Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

There might be no Big Bang?


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1    sunnnz

sunnnz

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Joined:16 Feb 2008

Posted 16 February 2008 - 07:09 PM

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


#2    REBEL

REBEL

    Esoteric Seeker

  • Member
  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined:09 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:=Australia=

  • ''GONE FISH'N, BRB...''

Posted 16 February 2008 - 11:49 PM

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


#3    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 17 February 2008 - 02:34 AM

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.





#4    Genocyde

Genocyde

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity
    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Posted 17 February 2008 - 02:47 AM

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?

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents.
--H.P. Lovecraft

In the absence of willpower the most complete collection of virtues and talents is wholly worthless.
--Aleister Crowley

#5    Torgo

Torgo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,239 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Graduate School

  • I aM tOrGo... I tAkE cArE oF tHe PlAcE wHiLe ThE mAsTeR iS aWaY...

Posted 17 February 2008 - 07:05 AM

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.


#6    REBEL

REBEL

    Esoteric Seeker

  • Member
  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined:09 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:=Australia=

  • ''GONE FISH'N, BRB...''

Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:09 AM

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?linked-image... 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.


#7    Sun Raven

Sun Raven

    Alpha & Omega

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,638 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

  • I am the master of my fate.
    I am the captain of my soul

Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:54 AM

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.

Posted Image

Sun Raven


#8    Torgo

Torgo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,239 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Graduate School

  • I aM tOrGo... I tAkE cArE oF tHe PlAcE wHiLe ThE mAsTeR iS aWaY...

Posted 17 February 2008 - 06:42 PM

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.


#9    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:15 PM

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?linked-image... 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... sad.gif ... 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.







#10    greggK

greggK

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,756 posts
  • Joined:14 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:alabama, USA

Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:19 PM

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

It is me!

#11    wolfieboy

wolfieboy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,808 posts
  • Joined:25 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CORPUS CHRISTI TX

  • yesterday is today, when you look back tomorrow

Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:28 PM

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.



#12    greggK

greggK

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,756 posts
  • Joined:14 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:alabama, USA

Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:36 PM

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


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

It is me!

#13    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,333 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 17 February 2008 - 08:52 PM

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 3oC above absolute zero which is -270oC or -454o).

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.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#14    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,333 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 17 February 2008 - 09:03 PM

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.



"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#15    greggK

greggK

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,756 posts
  • Joined:14 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:alabama, USA

Posted 17 February 2008 - 09:06 PM

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.

It is me!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users