all those events happened billions of years ago how do we know what happened to those events since?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
venator: Phlogiston wasn't daft. It was a reasonable theory which was wrong. The big bang idea is based on a lot of facts. Don't forget that theories are usually modified, not thrown into the dustbin. Einstein's theory does not throw Newton's theory into the bin, it includes Newton's theory as a special case.
Yes, of course that's the whole point.
Years ago: few facts known. Theories only fit some of the facts.
Nowadays: lots of facts known, theories fit most of the facts.
We are homing in on an explanation of the Universe where we can explain more and more of the observed facts. We do not do what you claim: throw away the facts each time. We are honing our theories and getting closer and closer.
Years ago: few facts known. Theories only fit some of the facts.
Nowadays: lots of facts known, theories fit most of the facts.
We are homing in on an explanation of the Universe where we can explain more and more of the observed facts. We do not do what you claim: throw away the facts each time. We are honing our theories and getting closer and closer.
@Venator - As you say, scientific theories are open to question, and scorn (which, to be fair, has more gravitas if the person being scornful is an expert in the field), and you are of course perfectly entitled to your point of view.
The Phlogiston reference you made serves as an example of the scientific process - A hypothesis was made, on the best observable evidence at the time, and was then amended and changed as data from new experiments came in. Finally, the weight of experimental data disagreeing with the phlogiston hypothesis became so great that it was consigned to the rubbish bin. That is, as you correctly point out, how much of science works.
This is also the process being applied to the creation of the cosmos, and the BBT is the latest in a line of hypotheses trying to explain the observations and experimental data.It has been amended, and new avenues suggested for confirmatory research - physicists at the LHC for instance might be able to demonstrate supersymmetric particles - a possible candidate to explain dark matter - and should that happen, the BBT hypothesis gets stronger.
In the absence of any other, more compelling hypothesis to explain the observational data, I personally would provisionally accept the BBT as being the most likely explanation, rather than just dismiss it out of hand, as you appear to do. To you then, what hypothesis is there that better explains the creation of the universe?
If you do not have a credible alternative hypothesis, your scorn seems unjustified.................
The Phlogiston reference you made serves as an example of the scientific process - A hypothesis was made, on the best observable evidence at the time, and was then amended and changed as data from new experiments came in. Finally, the weight of experimental data disagreeing with the phlogiston hypothesis became so great that it was consigned to the rubbish bin. That is, as you correctly point out, how much of science works.
This is also the process being applied to the creation of the cosmos, and the BBT is the latest in a line of hypotheses trying to explain the observations and experimental data.It has been amended, and new avenues suggested for confirmatory research - physicists at the LHC for instance might be able to demonstrate supersymmetric particles - a possible candidate to explain dark matter - and should that happen, the BBT hypothesis gets stronger.
In the absence of any other, more compelling hypothesis to explain the observational data, I personally would provisionally accept the BBT as being the most likely explanation, rather than just dismiss it out of hand, as you appear to do. To you then, what hypothesis is there that better explains the creation of the universe?
If you do not have a credible alternative hypothesis, your scorn seems unjustified.................
You're all missing my point.
What I'm debunking is the way the big bang is presented as dogma, which may not be attacked without the sky falling on my head, as it is currently doing.
To summarise - big bank as theory OK
big bang as dogma, forced down my throat as absolute unassailable truth - not OK
Can we leave it at that, and hope the OP is happy with his reply to his sensible question?
What I'm debunking is the way the big bang is presented as dogma, which may not be attacked without the sky falling on my head, as it is currently doing.
To summarise - big bank as theory OK
big bang as dogma, forced down my throat as absolute unassailable truth - not OK
Can we leave it at that, and hope the OP is happy with his reply to his sensible question?
Sorry, chaps, I merely said the idea was barmy and you all ganged up on me, in a very condescending way, saying I couldn't understand the idea, and saying I was "the only barmy component"
The only thing I would forecast is that in 100 years, children in school or whatever will look back at the big bang theory and see it in the same contexy as phlogiston and heloicentricism. Anyone care to bet a fiver? <]:-)
The only thing I would forecast is that in 100 years, children in school or whatever will look back at the big bang theory and see it in the same contexy as phlogiston and heloicentricism. Anyone care to bet a fiver? <]:-)
I think you are totally wrong there. Any new theory will have to be a variation on the Big Bang idea, NOT a completely different idea.
At the time of Phlogiston theories were very different because very few facts were known. Now, because we know so much and our theories explain so much in great detail and to great accuracy, any change will be small, because we don't have so much room for manoeuvre when we are looking to include new facts. In the old days we had loads of room for manoeuvre.
At the time of Phlogiston theories were very different because very few facts were known. Now, because we know so much and our theories explain so much in great detail and to great accuracy, any change will be small, because we don't have so much room for manoeuvre when we are looking to include new facts. In the old days we had loads of room for manoeuvre.
@Venator If I read your posts right, venator, you have equated the BBT with palpably loony theories. You have asserted that the BBT is stuff and nonsense, and further suggested that the theory will be the subject of ridicule in a 100 years.
You then go on to claim that your main beef is that the BBT is presented as incontravertible fact , a dogma and you resent this - None of the posts I have read here present the BBT in that fashion, nor would any reputable scientist.
If you do not think the BBT is right - what alternative do you have that makes more sense?
You assert we are unable to see your point ( from the posts, I would say this is self evidently incorrect), and that everyone ganged up on you. The dismissive and cursory nature of your initial posts dictated the type of response. If you feel your point was misunderstood, then that probably says more about the lack of clarity in your initial posts, rather than the respondents inability to understand.
Somewhere in your posts you say something to the effect that theories can be dismissed with scorn - I totally agree - Don't then complain when people treat your posts with similar derision.
You then go on to claim that your main beef is that the BBT is presented as incontravertible fact , a dogma and you resent this - None of the posts I have read here present the BBT in that fashion, nor would any reputable scientist.
If you do not think the BBT is right - what alternative do you have that makes more sense?
You assert we are unable to see your point ( from the posts, I would say this is self evidently incorrect), and that everyone ganged up on you. The dismissive and cursory nature of your initial posts dictated the type of response. If you feel your point was misunderstood, then that probably says more about the lack of clarity in your initial posts, rather than the respondents inability to understand.
Somewhere in your posts you say something to the effect that theories can be dismissed with scorn - I totally agree - Don't then complain when people treat your posts with similar derision.
I'm with venator on this. The Big Bang Theory does get pushed as fact and that really grates on me too. Much of the stuff we get told on science programs light Stargazing Live is theory and not fact but the distinction is very rarely made by the scientists. The Big Bang, expansion of space, dark energy, dark matter and black holes are all theory but get talked about as if they were as real as stars and galaxies. The problem is, the program-makers want these programs to be as awe-inspiring as possible so they think they neglect to use of words like "we think that..." or "if we assume X, then Y...", but by doing so they are misleading people.
I suspect that the Big Bang Theory will have been consigned to the history books 50 years from now. It is based on the assumption that the redshifts of distant galaxies are a doppler effect caused by the fantastical notion of "expanding space". If these redshifts have a different cause, i.e. light losing energy through interaction with matter in the intergalactic medium, the whole theory falls apart. I recommend people watch this documentary...
http://bit.ly/sv3MGo
I suspect that the Big Bang Theory will have been consigned to the history books 50 years from now. It is based on the assumption that the redshifts of distant galaxies are a doppler effect caused by the fantastical notion of "expanding space". If these redshifts have a different cause, i.e. light losing energy through interaction with matter in the intergalactic medium, the whole theory falls apart. I recommend people watch this documentary...
http://bit.ly/sv3MGo
At what point is it legitimate to say something is a fact ? If one is particularly cautious one could insist nothing is really fact, it is all theory. And at the same time we know that what was thought to be fact at one time can be deemed 'not quite right' at a later time. It seems to me claiming the Big Bang as fact at this time is a reasonable claim given the way it explains so much. But one may disagree if one can demonstrate a better explanation.
Latest Posts
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music9 mins ago
Death Of Three Young Ladies Backpacking...
News17 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News36 mins ago
