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

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.

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?

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.

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

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



Could you please be more precise?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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


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.

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.

I will maintain that a theory that is supported by a theory is not a theory but a hypothesis

I hate to break it to uou Gregg, but basically that iS the Big Bang theory.


No it isn't. This is in no way fits the observations of Astronomers. It is another case of you just spouting the first rubbish that comes into your head and pretending it is fact.


More meaningless nonsense. Go and read some basic science books Gregg, or ask questions. You might learn something and stop making yourself like silly and uneducated when you post in the science sections.

The 3K radiation and the expansion of the Universe are not theory, they are observable fact. The Big Bang theory is not simply a hypothesis because it is supported by observable fact. Whether you chose to accept that is your choice but is essentially irrelevant to the Big Bangs position as one of the foremost theories of recent time.

and the 3k radiation is a obsevered fact but the proof of how it is and why it is is not fact. so this is the fact. we only use these considerations to continue interest and establish a platform from which to base a thought of pursuant vision. it is and should be know as nothing more than a base from which to explore ideas not establish laws.

I think, in this rather muddled post of yours, I see a point.

Yes the 3K radiation is fact. The how and why of that radiation is theory... the Big Bang theory. That is exactly how it works. A theory is a hypotheis which is supported by the observed facts. Given that you accept the evidence which supports the Big Bang theory as factual I fail to see what your basis for dismissing the Big Bang as only a hypothesis is.

then i shall let the waters clear and try agin at another venue perhaps. and then maybe not this has grown very silly trying to explain what a childs mind has know from the point of finding out mom and pop dont know it all.

I am hoping that by now, you have seen that you are in errror regarding this position. The Big Bang is scientific theory by any standard.

Then again, maybe not???

Children don't understand the idea of hypothesis v. theory v. law.
Perhaps another venue, where children can be addresed, would help it be less silly to you....

I think the big bang is on the right track, it explains why so much hydrogen exists. And why we see expansion.

The difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis is really important one, and one that would clear up all manner of misunderstandings on this board. Lets not forget that something can be a fact and a theory at the same time. Take gravity - that it exists is a fact, the best reason we can come up with as to why is a theory.

You are wrong.

The Big Bang has been accepted as a theory by the Scientific Community for a number of well known reasons.

The Big bang holds enough observable data and consequences, also evidence, experiment, research and observation to be accepted as a mathematical and scientifical theory. And this is to not say much more.




What pot?

I again point to the age of the earth and universe thread where I did my best to explain how we get the age of the universe - it includes most of the evidence for the big bang.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=119058

My biggest question is, why did it go 'bang' in the first place? This little dot of everything was just sitting there forever and ever, and suddenly it went KA-BOOM!

No no no, we're still missing something crucial in the process. What was the trigger? That's the most important piece of the puzzle.

I suspect the universal acceleration of expansion is the answer. A 'Big Rip' would create a region of absolute vaccum; a place devoid of everything, including space and time. It's mere conjecture since i'm not a physicist and can't even begin to fathom the equations, but I wonder if the universe's abhorrence of a vaccum (ie, virtual particles) might go even further once an absolute void appeared... the opposite of an utter void being an utterly dense singularity or a new expansion of new matter; a new universe explodes into being to fill in this gap forming as space time beings to fragment, this total void that the quantum fabric cannot allow to exist because infinite nothingness may actually be something that the very nature of universal structure forbids from existing.

This would seem to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, but no matter how you look at it, the First Law is violated by the Big Bang, because one way or another, the universe came from something that either burst into existance from nothingness or was there forever. It's quite unfathomable for our finite minds!

We can't really even calculate something like this, because how can you assign a value to utter nothingness? What properties would 'nothing' have! If you put infinite nothingness into an equation, all teh values become zero or infinite negatives!

Then there's the other weird question of what was the universe expanding into? Space-time was expanding... what was beyond its edge? Nothing? It sounds funny to think about it, but the key to everything is to prove nothing!

There is no consensus about how long the Big Bang phase lasted: for some writers this denotes only the initial singularity, for others the whole history of the universe. Usually at least the first few minutes, during which helium is synthesised, are said to occur "during the Big Bang".

The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang", and is considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the universe has a calculated age of 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years. The agreement of these three independent measurements strongly supports the ΛCDM model that describes in detail the contents of the universe.



In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles.Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.


The Universe is existence itself. The Universe is everything that exists and everything that does not exist. The Universe is everything that exists, has existed and will exist.



The Observable Universe does not have an edge. Let's use the balloon explenation for this one. Let's take an inflated and expanding balloon.

An ant travelling on the surface of a balloon will never reach an edge. In the worst case it will return to its starting point.

Anyhow, you can't really compare a balloon with the Universe! So I'll explain it like this:

The Universe is everything in existence, consisting of time, space, matter, energy, etc....., so you could say the universe is everything, now tell me, can everything have a center? I hope your answer isn't yes. The Universe being everything is being infinite. For example picture a shape of infinite size in your mind, something infinite does not have a shape right? Something to have a center must have a shape and an edge, but the universe being everything in existence is infinite, no? So it can't have a center or edge. The Universe cannot have a shape!

Point is, the universe being everything in existence is so, infinite. Something infinite cannot have a shape (try to picture a shape of infinite size in your mind), and so the Universe having no shape has no center or edge.

I know it's a bit complicated.

http://www.elkadot.com/relativity/


Dear all,

It seems that a ,,common sense” explanation of relativity represent only a dream in some imaginative minds.
Appearances are generally deceptive. At http://www.elkadot.com/relativity/ there are some texts about relativity and their common sense interpretation. The explanations are simple and use only Euclidian space combined with limited light velocity .
Best regards,
Sorin

space is more than just 3 dimensions, even Einstein talks about that. if an observer on earth is viewing the movement of the stars and these starts appear to be moving outward from the observer, what time frame are they viewing these stars, a couple hundred years. that's weak considering the age of everything. how about their directions, they appear to move out but what exact direction and path, how long were they on this path. there isn't enough evidence to prove anything so they dream up an educated guess calling it a theory. some of it is on track but the rest is just speculation and we may never know.

the shear scale of the universe isn't something that we can comprehend, the fact that we don't even know what dark matter is proves that we know very little of what's really going on. but this is what makes the search interesting, there's always something new to look for.

edit, i just thought of this - if there was a big bang, why is there so much in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field? one would think that there would be less stuff the farther you go outward. so even if the stuff that we can observe is moving outward, we still can't say where it all started.

I JUST LOVE THREDS IN ALL CAPS!!!! (sarcasm)

I take issue with you calling the models produced by observing the motions of stars and galaxies speculative. What possible reason would there be for the universe to LOOK like everything is expanding when that isn't really the case?

As for the Hubble Deep Field - you are suffering from the most common misconception of the big bang. The theory is NOT AT ALL that there was some dense kernel of matter that exploded. The idea is that in the distant past the universe was in a very hot and dense state, and that since that time space has expanded and the distances between any two given points have expanded (gravity overcomes this on small scales but on scales larger than galaxies the expansion usually wins). As near as we can tell matter was always embedded in space and space has been pretty well homogenous throughout the history of the universe.

I again refer people back to the age of the universe thread. It contains a lot of the evidence for the big bang.

Hows that possible Emma; something can be fact & theory at the same time?
You have a theory and it remains a theory until such time that it becomes an established fact, be it scientific or whatever(?)


_{I'm sensing a conspiracy theory looming behind all this anyway...}

Observation and math that fit the theory.



Well Einstein didn't believe in quantum physics either... also he said there were 4 not 3 but who's counting right?

While you may choose not to accept valid science due to ignorance we puny humans know a lot more about how things work then in Einsteins time. The scientific community accepts the big bang theory as fact and merely call it theory to be politically correct.

i did not say that, i said that in our lifetimes of observing, we can not say where it all started. so far we have only been able to view a very small bubble of our local universe. we can not say logically that "this is the way it is and there is no other explanation"

we do know more then Einstein did, are we so sure, he just died before he could complete his work, work that will never end. but even those theories are just a scratch on the surface. the reason we search, learn and grow. if everything was answered there would be no debate, everyone would just agree with one another.

for one thing, science often proves itself wrong, then a correction is made. so we'll see in 500 million years, who knows what we will have found out. oh wait, what's the life of the sun btw lol.

big bang = the very start of existence of our universe, "the world is flat" is also what we used to think.

as for the Hubble comment, the scientific community had no idea the Ultra Deep Field would have so much in it, millions of galaxies per square inch. mind boggling, we have a lot to learn.

do believe there are 8 dimensions calculated with string theory

there are surely an infinite number of possibilities other than the big bang? i believe it will be very difficult for us to prove what actually happened or happens as it may occur frequently in other dimensions. so i wouldnt bank 100% that the big bang occured

it is merely the conclusion from the evidence we have now.

As i tried to explain earlier (i'm thinking only MID & Waspie may have picked up on it(?)...They're not actually basing the Big Bang on ''theory'' but a ''hypothesis'' according to Encarta® World English Dictionary & correct me if i'm wrong here but that would make it even less credible as a scientific fact eh? So therefore we're expected to believe in something thats really nothing more than scientific imagination?

It's not just scientific imagination.

Rebel, a theory, or a hypothesis if you want to call it, which provides observable evidence and data is not just scientific imagination. We find evidence and observable evidence of the Big Bang in every corner of the Universe where we look, also by the methods of research and scientific investigation.

I understand Alex...but the Big Bang is not as yet 'proven fact', right? but still remains a theory & or hypothesis?

lol! those two words are getting a hammering in here lol!



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

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




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



EDIT:...maybe i'm looking at it all wrong....ignore this last post.

I never believed that the Big Bang theory was a good one anyways. But this probably will change the textbooks in schools if this is correct.