Big Bang PROVEN!

The non amateur stuff. Hawking, black holes, that sort of thing

Moderators: joe, Brian, Guy Fennimore

RL Astro
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Big Bang PROVEN!

Post by RL Astro »

Hello everyone
NASA have proved that the big bang really happened:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/sta ... ather.html

Maybe knowing how it started will lead to us discovering, or at least backing up a theory, of how the Universe will end?
joe
Site Admin
Posts: 4383
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Greenwich, London
Contact:

Post by joe »

200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.
RL Astro
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by RL Astro »

Sorry Joe. Didn't see that topic :oops:
hubble
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:44 pm
Location: nowhere, i'm all part of your imagination
Contact:

Post by hubble »

now that, that is incredibly cool.
"Hubble was strong, a gifted athlete,charming, immenseley good looking-
It all seemed too good to be true. It was. For all his gifts, Edwin Hubble was also an inveterate liar."
Zeke
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:29 pm
Location: Wigan
Contact:

Post by Zeke »

Just looked at that website and I have a comment.
If it is a theory then why does this piece of text appear?

'...Big Bang theory and showing that the Big Bang was complete in the first instants,...'

I have nothing against theories, what I do find irritating is anyone saying something MAY be therefore is IS.
Never worry!
Konus 500.
8x30 binos.
Canon EOS 1000F.
Tamron 80-210mm telephoto.
Fujifinepix S1000fd.
http://coriantumr.wordpress.com/
Meade ETX 80
RL Astro
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by RL Astro »

Well it was a theory, now it isn't. :)
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

RL Astro wrote:Well it was a theory, now it isn't. :)
What is it now then?
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

Zeke wrote:I have nothing against theories, what I do find irritating is anyone saying something MAY be therefore is IS.
How does something being a theory equate to what you've just said there?
RL Astro
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by RL Astro »

davep wrote:
RL Astro wrote:Well it was a theory, now it isn't. :)
What is it now then?
Well if they've proved it it isn't a theory anymore as a theory is something you haven't proved but you suspect may be the case.
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

RL Astro wrote:Well if they've proved it it isn't a theory anymore as a theory is something you haven't proved but you suspect may be the case.
I think you might be confusing a theory with a hypothesis.
RL Astro
Posts: 749
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Plymouth
Contact:

Post by RL Astro »

Theory: "a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena"
Hypothesis: "A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations"

It has been verified so can no longer be considered a theory.
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

Where did those definitions come from? My understanding of the term "theory", as it applies to science, is that something confirmed doesn't cease to be a theory, it just becomes a very well supported theory. Some examples I'm aware of:etc...

So, if Big Bang theory isn't a theory any more, what is it?
spodzone
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:42 pm
Location: Perth, Scotland
Contact:

Post by spodzone »

davep wrote:So, if Big Bang theory isn't a theory any more, what is it?
Well, it would be interesting to fit `fact' and `axiom' into the pile.

And I'd like to know who's claiming to have been present at the Big Bang to verify it. Er, I mean, I'd like to know what constitutes `verifying' a theory, since it seems sensible to suggest talking in terms of a very high likelihood of being true.
~Tim
davep
Posts: 2814
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 11:07 am
Location: South Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by davep »

spodzone wrote:And I'd like to know who's claiming to have been present at the Big Bang to verify it. Er, I mean, I'd like to know what constitutes `verifying' a theory, since it seems sensible to suggest talking in terms of a very high likelihood of being true.
Indeed. I'm struggling to see apparent verification of predictions as "proof". Last I knew "proof" was the wrong word to use in this sort of situation.
Aspicio Astrum
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:18 am
Contact:

Post by Aspicio Astrum »

RL Astro wrote:Theory: "a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena"
Hypothesis: "A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations"

It has been verified so can no longer be considered a theory.
That is an incorrect definition of theory as it is referred to in science. Unfortunately, the word "theory" has come to mean much the same as "hypothesis" in common parlance, which causes no end of confusion. (A hypothesis is a proposal which is put forwards to be tested, or more correctly, disproved, by experimentation)

In science however, a theory is a model that is very much verified by evidence, and which can be used to predict occurrences.

An example being the theory of general relativity.
Post Reply