40 replies to this topic

[sunnnz]

THERE MIGHT BE NO BIG BANG AND WHAT WE EXPERIENCE MIGHT BE AN END OF A QUASAR OR A VERY BIG EXPLOSION IN NEAR BY VISCINITY...

AND THE UNIVERSE MIGHT BE EVERLASTING AND INFINITE......../


COS THE FARTHESE THING WE CAN SEE ARE QUSARS SO THERE WERE NO GALAZYS WHEN THERE WERE QUASARS......

AND MAYBE THEY FORMED OUT OF THEM??????



TOPIC DISCUSSED IN NASA : DATE : 01/28/08

MADE EVERYBODY UPSET

LOL

REFERNCE : WWW.SPACE.COM

[REBEL]

I thought THE BIG BANG was/has always been a ''theory'' a ''hypothesis'' if ya like.
What makes anyone think it's ''factual'' anyway?

[MID]

REBEL on Feb 16 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

I thought THE BIG BANG was/has always been a ''theory'' a ''hypothesis'' if ya like.
What makes anyone think it's ''factual'' anyway?

Well, REBEL, there is a scientific difference between an hypothesis and a theory.
The Big Bang qualifies as a theory, which is a step above an hypothesis.

An hypothesis is an idea regarding an observation which has not had any emprical observational or experimental data to substantiate it.  A theory is the next step, where the data collected support the notion.   Now, a theory can be overturned with new evidence, but a theory is something that is a scientifically testable principal or body of principals that is offered to explain an observation.  A theory must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed.

The Big Bang, to date, has conformed to this paradigm of "theory".


Neither an hypothesis or a theory is strictly "factual".  That designation is reserved for scientific "law".   However, theory is a lot closer to law than hypothesis, and the Big Bang fits ther "theory" category.

[Genocyde]

Don't you hate people who type in all caps? Also, I don't even know what your trying to start a discussion about, there might have not been a big bang, ok...Universe might be infinite, ok...what else ya got?

[Torgo]

Not a clue what this person's trying to say about quasars.  They're just galaxies that contain at least one supermassive black hole in the process of actively consuming a lot of matter, as far as we can tell.

[REBEL]

MID on Feb 17 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

Well, REBEL, there is a scientific difference between an hypothesis and a theory.
The Big Bang qualifies as a theory, which is a step above an hypothesis.

An hypothesis is an idea regarding an observation which has not had any emprical observational or experimental data to substantiate it.  A theory is the next step, where the data collected support the notion.   Now, a theory can be overturned with new evidence, but a theory is something that is a scientifically testable principal or body of principals that is offered to explain an observation.  A theory must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed.

The Big Bang, to date, has conformed to this paradigm of "theory".


Neither an hypothesis or a theory is strictly "factual".  That designation is reserved for scientific "law".   However, theory is a lot closer to law than hypothesis, and the Big Bang fits the "theory" category.

But actually MID they refer to the Big Bang as a hypothesis more than a theory.

If neither are factual then why is it widely accepted & or taught in schools as tho it was fact?



Can anyone else see the confusion tho, or is it just me?... Lilly where are ya!

noun
Definition:

Theory:
1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
economic theories.

2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation

3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
She believed in the theory that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

4. hypothetical circumstances: a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical
That's the theory, but it may not work out in practice.

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena


noun
Definition:

Hypothesis:
1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation
The hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe.

2. assumption: a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument
That is what would logically follow if you accepted the hypothesis.

3. antecedent clause: in logic, the antecedent of a conditional statement

Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition

Edited by REBEL, 17 February 2008 - 08:22 AM.

[Alex01]

A scientific theory has more evidence, more proof, you could say more base.

Quote

THERE MIGHT BE NO BIG BANG AND WHAT WE EXPERIENCE MIGHT BE AN END OF A QUASAR OR A VERY BIG EXPLOSION IN NEAR BY VISCINITY...

AND THE UNIVERSE MIGHT BE EVERLASTING AND INFINITE......../


COS THE FARTHESE THING WE CAN SEE ARE QUSARS SO THERE WERE NO GALAZYS WHEN THERE WERE QUASARS......

AND MAYBE THEY FORMED OUT OF THEM??????



TOPIC DISCUSSED IN NASA : DATE : 01/28/08

MADE EVERYBODY UPSET

LOL

REFERNCE : WWW.SPACE.COM

Could you please be more precise?

Edited by Alex01, 17 February 2008 - 09:02 AM.

[Torgo]

Check out the age of the earth and universe thread I contributed to, at http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=119058 to see the evidence for the big bang and the age of the universe.

The distance-related redshift and cosmic background radiation are the clinchers suggesting that long ago the universe was dense and hot and has been expanding ever since.

Edited by Torgo, 17 February 2008 - 06:44 PM.

[MID]

REBEL on Feb 17 2008, 03:09 AM, said:

But actually MID they refer to the Big Bang as a hypothesis more than a theory.

If neither are factual then why is it widely accepted & or taught in schools as tho it was fact?



Can anyone else see the confusion tho, or is it just me?... Lilly where are ya!

I sure do see the confusion, REBEL.
It's kind of an interesting thing to get into the semantics of the terms hypothesis and theory.

The confusion, I feel, stems from the fact that the terms are used very specifically in the realm of science, and sometimes with much more liberal interpretations in colloquial expression.
In everyday language, theory and hypothesis are often synonyms, but in science they are not.

In science, we have an observation.  Next, we create hypotheses regarding that observation, which are basically ideas that might explain the observation.  
The next step is experimentation, which uses many different methods designed to validate an hypothesis, or to dismiss it.  If an hypothesis is validated, it becomes a theory.

A theory is as follows:

It is a logical, or mathematical explanation, or a model explaining observed phenomena which is testable and which can predict future observations or happenings of the same kind.  A theory, scientifically, can be invalidated via future observation and experimentation.  

I don't know if this is any clearer than mud... ... but I'm tryin'!

I'll just say that in science, the terms mean specific things.  In regular language the terms aren't generally held to the same level of specificity.

[greggK]

I don't think there was a big bang, something blew up!

[wolfieboy]

MID on Feb 16 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

Well, REBEL, there is a scientific difference between an hypothesis and a theory.
The Big Bang qualifies as a theory, which is a step above an hypothesis.

An hypothesis is an idea regarding an observation which has not had any emprical observational or experimental data to substantiate it.  A theory is the next step, where the data collected support the notion.   Now, a theory can be overturned with new evidence, but a theory is something that is a scientifically testable principal or body of principals that is offered to explain an observation.  A theory must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed.

The Big Bang, to date, has conformed to this paradigm of "theory".


Neither an hypothesis or a theory is strictly "factual".  That designation is reserved for scientific "law".   However, theory is a lot closer to law than hypothesis, and the Big Bang fits ther "theory" category.

NO NO NO  by the words of your own definition this not a theory.  there is not a single piece of evidence that is substantial enough to be called empirical. ie, derived from or guided by experience or experiment. most all fo our knowledge concerning the cosmos and its construction is hypothesis.  we have ideas but we lack facts. this is a known not an idea.  but you had a good try at fooling those who would simply believe as they are told, and not think as they are taught.   the big bang is just an idea left in place for lack of a better concept. nothing more and much less than a true theory.

[greggK]

Do black holes negate the theory of a big bang?  Or the hypothesis?

Edited by greggK, 17 February 2008 - 08:37 PM.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

greggK on Feb 17 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

I don't think there was a big bang, something blew up!

Thanks Gregg, as insightful as ever.

Why is the Big Bang accepted as fact? Well it has been said that a good theory explains all the observations, an exceptional theory makes predictions. This makes the Big Bang an exceptional theory.

The fact that all the objects in the Univers are rushing away from each other shows that the Universe can not be a static thing. It has to have evolved over time. This lead to two main rival theories, the Big Bang and Steady state. The Big Bang suggeast that the Universe had a definite moment of creation which uleashed all the matter and energy we see today. It also created space and time themselves.

The Steady State theory suggested that the Universe is constantly being created. There is a point from which matter and energy constantly flows, and the Universe is constantly expanding away from that point. This allowed for an infinitely old Universe whilst fitting in with the observed expansion of the Universe.

Both these theories explained the observed expansion of the Universe and both had there followers. That all changed in 1965.

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), which Torgo mentions in his post, was predicted by the Big Bang theory before it was actually discovered. This radiation is the left over energy from the the creation of the Universe. It radiates from all directions. It is also know as the 3K radiation as it shows that the Universe has a temperature of 3 Kelvin (that's 3^oC above absolute zero which is -270^oC or -454^o).

This background radiation had been predicted as early as 1948 and was discovered accidentally in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson. This discovery meant that the Big Bang was accepted by virtually all astronomers over rival theories, such as the Steady State theory, as none of them predicted or could explain the CMB.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Genocyde on Feb 17 2008, 02:47 AM, said:

Don't you hate people who type in all caps?

Yep. Not only is it annoying but it is actually against the RULES of this site:

Quote

4. Etiquette
In the interests of maintaining a quality discussion environment, please avoid the following:
4a. Shouting: Do not write in all uppercase letters, writing in this manner is considered "shouting" and makes posts difficult to read as well as looking unsightly and being annoying to other visitors.

sunnnz, please turn your Caps Lock off before making your next pot, thank you. I have edited the thread title so that it is no longer all in caps.

[greggK]

That's cool, man!
The reason I say that something blew up is by the material presence in the universe.
Every galaxy is a collection of dust around a central core and the central core is what blew up.
The material, the space dirt, is the surface of what blew up.
Humans may be the life that inhabited this part of the whole globe before it blew up and it was so long ago that we have just gotten smaller and smaller.