Big bang fact vs big bang theory

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Davidv, for your post.

It is my understanding that the big bang, as an event, is a speculation based on the cosmological model contained in the theory of the big bang. The model is scientists best estimate for explaining currently available cosmoslogical data.

As an event, the big bang is not a fact, as defined by any of the following definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dictionary.com
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

Catholic teaching indicates that God created the heavens and the earth, the seen and the unseen. There is no definitive evidence that the big bang, as an event, was this creation. That is not to say it isn’t, but the current evidence is not sufficient to show that it is.

What do you say, can you give the concepts in your mind of the following items below, like what I did.

The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists how a fact (event) came about.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

It is physically impossible to determine if the Big Bang actually occurred or not, the basic reason revolving around that it supposedly happened when we didn’t exist. This debate could last for ages and all we will have achieved is wasted time. It’s a decent theory but it has flaws. The horizon problem is the first that comes to mind.

Even if we do determine that the Big Bang did in fact happen, then that is the farthest point science can reach, so science cannot explain what caused that little ball of infinite mass and density to explode outwards. It will always be a mystery.

Forgive me, but perhaps when we have concurred on concepts, then we can proceed to the objective world and look for the fact of the universe and do theorizing on its why and/or how.

So, please also present concepts of the following items, as I have done already, namely:

The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists how a fact (event) came about.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

The theory of the Big Bang seems credible. The universe had a starting point. However, questions remain:

1. What was the energy or material that was there?
2. Where did it come from?
3. Why did it detonate?
4. Just prior to detonation, there was no universe, so what did the Bang expand into?

Peace,
Ed

Thanks for your post.

If I may, please present concepts in your mind of the following items, like what I did, see below.

The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists how a fact (event) came about.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

First of all, the methodology of science does not allow for declaring anything as a “fact” as we do in the vernacular of everyday speech.

When we say “fact” in the vernacular we mean something firmly established as truth. The scientific method does not allow for this because what we understand as “truth” today can change as we learn more.

Instead, scientists use the term “theory” to describe what we call “facts.” A scientific “theory” is a well-established understanding that has been confirmed by demonstrable data and experimentation.

Second, the “big bang theory” was developed by a Catholic priest and was not readily embraced by the scientific community of his day.

Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven, was the first to propose that the universe actually had a beginning that resulted in the expansion of the universe.

Up to that point scientists believed that the universe had always existed. Many balked at Lemaitre’s hypothesis of the universe suddenly coming into existence until it was confirmed by the work of American astronomer Edwin Hubble. Monseigneur Lemaitre’s hypothesis thus became discernible “theory,” proving the words of Genesis 1:1 that the universe indeed had a “beginning” to the chagrin of scientists everywhere.

Today the scientific community embraces this model of the origins of the universe. Alas, many Christians are unaware of its origins, debating the model though it is the best scientific support we have for the teaching that the universe has not always been as the Church and Bible declare.

That is why I propose that we first concur on the concepts in our mind and then proceed to the objective world to look for the realities if they be present or not, corresponding to the concepts in our mind.

See my the concepts in my mind, below.

The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists how a fact (event) came about.

KingCoi

 

[KingCoil]

I have read all your posts, and please forgive me, I have this idea that if we only work to concur on concepts in our mind, and then proceed to look for the realities in the objective world outside our mind, we will come to conclude that the universe did have a beginning, and we can work to theorize on the why and/or how the universe got started.

So, please everyone contribute your concepts as I have done, namely:

The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists how a fact (event) came about.

If you notice that I did not react to your post, let me know what point you want me to react to, but first will you please take the task to contribute your concepts of the items above, please.

KingCoil

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Thanks, Davidv, for your post.

What do you say, can you give the concepts in your mind of the following items below, like what I did.

The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists how a fact (event) came about.

KingCoil

Good Evening King Coil: My personal opinion is that the Big Bang did in fact happen, but I do not think that the universe didn’t always exist. Let me explain what I mean. I do not think that the Big Bang that created this universe was an anomalous one time event. Instead, I like the idea that it was part of an ongoing perennial process of Big Bangs that have always occurred and always will occur. No beginning and no end.

Now the interesting part (I think) is the idea that we are simply the Big Bang looking back at itself. Events are a process, and the universe is a process of expansion, and we are simply the outermost reaches of this event at this given moment. The Big Bang basically produced some very simple matter such as hydrogen and helium (and maybe some lithium as I recall). But most of the more complex elements we made of is created by dead or exploding stars. This matter forms planets and any life that lives on them that in turn looks back at the stars and wonders about them. In his way, we seem to be the means by which the universe comes to know itself, at least in the ways in which our nervous systems permit. The vine and its branches if we want to be biblical about it. they are not different things. they are one thing. Perhaps the universe knows itself in other ways as well, but we are the ones creating the universe we know through our senses and the contexts we create. And it’s all really a matter of context I think. If I ask the diameter of the sun, we immediately think in the ways we have become accustomed to thinking. In this case we most often would think that the diameter of the sun is the spherical extent of it’s flame, but in truth we could measure it by the extent of its gravity, which is as wide as the solar system, or it’s heat which is wider still, or the extent of its light, which is farther still. It’s a matter of context I think, and I think perhaps we create it by looking back at it and thinking about it. Or at least that has become an idea that I like.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Sheldrake, for your post.

Originally Posted by KingCoil Yesterday, 6:59 pm #21
Thanks, Davidv, for your post.

Dear Sheldrake and all readers here, please do not be annoyed, but I am trying to get everyone to first work together with me to concur in our minds on the concepts of the following items:

The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists how a fact (event) came about.

Please, please, do not think that I am coercing you to accept my concepts, but just to criticize and more importantly to present your concepts.

Why are you folks, forgive me, so reluctant to undertake with me the work of concurring on concepts in our mind?

Is it because you feel apprehensive that you might be already once we concur on concepts in our mind, already namely biased on the fact of the beginning of the universe?

But why should you be biased when we do concur only in our minds on concepts, that is a groundless apprehension.

You see, we are going to look for the event, occurrence, happening in the universe of its beginning, like for example we are going to look for Bigfoot, how can we ever proceed at all to search for Bigfoot if we do not first concur on what is Bigfoot.

You might say that we can just go forward and look for anything at all; but even in that case we still have to be working together, and how can we work together when each one is looking for whatever comes along which he fancies to be “Ah that is what I am looking for”?

Please tell me what objections or apprehension you have against my proposed procedure of first working together to come to concurrence on concepts in our mind.

KingCoil

 

[davidv]

Thanks, Davidv, for your post.

What do you say, can you give the concepts in your mind of the following items below, like what I did.
The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists how a fact (event) came about.

KingCoil

See post number 2 for the concepts in my mind related to these points. What is unclear in post #2?

 

[JimG]

The Big Bang is simply a cosmological theory arising from the fact that the universe seems to be expanding. One can read astronomical literature in which it is noted that the farther an object is from us, the farther back in time we are seeing it.

If the universe is expanding in such a way, one can imagine reversing the process to calculate how the universe would have appeared as time is wound back. Looking at it in reverse motion, so to speak, the universe then gets smaller and smaller the further we go back in time. The big bang is simply that singularity representing the farthest point at which our cosmological calculations make any sense. Carry it back any further and the math and physics break down.

It is not necessary from a strictly scientific standpoint, to say that the big bang is the point at which the universe began. Probably that’s a leap that cosmologists would not make. A good hypothesis, but the data can’t prove it.

 

[KingCoil]

The Big Bang is simply a cosmological theory arising from the fact that the universe seems to be expanding. One can read astronomical literature in which it is noted that the farther an object is from us, the farther back in time we are seeing it.

If the universe is expanding in such a way, one can imagine reversing the process to calculate how the universe would have appeared as time is wound back. Looking at it in reverse motion, so to speak, the universe then gets smaller and smaller the further we go back in time. The big bang is simply that singularity representing the farthest point at which our cosmological calculations make any sense. Carry it back any further and the math and physics break down.

It is not necessary from a strictly scientific standpoint, to say that the big bang is the point at which the universe began. Probably that’s a leap that cosmologists would not make. A good hypothesis, but the data can’t prove it.

Thanks for your post, but and forgive me, please tell me what are your concepts on the following items, for which I have proposed my concepts – and please we are talking purely in our mind on concepts.

What do you say, can you give the concepts in your mind of the following items below, like what I did.

The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists how a fact (event) came about.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, Davidv, for your latest post addressed to me, appreciate that.

Yesterday, 5:48 pm #28
KingCoil;12162150:

Jul 11, '14, 6:59 pm #21

Thanks, Davidv, for your post.

Originally Posted by davidv Jul 10, '14, 12:19 pm #2

Catholic teaching indicates that God created the heavens and the earth, the seen and the unseen. There is no definitive evidence that the big bang, as an event, was this creation. That is not to say it isn’t, but the current evidence is not sufficient to show that it is.

What do you say, can you give the concepts in your mind of the following items below, like what I did.

The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists how a fact (event) came about.

See post number 2 for the concepts in my mind related to these points. What is unclear in post #2?

Please forgive me, and I am not into any trap at all, but kindly do it this way:

The big bang = 

Fact = 

Theory =

What you have given so far is none of the three but dictionary.com definition of truth.

The topic of the thread is “Big bang fact vs big bang theory.”

KingCoil
[/QUOTE]

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t mean to start a discussion of evolution here, just to point out a parallel.

There is hardly any theory of science more generally accepted than the theory of evolution. But this theory too is based upon extrapolating evidence (bones, layers of sediment, age of fossils, etc.) backward in time to explain how it was possible that all the varieties of biological life could have developed in so many different directions. None of the evidence is directly observable. Yet circumstantial evidence is substantive enough to convince as in any courtroom of law.

On the other hand, the expansion of the universe is directly observable. Vast as the universe is, it is continuing to expand at a rate faster than the speed of light. Again, extrapolating backward in time, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the universe began as a tiny singularity that suddenly generated light, energy, and matter in every direction away from itself, much as an exploding firecracker in the sky (the metaphor ultimately fails, of course.)

This is why we continue to refer to both scientific discoveries as theories rather than facts. There is evidence to convince, but the evidence is not so entirely convincing and provable as most facts are, such as the speed of light or the magnetic pull of gravity.

 

[JimG]

Thanks for your post, but and forgive me, please tell me what are your concepts on the following items, for which I have proposed my concepts – and please we are talking purely in our mind on concepts.

What do you say, can you give the concepts in your mind of the following items below, like what I did.

The big bang = the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Fact = an objective event observed by man or inferred from his observation.

Theory = an explanation from scientists how a fact (event) came about.

KingCoil

I do not agree with your first equation. The big bang theory is not a theory of the universe having begun to exist, or a theory that it has not always existed. I don’t think any cosmologist or physicist would describe the theory that way.

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil

Please forgive me, but will you just kindly first before anything else present what in your mind are your concepts of the following:

Big bang

Fact

Theory

When you have done that, then we will together examine the concepts in your mind and the concepts in my mind, and come to concurrence on our mutually agreed on concepts of big bang, fact, and theory.

From that point onward we will you and I go forth into the universe to look for the big bang, the fact of the big bang and the theory or theories produced by humans explaining the big bang as fact or as what, fiction?

For the love of discipline and system in thinking, please oh please work to come to what are in your mind the concepts of big bang, fact, and theory.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

I don’t mean to start a discussion of evolution here, just to point out a parallel.

There is hardly any theory of science more generally accepted than the theory of evolution. But this theory too is based upon extrapolating evidence (bones, layers of sediment, age of fossils, etc.) backward in time to explain how it was possible that all the varieties of biological life could have developed in so many different directions. None of the evidence is directly observable. Yet circumstantial evidence is substantive enough to convince as in any courtroom of law.

On the other hand, the expansion of the universe is directly observable. Vast as the universe is, it is continuing to expand at a rate faster than the speed of light. Again, extrapolating backward in time, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the universe began as a tiny singularity that suddenly generated light, energy, and matter in every direction away from itself, much as an exploding firecracker in the sky (the metaphor ultimately fails, of course.)

This is why we continue to refer to both scientific discoveries as theories rather than facts. There is evidence to convince, but the evidence is not so entirely convincing and provable as most facts are, such as the speed of light or the magnetic pull of gravity.

Charl:

convince

Thanks, Charl, for your post, very informative, appreciate that.

Now, let us we two you and I work together to come to mutual conviction to know what it is to arrive at the conviction of the existence of something in objective reality outside your mind and my mind.

Is that all right with you?

But first, please work in your mind to come to what are your concepts in your mind, mind you, of big bang, fact, and theory.

So, first, present your concepts of big bang, fact, and theory, and second what do you say, shall we two you and I work together to come to the concept in our respective mind on what it is to arrive at conviction and of course thereby what is conviction with us humans.

You see, Charl, do you notice that we humans do not or are loath to undertake fundamental work when we are exchanging thoughts, namely, to first work together in our minds to come to concurrence on concepts, then we can go into the universe to look for the objectively existing things corresponding to our concepts mutually agreed on.

Please, as you have impressive information, please also do the irksome but utterly indispensable work of thinking out your concepts in your mind, in our present concern, what is

big bang

fact

theory.

Okay, and forgive me for being repetitious, you and I will work together on two tasks, * on the concepts of big bang, fact, theory, and [ii] on the concept of conviction with humans, what it is and how we reach conviction.

KingCoil*

 

[KingCoil]

Dear readers, if anyone of you is wondering what the thread is all about, please read post #1 from yours truly the author of this thread.

Dear readers here, I like to have your (name removed by moderator)uts so that I can learn from you all.

Here is my stock knowledge:

Big bang fact is the objective event of the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Big bang theory is the explanation from scientists how the fact (event) came about.

So, please give me your (name removed by moderator)uts and we can exchange thoughts: so that we both you and I will profit with coming to consensus in knowing with certainty that the big bang is or is not a fact.

If you don’t have any personally thought out knowledge to share, then by all means give your (name removed by moderator)uts from your sources, but and forgive me please also put the notice that you are just reporting from your sources — no need to state your sources because that will take time and labor, just say from what you read or heard, etc.

And I will not dispute your sources because that – the way I see it, it is an unprofitable exercise, because then we will be into a useless competition of citing links and text excerpts.

Now, if it is from your own personally thought out knowledge, what I call stock knowledge from keeping in touch with developments in science, then I love very much for us to work together to come to concurrence on what should be our mutually agreed on stock knowledge.

If you don’t understand something from the above words, please ask me to explain.

Please be enlightened and please act accordingly.

To all who have contributed posts here, thanks a lot, and appreciate it tremendously.

KingCoil

 

[spina1953]

As I understand it the Big Bang theory is just that a theory. However, most scientists believe the theory to be true, may it is and then again maybe it is not. For me the question is was it a big bang and if so how big was it? maybe it was a little bang? Also no one knows what banged, how it banged and what was before it banged. All scientists can say is what has happened after it or whatever banged.
This does not take away from the Fact that God created the universe, visible and invisible. God could have created in any way or manor He chose. I do not know that anyone will be able to know one way or another since even if God created the universe by the big bang would be incomprehensible and beyond our understanding. I will say this I think wanting to know one way or the other is fascinating just the same.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As I understand it the Big Bang theory is just that a theory. However, most scientists believe the theory to be true, may it is and then again maybe it is not. For me the question is was it a big bang and if so how big was it? maybe it was a little bang? Also no one knows what banged, how it banged and what was before it banged. All scientists can say is what has happened after it or whatever banged.

The term “Big Bang” was a moniker that was coined by Fred Hoyle that was attempting to ridicule the Georges Lemaître’s Cosmic egg model. Hoyle was in favor of the steady state model of the universe . I think the name as popularized the representation of the model as being visualized as a detonation but the Big Bang model describes a rapid expansion that is still occurring right now. Charlemagne III describe’s it well.

…] One of the first observations was that, looking through the best [telescopes], it could be seen that the galaxies are all moving away from each other, somewhat as the sparks of a fireworks move away from each other as they are exploded. Extrapolating backward through time, it was a logical deduction that the universe began as a tiny singularity. So while you cannot recreate the Big Bang as an experiment, you can observe not only that there was a Big Bang, but that the Big Bang is still going on as space stretches and we fly through it into God knows where.

BTW: Relevant piece of information on terminology :
Georges Lemaître:

We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations

 

[chimo]

Dear readers here, I like to have your (name removed by moderator)uts so that I can learn from you all.

Here is my stock knowledge:

Big bang fact is the objective event of the universe having begun to exist, it has not always existed.

Big bang theory is the explanation from scientists how the fact (event) came about.

So, please give me your (name removed by moderator)uts and we can exchange thoughts: so that we both you and I will profit with coming to consensus in knowing with certainty that the big bang is or is not a fact.

If you don’t have any personally thought out knowledge to share, then by all means give your (name removed by moderator)uts from your sources, but and forgive me please also put the notice that you are just reporting from your sources — no need to state your sources because that will take time and labor, just say from what you read or heard, etc.

And I will not dispute your sources because that – the way I see it, it is an unprofitable exercise, because then we will be into a useless competition of citing links and text excerpts.

Now, if it is from your own personally thought out knowledge, what I call stock knowledge from keeping in touch with developments in science, then I love very much for us to work together to come to concurrence on what should be our mutually agreed on stock knowledge.

If you don’t understand something from the above words, please ask me to explain.

KingCoil

It may be that the Big Bang is true, though I would have given it the name the Big Silence because there is no sound in outer space. The galaxies are moving away from each other at terrific speeds telling us that they may have begun at one starting point. We know that the Universe is made specifically of one element, hydrogen, which is the simplist element known in the table of chemical elements. Our Sun as are the rest of the stars begin their life with this element. We know that the other chemical elements can be formed within the furnaces of these stars and also when stars collide. We know from observing the Eagle Nebula which is 7000 light years from the Earth that new stars are been formed right before us and these new stars are been formed by the huge masses of hydrogen gases coming together. It can be deducted that God created the element hydrogen so that all the other elements will be created from it. For instance in the stars hydrogen atoms can collide to create newer elements. This fusion of elements is the fingerprint of God because He uses fusion everywhere. God does not waste any of His creation but uses hydrogen to create even more elements. We can say that God created the hydrogen in the beginning and He created it out of nothing. From this initial hydrogen God created everything else using the physical laws He put in the Universe. I can accept the Big Bang theory because it does make sense that God might have started everything from one place only to let it expand in time.

 

[spina1953]

The term “Big Bang” was a moniker that was coined by Fred Hoyle that was attempting to ridicule the Georges Lemaître’s Cosmic egg model. Hoyle was in favor of the steady state model of the universe . I think the name as popularized the representation of the model as being visualized as a detonation but the Big Bang model describes a rapid expansion that is still occurring right now. Charlemagne III describe’s it well.

BTW: Relevant piece of information on terminology :

I agree that it was a name coined by Hoyle.