Yes, because it's the most plausible theory we have right now. The beautiful thing about science is that it is proven impossible, a new theory takes it's place and there is no fuss about it.
Poll
Do you believe in the Big Bang theory?
| Yes | 53% | 53% - 56 | ||||
| No | 15% | 15% - 16 | ||||
| Somewhat | 26% | 26% - 28 | ||||
| I believe in another theory (If so specify) | 3% | 3% - 4 | ||||
| Total: 104 | ||||||
Agreed. It's like hearing creationlists debating evolution. If you have little (to no) idea of what your talking about then shut it.PureFodder wrote:
I have no reason to believe that the people who know way more about physics than me are wrong.
There is plenty of room for belief in science. Anything we ever learn is only what we believe, there is no way to prove it truly correct. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, there is a lot less wrong with that than saying "this theory is irrevocably right according to this evidence".
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree." - Albert Einstein
Belief does not mean you can't change your mind. It just means you have a little faith in the reasoning behind the theory.
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree." - Albert Einstein
Belief does not mean you can't change your mind. It just means you have a little faith in the reasoning behind the theory.
No, I don't believe in anything and that includes the Big Bang theory. The evidence (& mathematical projection backwards) supporting it is accurate to about a billionth of second after singularity. The size of the visible universe; and approximate age in light years; supports the model. Matter distribution vs maps of the background radiation fit the model. The physics of light and color shifting fit the model. Etc...
Why would I need to believe in what is supported by mountains of evidence and exceedingly accurate mathematics. At this point the word "believe" is an abused/misused word that shouldn't be used. Do I think the big bang theory is the best fit of the evidence - yes without a doubt. Do I think it will ever be revised in a major way - absolutely not. Will there be minor revisions - of course.
Why would I need to believe in what is supported by mountains of evidence and exceedingly accurate mathematics. At this point the word "believe" is an abused/misused word that shouldn't be used. Do I think the big bang theory is the best fit of the evidence - yes without a doubt. Do I think it will ever be revised in a major way - absolutely not. Will there be minor revisions - of course.
It's all we have right now. Ask me 2000 years ago when the only explanation for everything was God(s) (more or less), and I'd have said the same thing.
GodATG wrote:
Yes, but the real crux question is what came before the big bang.
I would be extremely wary of anyone predicting anything to the tune of one billionth of a second.topal63 wrote:
No, I don't believe in anything and that includes the Big Bang theory. The evidence (& mathematical projection backwards) supporting it is accurate to about a billionth of second after singularity. The size of the visible universe; and approximate age in light years; supports the model. Matter distribution vs maps of the background radiation fit the model. The physics of light and color shifting fit the model. Etc...
Why would I need to believe in what is supported by mountains of evidence and exceedingly accurate mathematics. At this point the word "believe" is an abused/misused word that shouldn't be used. Do I think the big bang theory is the best fit of the evidence - yes without a doubt. Do I think it will ever be revised in a major way - absolutely not. Will there be minor revisions - of course.
Scientists will be less than noble in their pursuits to get their work published.
Actually some of the math doesn't add up (the horizon problem). I saw a special last week where they were attempting to explain some of the discrepancies with the Variable Speed of Light (VSL) theory.topal63 wrote:
No, I don't believe in anything and that includes the Big Bang theory. The evidence (& mathematical projection backwards) supporting it is accurate to about a billionth of second after singularity. The size of the visible universe; and approximate age in light years; supports the model. Matter distribution vs maps of the background radiation fit the model. The physics of light and color shifting fit the model. Etc...
Why would I need to believe in what is supported by mountains of evidence and exceedingly accurate mathematics. At this point the word "believe" is an abused/misused word that shouldn't be used. Do I think the big bang theory is the best fit of the evidence - yes without a doubt. Do I think it will ever be revised in a major way - absolutely not. Will there be minor revisions - of course.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The first sentence, about accuracy-predictability, deserves a giant why? Maybe you're confusing macro concepts/cranes/explanations in science with fundamental mathematics/physics.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I would be extremely wary of anyone predicting anything to the tune of one billionth of a second.topal63 wrote:
No, I don't believe in anything and that includes the Big Bang theory. The evidence (& mathematical projection backwards) supporting it is accurate to about a billionth of second after singularity. The size of the visible universe; and approximate age in light years; supports the model. Matter distribution vs maps of the background radiation fit the model. The physics of light and color shifting fit the model. Etc...
Why would I need to believe in what is supported by mountains of evidence and exceedingly accurate mathematics. At this point the word "believe" is an abused/misused word that shouldn't be used. Do I think the big bang theory is the best fit of the evidence - yes without a doubt. Do I think it will ever be revised in a major way - absolutely not. Will there be minor revisions - of course.
Scientists will be less than noble in their pursuits to get their work published.
The second one is incomprehensible, to me, please explain.
I was considering making this point re: "believe in" being too close to "faith" for comfort, but I figured... fuckit.topal63 wrote:
No, I don't believe in anything and that includes the Big Bang theory. The evidence (& mathematical projection backwards) supporting it is accurate to about a billionth of second after singularity. The size of the visible universe; and approximate age in light years; supports the model. Matter distribution vs maps of the background radiation fit the model. The physics of light and color shifting fit the model. Etc...
Why would I need to believe in what is supported by mountains of evidence and exceedingly accurate mathematics.
http://science.discovery.com/video/phys … 1543241661 ..was the show I was reffering to in my previous post.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Jeezus, you people remind me of that one dude in "No Particular Night or Morning" from The Illustrated Man.HollisHurlbut wrote:
I was considering making this point re: "believe in" being too close to "faith" for comfort, but I figured... fuckit.topal63 wrote:
No, I don't believe in anything and that includes the Big Bang theory. The evidence (& mathematical projection backwards) supporting it is accurate to about a billionth of second after singularity. The size of the visible universe; and approximate age in light years; supports the model. Matter distribution vs maps of the background radiation fit the model. The physics of light and color shifting fit the model. Etc...
Why would I need to believe in what is supported by mountains of evidence and exceedingly accurate mathematics.
That's what the Large Hadron Collider is for (among other things; questions), looking for that time around a billionth of second after singularity. There is always room for more science. That's what science does - makes minor refinements to major breakthroughs in understanding. Science fills in a gap - and that filled in gap leads to more questions. I was just basically inferring the obvious - that science does not really have an end (I personally think a "theory of everything" - will never be).Kmarion wrote:
http://science.discovery.com/video/physics.html?playerId=1519681435&titleId=1543241661 ..was the show I was reffering to in my previous post.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-08-06 12:27:56)
You say there is visible evidence that pins the Big Bang back to one billionth of a second after the event. That's rubbish, considering everything about what happened in the Big Bang is an estimation. Even if the theory is assumed true, the exact events can only be estimated on a time line. Even when the events are talked about in such fractions of a second, no one is pointing at physical evidence to the exact times, only that in this particular model if it happened the way we think it did, it would have happened like this. Everything else you mentioned is also...interesting. The age of the universe is probably somewhere between 11 and 15 billion years old. We don't really know how big the whole thing is for sure, and have no way of knowing. The size of the visible universe is only as big as as far as we can see, until we can see the distance of ct. Red shift only tells us that the universe is expanding, and not even that. It tells us that everything is getting further and further away in relation to us. It doesn't necessarily point to a big bang. The CMB is assumed to come from the Big Bang, but not necessarily. More and more it looks like the universe is not uniform, but that it in fact has perturbations on the order of 150-200 light years long. These perturbations are screwing with our current models of the universe.topal63 wrote:
The first sentence, about accuracy-predictability, deserves a giant why? Maybe you're confusing macro concepts/cranes/explanations in science with fundamental mathematics/physics.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I would be extremely wary of anyone predicting anything to the tune of one billionth of a second.topal63 wrote:
No, I don't believe in anything and that includes the Big Bang theory. The evidence (& mathematical projection backwards) supporting it is accurate to about a billionth of second after singularity. The size of the visible universe; and approximate age in light years; supports the model. Matter distribution vs maps of the background radiation fit the model. The physics of light and color shifting fit the model. Etc...
Why would I need to believe in what is supported by mountains of evidence and exceedingly accurate mathematics. At this point the word "believe" is an abused/misused word that shouldn't be used. Do I think the big bang theory is the best fit of the evidence - yes without a doubt. Do I think it will ever be revised in a major way - absolutely not. Will there be minor revisions - of course.
Scientists will be less than noble in their pursuits to get their work published.
The second one is incomprehensible, to me, please explain.
In short, source please.
Second point: Newsflash - people lie. Even if they don't think they're lying, scientists will rationalize their theory and come up with unfounded explanations to keep their theory in the running for as long as possible. I point to String Theory.
In a philosophical sense, maybe not. But there are the laws of physics for example, and they seem to work. There is nothing there to believe in. You are either aware of something, or you're not. The evidence is there for anyone who wishes to check up on them. If an allegation or theory can be proven, then there simply is nothing to believe in. It's about knowledge.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Anything we ever learn is only what we believe, there is no way to prove it truly correct.
And like I said before, in the case of a theory, well, all that's left is for someone to prove or disprove it. Until then, it is speculation. Believing in it is fine so long as you keep looking for proof and don't allow belief to act as a replacement for it.
ƒ³
In a philosophical sense perception is reality, nothing is here, yadda yadda yadda. Even firmly grounded in reality however, we have had our fair share of boat-rocking discoveries that have changed our most fundamental levels of science. Isn't it a bit presumptuous to believe that we have more reason to believe our scientific foundation is any more correct than the Greeks thought theirs was?oug wrote:
In a philosophical sense, maybe not. But there are the laws of physics for example, and they seem to work. There is nothing there to believe in. You are either aware of something, or you're not. The evidence is there for anyone who wishes to check up on them. If an allegation or theory can be proven, then there simply is nothing to believe in. It's about knowledge.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Anything we ever learn is only what we believe, there is no way to prove it truly correct.
And like I said before, in the case of a theory, well, all that's left is for someone to prove or disprove it. Until then, it is speculation. Believing in it is fine so long as you keep looking for proof and don't allow belief to act as a replacement for it.
Be careful with the use of exceedingly accurate then. There are still rather large gaps in understanding. Some of them are embedded right into the core of the big bang model. We still haven't explained dark matter. It's hard for me to accept a "theory of everything" as exceedingly accurate when the vast majority of the material in said theory is undecided. We are working on it though.topal63 wrote:
That's what the Large Hadron Collider is for (among other things; questions), looking for that time around a billionth of second after singularity. There is always room for more science. That's what science does - makes minor refinements to major breakthroughs in understanding. Science fills in a gap - and that filled in gap leads to more questions. I was just basically inferring the obvious - that science does not really have an end (I personally think a "theory of everything" - will never be).Kmarion wrote:
http://science.discovery.com/video/physics.html?playerId=1519681435&titleId=1543241661 ..was the show I was reffering to in my previous post.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
We're not even sure it exists yet.Kmarion wrote:
We still haven't explained dark matter.
No we aren't. Dark matter has become the new catch all for the unexplained .Flaming_Maniac wrote:
We're not even sure it exists yet.Kmarion wrote:
We still haven't explained dark matter.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
String theory has to many holes in it to be considered a solid theory. What I thought was interesting is an idea me and my friend use to kick around with our physics teacher. If this universe is part of an omniverse, then black holes of different universes could collect material and all connect to a point of singularity until that mass would implode on itself. So really the Big bang but with some tweaks.
A better question is how will it end? Big rip? Big crunch? We need a topic on the cosmic apocalypse.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Entropy. All energy in the universe will dissapate into an unusable state and there will be no energy to move anything. basiclly a big freeze.Kmarion wrote:
A better question is how will it end? Big rip? Big crunch? We need a topic on the cosmic apocalypse.
Ah, yes it has become the catch all, but that doesn't make it right.Kmarion wrote:
No we aren't. Dark matter has become the new catch all for the unexplained .Flaming_Maniac wrote:
We're not even sure it exists yet.Kmarion wrote:
We still haven't explained dark matter.
The guy I was interning for last summer was working on the issue in order to disprove it. He published it I think around a month after I left, so I don't know how well it went over, but he was very excited about it.
edit: The Szekeres model is a model of the universe that accounts for perturbations and if I remember correctly is more attractive because it doesn't need a center of reference (the earth) though that also makes it harder to work with. Supernova data sets refers to Type 1A supernova that have certain characteristics that allow them to be used as reliable distance markers to judge the rate and acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Nope, I shall not (in reference to "exceedingly accurate"). Exceedingly accurate - does not imply perfect. Why do you think it does?Kmarion wrote:
Be careful with the use of exceedingly accurate then. working on it though.topal63 wrote:
That's what the Large Hadron Collider is for (among other things; questions), looking for that time around a billionth of second after singularity. There is always room for more science. That's what science does - makes minor refinements to major breakthroughs in understanding. Science fills in a gap - and that filled in gap leads to more questions. I was just basically inferring the obvious - that science does not really have an end (I personally think a "theory of everything" - will never be).Kmarion wrote:
http://science.discovery.com/video/physics.html?playerId=1519681435&titleId=1543241661 ..was the show I was reffering to in my previous post.
Big bang theory - is not a theory of everything. It's a basic natural theory of a matter distribution. I neither think it's "perfect" or the end of it, as explanation. But, it is the only acceptable and "exceedingly accurate" natural explanation of how matter is distributed in space; and it fits the math/physics. We don't even really have a real theory of gravity - but that just means there's more to know. The earth would basically be an impossibility in a Universe that didn't more or less "bang" at singularity or rebound "bang" at singularity in a Universe that collapses and expands. Branes colliding also indicates the same thing - "bang"; expansion; at a singularity type event.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-08-06 13:03:10)
You can't get something from nothing.Kmarion wrote:
Nothing. Time itself was created.ATG wrote:
Yes, but the real crux question is what came before the big bang.