Do you believe in the Big Bang or have you completed the research and know?

[Nigel7]

I think God made the universe by causing a big bang. As the bibles account of how the universe came into being sorta sounds like a big bang. First there was nothing but darkness then…

… BANG!

A big one.

However God did it, He sure did an amazing job.

 

[edwest2]

Do you believe in the Big Bang or do you actually know?

I have often pondered whether any of us on these threads has sat and watched the night skies and did all of the research and came to the absolute conclusion–Yes, there was a Big Bang.

Actually know what? You’re not being clear here.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ccmnxc]

I guess I believe in it in the sense that I don’t really know the science behind it and I trust physicists and astronomers know what they are doing.

 

[edwest2]

Theories that have yet to be tested are theories. Theories that have been tested numerous times are more than theories. The Big Bang theory belongs to the latter category.

The Big Bang has been tested? Where? I’d like to see a link.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It’s not a problem. The origins of matter isn’t part of the Big Bang theory. The explanations of the theory itself start after there’s already densely packed matter.

That’s very interesting. So the equation ignores the (name removed by moderator)ut material and substitutes it with a ? mark and the right answer magically appears? That’s not science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

The Big Bang has been tested? Where? I’d like to see a link.

Peace,
Ed

Of course it has been tested! Every good theory is testable and they are all, eventually, tested; the Big Bang theory is no exception. In chronological order of test:

(1) Georges Lemaître and Alexander Friedmann’s solutions for the spherically symmetric field equations, now known as the Hubble law, preceded Hubble’s experiments by 2+ years–Friedmann’s solution came about in 1924, Lemaitre’s in 1927, while Hubble’s redshift survey came out in 1929.

(2) Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman predicted the CMB in 1948 and it was not discovered until 1964 by Penzias and Wilson and later confirmed by the COBE, WMAP, and Planck missions.

(3) Big Bang Nucleosynthesis provides good data for all the primordial elements (H2, He3, He4, and the isotopes H3 and Be7) compared to the aforementioned WMAP data, but is a little off on Lithium–this is currently being investigated, but is possibly due to some different values of reaction rates.

There are some others, but I believe that these are the big three tests and I hope that they are referenced enough for you.

 

[Qoeleth]

Do you believe in the Big Bang or do you actually know?

I have often pondered whether any of us on these threads has sat and watched the night skies and did all of the research and came to the absolute conclusion–Yes, there was a Big Bang.

I reject the theory of the Big Bang. No one has shown me any evidence of it. It doesn’t seem at all likely.

Why should I believe scientists? Because other scientists (or people who believe scientists) tell me I should? Hardly a sufficient reason. If was to believe scientists on the weight of ‘scientific evidence’, I would logically have to believe astrologers and Mormons, too, because they (and those who believe them) claim to be right.

Remember, the alchemists and astologers of the past did ‘science’ in their time, and our now wholly discredited. It seems probable that in the future, scientists of tday will also be wholly discredited.

Also, consider, the proposition- “The universe came into being”. The subject of the proposition is “the universe”. Now, if the subject of the proposition (‘the universe’) does not exist, the proposition cannot be true. On the other hand, if the subject (‘the universe’) does exist, it cannot come into being again. Therefore, the universe never came into being. So, the Big Bang seems to be an absurdity.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

That’s very interesting. So the equation ignores the (name removed by moderator)ut material and substitutes it with a ? mark and the right answer magically appears? That’s not science.

Peace,
Ed

Please do not forget that a space-time manifold must exist in order for science to describe it. Since neither space nor time (or anything, for that matter) existed until the Big Bang, neither then did science. Thus, it is perfectly scientific and valid to ignore the where did the “primordial atom” come from question.

 

[stevekehl]

Theories that have yet to be tested are theories. Theories that have been tested numerous times are more than theories. The Big Bang theory belongs to the latter category.

A theory that has not been tested is a hypothesis. A hypothesis that has been tested numerous times and seem to be true are theories. The Big Bang works along with Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which proved the universe is expanding and therefor had a beginning in the distant past. Einstein clearly saw the implication of this theory was a power had to bring the universe into being and tried some mathematical juggling to disprove his own theory. However a British cosmologist Albert Eddington confirmed the theory, even though he admitted a beginning to the universe was philosophically repugnant to him. Both men realized this discovery gave scientific weight to theism.
Personally, I don’t know how the universe came into being or how old it is. God made it and everything in it for His own pleasure. Thank you, Father.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That’s very interesting. So the equation ignores the (name removed by moderator)ut material and substitutes it with a ?

I’m not sure what the referent of “the equation” is especially given that there are multiple expressions that can be associated with the Big Bang. But if I produced a model and an equation showing the trajectory of a brick thrown off of a building I could do so without providing a complete explanation for how the brick was manufactured or where the clay that made the brick came from.

mark and the right answer magically appears? That’s not science.

Continuing with my previous analogy in not providing the origins of the material that composed the brick I would not be in any way implying that the brick had magically appeared. Given that magic hasn’t been proposed I think this may be a bit of a straw man.

 

[POJIUJH]

This statement only shows that you don’t know what scientists mean when they use the term theory.

Ratty today, ah? We aren’t able to even explain such basic things of ourselves and our Earth never mind understand a fraction of cosmology. The expansion of the Universe adds credibility to the Big Bang theory, it does not prove it or any other of the theories blanketed by it. That doesn’t mean that it is unworthy of belief, it is to be believed as a possible vague principle, a theory. A definition doesn’t change the purpose of a word.

 

[inocente]

Ratty today, ah? We aren’t able to even explain such basic things of ourselves and our Earth never mind understand a fraction of cosmology. The expansion of the Universe adds credibility to the Big Bang theory, it does not prove it or any other of the theories blanketed by it. That doesn’t mean that it is unworthy of belief, it is to be believed as a possible vague principle, a theory. A definition doesn’t change the purpose of a word.

Which still shows you don’t know what scientists mean when they use the term theory.

 

[Farsight001]

Ratty today, ah? We aren’t able to even explain such basic things of ourselves and our Earth never mind understand a fraction of cosmology. The expansion of the Universe adds credibility to the Big Bang theory, it does not prove it or any other of the theories blanketed by it. That doesn’t mean that it is unworthy of belief, it is to be believed as a possible vague principle, a theory. A definition doesn’t change the purpose of a word.

I really suggest you figure out what scientists mean by the use of the word theory. You’re only making it worse for yourself. Vague principle? Not hardly. I didn’t suggest you didn’t know what theory meant out of ignorance or some subconscious desire for you to be wrong. I said it because it is clear that you really, actually don’t know what it means.

 

[POJIUJH]

I really suggest you figure out what scientists mean by the use of the word theory. You’re only making it worse for yourself. Vague principle? Not hardly. I didn’t suggest you didn’t know what theory meant out of ignorance or some subconscious desire for you to be wrong. I said it because it is clear that you really, actually don’t know what it means.

I know what a scientific theory is, I don’t know what I have said to make you both think otherwise. They are a constantly modified and improved formula basing their accuracy on predictions. They don’t, by their nature or even by scientific definition claim to be objectively solid. They can’t. Even if we as humans could say that we understand 1% of the cosmos it would only take something smaller than an atom in the whole of the remaining 99% to contradict everything that we thought we knew. If we turn out to be correct about something it can only be because of divine revelation or chance. We can’t and won’t ever exhaust every experiment possible in the universe. Even if we did we would say “we thought that is how it was, it turned out to be correct”, If we were assured of our accuracy there would never be any need of modifying or improving our theories. We do that because we don’t know. The intention being that we might have the most accurate guess we are capable of. Guesses, predictions, theories. The scientific definition of the word “theory” is only a more specialised version of the layman’s definition. One is more specific, the logic of both are exactly the same.

Theories are theories. We don’t yet know.

 

[kingpomba]

One of the biggest draw backs of the big bang idea. Is the lack of ability to say exactly just where the materials for the big bang, came to be in the first place.

This is a common misconception, the big bang does not attempt to describe the origin of the universe. It attempts to describe how the universe and everything as we see it now developed from a very tiny, hot, dense state. It’s actually silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place or where this hot, dense state came from.

It assumes time, space, energy, etc already existed and doesn’t mention where these things came from.

Theories are theories. We don’t yet know.

So is gravity, i invite you to test your skepticism by running off a cliff.

 

[POJIUJH]

So is gravity, i invite you to test your skepticism by running off a cliff.

Gravitational theories exist because (of what we understand of) gravity exists. Gravity doesn’t exist because it’s theories exist, come on. It’s hardly as though gravity changed when Einstein proposed his alternative theory.

 

[Marc]

Do you believe in the Big Bang or do you actually know?

“Big Bang” was a dismissive description of Fr. George Lemaitre’s “primeval atom” theory. Everyone thought it gave God too much of a hand in the design of the universe. But even with modifications, that simple idea of the entire universe emerging from a space orders of magnitude smaller than a proton remains the best explanation of almost a hundred years of observations

I have often pondered whether any of us on these threads has sat and watched the night skies and did all of the research and came to the absolute conclusion–Yes, there was a Big Bang.

I do own and use a 6 inch newtonian telescope. The guy who observed the outward movement of the galaxies had a 100 inch telescope and spectrometers. I still have to operate on the geocentric model to navigate the sky. But give me some funding and I can recreate Edwin Hubble’s findings.

 

[Farsight001]

Gravitational theories exist because (of what we understand of) gravity exists. Gravity doesn’t exist because it’s theories exist, come on. It’s hardly as though gravity changed when Einstein proposed his alternative theory.

That was precisely the point.

 

[POJIUJH]

That was precisely the point.

I’ll leave you alone to think that one through.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I do own and use a 6 inch newtonian telescope. The guy who observed the outward movement of the galaxies had a 100 inch telescope and spectrometers. I still have to operate on the geocentric model to navigate the sky. But give me some funding and I can recreate Edwin Hubble’s findings.

I’m using an 8-inch SCT. Would need a little more than a better piece of equipment to do direct investigation. The Mount Wilson Observatory (where the 100 inch Hooker telescope was located) is much further removed from light pollution whereas where I live the sky glows orange at night. Some of the better observatories tend to be high altitudes in dry places away from the rest of the population. What those of us can do in the lower altitudes where there’s plenty of lighting is severely limited beyond what we can get from the data feeds from the telescopes in the better regions.