Big bang fact vs big bang theory

[1970SSHardtop]

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

KingCoil

Greetings! I was confused with the heading of this conversation …‘Theory’ refers to a tested ‘Hypothesis’ which has been unable to be disproved. A ‘Theory’ has already been tested, and then re-tested numerous times under controlled conditions. Only once the hypothesis has been repeatedly proven correct does it then advance to become a ‘Theory.’
So, a ‘Theory’ is therefore the current ‘Fact’ (being that no other hypothesis can disprove it under controlled testing, or that no testing of the theory can disprove it). So the word ‘Fact’ is equivalent to the word ‘Theory,’ until the ‘Theory’ has been disproved by a newly-tested hypothesis. In light of this, how are you defining the words in the heading? It makes no sense.

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks, everyone, for your posts.

I have read your posts, and I think you will want to get my reaction to your posts; I usually as some of you will remember react to you with a common post, but then you will later complain that I have not reacted to you.

So, this time as we are still into page 3 of this thread, not yet into hundreds of posts already, I will react to your posts individually.

If anyone feels that I have not reacted to his post, just let me know; but please give me the link to your post – or forgive me for not reacting to the post you want me to react to, because I am loath to look up which post from you you want me now to react to in particular (for most probably I have reacted to you already with a common post addressed to everyone’s posts transmitted in the previous day): so please just give me the link of the post you want me to react to.

You see, my present concern is to get you to present in as brief as possible and of course relevantly to the topic of the present thread, your concepts of the big bang, of what is a fact, and of what is a theory.

And I don’t see you accommodating to my request, namely, to do it this way, please as a favor, namely:

Big bang =

Fact =

Theory =

See next post from me where I will react to your posts from the preceding day.

KingCoil

Thanks so much for your participation in this thread, everyone.

Those of you who have exchanged thoughts with me before will find what I am going to do now to be déjà vu, the procedure that is; so please be patient.

Fact and theory are concepts in our mind, let us first work together to concur on the concepts in our mind of fact and of theory, in connection with the big bang, of course not to already concur on their existence outside our mind in objective reality: the matter of existence comes later.

But we have to also concur on the concept of big bang in our mind.

Talking now only in our mind, we ask ourselves what is the big bang, what is a fact, and what is a theory.

After we have come to concurrence on the concepts in our mind, then we will proceed to look up the realities in the objective world outside our mind that correspond to the concepts in our mind.

Is that all right with everyone?

Anyway, you can present your critique of my procedure, just the same when you react to the present post.

Allow me now to present to everyone the concepts in my mind of what is the big bang, what is fact, and what is theory – you will notice, I am just going to repeat thoughts already expressed in my OP:

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 why and/or how a fact (event) came about.

I will now try to get your concepts of the big bang, of fact, and of theory in your posts.

See next posts from me.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

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.

This is what I am inviting everyone to share with me, his stock knowledge whether the big bang is a fact or a theory or both fact and theory.

Please do more search into your stock knowledge, and tell me when you next post here, what are your concepts in concise and precise words the following items:

Big bang =

Fact =

Theory =

Thanks for your post just the same.

KingCoil

 

[spina1953]

This is what I am inviting everyone to share with me, his stock knowledge whether the big bang is a fact or a theory or both fact and theory.

Please do more search into your stock knowledge, and tell me when you next post here, what are your concepts in concise and precise words the following items:

Big bang =

Fact =

Theory =

Thanks for your post just the same.

You are welcome. and Thank you for allowing me to share my opinion such as it is.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spina1953 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlemagne III View Post
…] 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 :

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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

Dear ThinkingS, thanks for your excerpts from sources.

Now, please some good personal thinking on them and tell me when you next post here, what are your concepts in concise and precise words on the following items:

Big bang =

Fact =

Theory =

And I really appreciate your post.

KingCoil

 

[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.

Thanks for your contribution to our knowledge of the big bang.

You have given a brief account of the big bang from the standpoint of how physical comolosgists infer from their observations all the way backward to the origin of the universe, and from the standpoint how components of the universe appeared successively from that origin.

Now, may I just request you to present your own self-thought out concepts of the following three items:

Big bang =

Fact =

Theory =

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien View Post
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.

Thanks to you two, now we are again enlightened that big bang the name came from Hoyle.

May I just request you two to present your concepts in concise and precise words on the following three items.

Big bang =

Fact =

Theory =

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
Dear readers here, I like to have your (name removed by moderator)uts so that I can learn from you all.

KingCoil

Greetings! I was confused with the heading of this conversation …‘Theory’ refers to a tested ‘Hypothesis’ which has been unable to be disproved. A ‘Theory’ has already been tested, and then re-tested numerous times under controlled conditions. Only once the hypothesis has been repeatedly proven correct does it then advance to become a ‘Theory.’
So, a ‘Theory’ is therefore the current ‘Fact’ (being that no other hypothesis can disprove it under controlled testing, or that no testing of the theory can disprove it). So the word ‘Fact’ is equivalent to the word ‘Theory,’ until the ‘Theory’ has been disproved by a newly-tested hypothesis. In light of this, how are you defining the words in the heading? It makes no sense.

Thanks for your post.

What about the big bang, what is it?

In re your idea of what is a theory, tell me: do you agree with me that it is essentially an explanation of why and/or how the big bang came about?

And also in re your idea of what is a fact, tell me: do you agree with me that in regard to the big bang, a fact is an event which man can and does observe or infer from his observation?

Allow me to repeat my concise and precise concepts of the following:

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

 

[ThinkingSapien]

May I just request you two to present your concepts in concise and precise words on the following three items.

…

 

[1970SSHardtop]

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.

One proof which validates the “theory” of evolution is the process of random mutation in DNA replication. As DNA is replicated, small changes occur in the sequencing of the DNA strand. The result is a slightly different strand with slightly different characteristics, The result over time of this variation accounts for the evolution of species, being that those DNA strands which incorporate new characteristics which aid in survival will continue to replicate. Those which do not develop these survival qualities will die off, and no further replication occurs. This explains why certain insects, for example, can fly, etc. There are limitless numbers of variations which can lead to an organism to continue to survive, and reproduce. This accounts for the variations of species. It makes perfect sense that man, as an animal organism, would develop via this process. I don’t see that as conflicting with the existence of Creation however, because that’s just the way God set it all up.

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne III View Post

Thanks to you two, now readers and yours truly are again being enlightened about evolution.

Perhaps you might be interested to also contribute to this thread by telling us all in concise and precise and relevant words:

1. Is evolution a fact and/or a theory?
2. What is a fact?
3. What is a theory?

Now, I will ask you two for a personal favor, tell me what do you think is my purpose in authoring this thread, namely, “Big bang fact vs big bang theory.”

And also, tell me how am I going about it?

Thanks in advance.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

*Yesterday, 12:08 pm
ThinkingSapien ThinkingSapien is offline
Regular Member

Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,472
Religion: I’m a Software Engineer
Default Re: Big bang fact vs big bang theory
*

Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post

Dear ThinkingS, I don’t see any message in your post today, except “…”.

Forgive me, but my request to you yesterday as also to everyone is to present your self-thought-out concepts in concise, precise, and relevant words on the following items:

1. Big bang
2. Fact
3. Theory

Now, I will also ask you for a personal favor, tell me what do you think is my purpose in authoring this thread, namely, “Big bang fact vs big bang theory.”

And likewise, tell me how am I going about it?

Thanks in advance.

KingCoil

PS
Please translate the – if I am not mistaken – Japanese Kanji (Chinese) words at the bottom of every post from you:

庭に出て
物種蒔くや
病み上がり
​

 

[KingCoil]

Dear readers here, my purpose here as I examine my own heart and mind is to arrive at consensus with posters on whether the big bang is fact and/or theory.

I am presently asking posters to also give me their own self-thought-out concepts of big bang, fact, and theory, as I have already given my own self-thought-out concepts of the words: big bang, fact, theory.

Why? So that we will come to mutually concurred on concepts, for otherwise we will be into an illogical thus useless undertaking of exchange of thoughts, since each party will be talking past the head of everyone else.

If I may, dear readers here, tell me what you think is my purpose in this thread, and also how am I going about it?

Thanks in advance, and also for taking time and trouble to read my threads.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Dear ThinkingS, I don’t see any message in your post today, except “…”.

Correct.

Forgive me, but my request to you yesterday as also to everyone is to present your self-thought-out concepts in concise, precise, and relevant words on the following items

No thanks, I’ve already communicated my view to you on this multiple times. I personally don’t like superfluous redundancy.

Now, I will also ask you for a personal favor, tell me what do you think is my purpose in authoring this thread, namely, “Big bang fact vs big bang theory.”

I think it’s an attempt to continue the discussion that got locked after it degraded into a monologue. I also think that this thread is about to become like the other one as participation has looked a little anemic.

And likewise, tell me how am I going about it?

I’m only telling you this because you’ve asked. Otherwise I would have kept my thoughts to myself. I’m hoping you’ve asked this question because you want the answer and you are open to hearing it.

You are doing poorly at interacting in this thread to the point where I wonder if it’s your intent to be unpleasant. The redundancy in posting the same message (or variations on the same message) is mind numbing and you largely ignore people that try to interact with you, so why bother trying. If that’s not what you are trying to do and if you want this thread to continue (It may already be to late) you might start by reading the post that have already been made, given what others have said some consideration, and then sharing your thoughts whether in agreement or disagreement on what they have written. Don’t expect any one to conform to the precise formulation that you want in a response. At most it will only be taken as a suggestion. People will respond they way they feel to be appropriate (if at all).

Please translate the – if I am not mistaken – Japanese Kanji (Chinese) words at the bottom of every post from you:
[/indent][/indent]

It’s a haiku. But it’s abstract. Even translated into English it won’t carry much meaning with most.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

1. Is evolution a fact and/or a theory?
2. What is a fact?
3. What is a theory?

KingCoil

1. Evolution is a theory constructed out of facts.
2. A fact is a specific piece of information that is held to be incontrovertible.
3. A theory is an assembly of connected facts that, depending on the strength or weakness of these facts, suggests an over-arching truth which may or may not be debatable.

 

[JimG]

If I may, dear readers here, tell me what you think is my purpose in this thread, and also how am I going about it?

KingCoil

I have no idea. Maybe you should just tell us what you are getting at.

 

[KingCoil]

Dear ThinkingS, I have not read the latest posts since I left earlier, but now I have come back for a second session of posting here; and I am reacting to your post which is the first one after my last one earlier.

*Today, 12:36 pm
ThinkingSapien ThinkingSapien is offline
Regular Member

Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,473
Religion: I’m a Software Engineer
Default Re: Big bang fact vs big bang theory
*

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
Dear ThinkingS, I don’t see any message in your post today, except “…”.

Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
Forgive me, but my request to you yesterday as also to everyone is to present your self-thought-out concepts in concise, precise, and relevant words on the following items

No thanks, I’ve already communicated my view to you on this multiple times. I personally don’t like superfluous redundancy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
Now, I will also ask you for a personal favor, tell me what do you think is my purpose in authoring this thread, namely, “Big bang fact vs big bang theory.”

I think it’s an attempt to continue the discussion that got locked after it degraded into a monologue. I also think that this thread is about to become like the other one as participation has looked a little anemic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
And likewise, tell me how am I going about it?

I’m only telling you this because you’ve asked. Otherwise I would have kept my thoughts to myself. I’m hoping you’ve asked this question because you want the answer and you are open to hearing it.

You are doing poorly at interacting in this thread to the point where I wonder if it’s your intent to be unpleasant. The redundancy in posting the same message (or variations on the same message) is mind numbing and you largely ignore people that try to interact with you, so why bother trying. If that’s not what you are trying to do and if you want this thread to continue (It may already be to late) you might start by reading the post that have already been made, given what others have said some consideration, and then sharing your thoughts whether in agreement or disagreement on what they have written. Don’t expect any one to conform to the precise formulation that you want in a response. At most it will only be taken as a suggestion. People will respond they way they feel to be appropriate (if at all).

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
Please translate the – if I am not mistaken – Japanese Kanji (Chinese) words at the bottom of every post from you:

It’s a haiku. But it’s abstract. Even translated into English it won’t carry much meaning with most.

---

庭に出て
物種蒔くや
病み上がり

I want to tell you that all the time I want posters to talk from personal knowledge and not from what I would identify as reportorial knowledge.

Read next post, because I might go beyond 6000 characters with the present one.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

[39]Now of that city many of the Samaritans believed in him, for the word of the woman giving testimony: He told me all things whatsoever I have done. [40]So when the Samaritans were come to him, they desired that he would tarry there. And he abode there two days. [41]And many more believed in him because of his own word. [42]And they said to the woman: We now believe, not for thy saying: for we ourselves have heard him, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.
John 4:39-42 biblehub.com/drb/john/4.htm

You notice, ThinkingS, that from the beginning of what you notice to be my serial of threads here, I am always into requiring posters to speak from their own personally thought out knowledge, sourced from their own intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

This morning after my first session of posting here, I suddenly recalled the words from the Bible to the following effect, “We no longer believe because…”

It took me some short time to look up the text of the Bible where the memory of those words have always now and then surfaced in my conscious mind, and I found the pertinent text, reproduced above at the top of this post; here below I will present it again:

[39]Now of that city many of the Samaritans believed in him, for the word of the woman giving testimony: He told me all things whatsoever I have done. [40]So when the Samaritans were come to him, they desired that he would tarry there. And he abode there two days. [41]And many more believed in him because of his own word. [42]And they said to the woman: We now believe, not for thy saying: for we ourselves have heard him, and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.
John 4:39-42 biblehub.com/drb/john/4.htm

You have developed a personal antagonism against me, and you will I fear get even more personally antagonistic against me, for I am going to tell you that you are into what I call presentation of reportorial knowledge, not personal knowledge.

Now I will react to the new posts coming after yours.

KingCoil

 

[mkoopman]

1. A theory is an assembly of connected facts that, depending on the strength or weakness of these facts, suggests an over-arching truth which may or may not be debatable.

Wow, I want you working on my cloud computing interprocess communications.

The problem we have here is a failure to communicate. Boss, Cool Hand Luke

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Wow, I want you working on my cloud computing interprocess communications.

The problem we have here is a failure to communicate. Boss, Cool Hand Luke

Is English your second language?