Jonahdel asks; “If the Big Bang theory is still not conclusive and has holes, why is it that most “scientific shows/documentaries” use it as the basis for their conclusions? It seems that it is the scientific equivalent of the creationists saying that God is the reason for everything and we must accept it. Is it because it is the most widely accepted theory at the moment?“
Evidence. This is the keyword: evidence. Evidence underlies the principles, laws and theories that explain how the natural world behaves. If a scientific theory explains a given phenomenon, then there must be ways to test the theory and, more importantly, there must be independent and objective evidence supporting the theory. Otherwise it is pure speculation.
In science, opinions do not count – only facts do. Similarly, our beliefs about how a particular system works has no influence whatsoever on the system. Whether or not we believe in gravity does not determine how gravity works. Also, not all scientific models are complete but that does not imply that they aren’t able to correctly explain observable phenomena and, crucially, accurately predict the outcomes of future events.
If we consider Newton’s laws of motion and his theory of gravity, for example, we are to determine precisely where the Moon will be relative to the Earth at a given time. In fact, we were able to send astronauts to the Moon thanks to Newton. That said, Newton’s theory of gravity is not complete. It is not able to explain, for example, the existence of black holes or the slight drift in the orbit on Mercury around the Sun.
These, however, are explained by Einstein’s theory of gravity. Again, this does not mean that Einstein’s theory is the most complete theory on gravity. There are cases where even Einstein’s theory is useless but, so far, this is the best we have. And the predictions made using Einstein’s theory have been observed and verified, thus consolidating its validity. Yet no one is under any obligation to accept his theory or any other scientific theory for that matter on faith. This is not how science works.
Unlike the ideas postulated by creationists, everything that science puts forward, be it a complete or incomplete theory, can be backed up and verified by observation, evidence and independent tests. As such we cannot say that the Big Bang is the scientific equivalent of creationism because even if the Big Bang theory is not able to explain everything about the beginning of the Universe, it is the best verifiable theory we have thus far. And, to reiterate, there is evidence backing up the Big Bang – clear, observable and verifiable evidence. Creationism is simply an opinion.
Finally, we are not forced to accept the Big Bang theory – anyone can come up with a better explanation but it has to be a sound, sensible and testable explanation. This is why the Big Bang is the most widely accepted theory so far.
First image: A diagram representing the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang to present day. The red arrow marks the flow of time. NASA / GSFC
13 Comments - Leave your own
Everything in the beginning was entangle together so frozen in absolute 0 having no time and space… How it then got time and space? Must be some extra dimensional impulse to expand to more dimensions as our Universe. So stupid is thinking of God construction. Maybe it is just multidimensional mainframe computer? In this case God is only speculation!
What I can’t understand about the big bang is the idea that it brought with it or became it’s own space to bang into.
It makes more sense to me, to think of space already existing with matter being pushed or pulled into it once it reaches a low enough density/energy level. That way Time becomes an action of space to deal with breaking down the matter injected through entropy fueled by expansion back to that lower density/energy state.
I have heard it said that this is not the case and that the universe/big bang is some kind of expanding bubble suspended inside a medium filled with multiple universes…
Yeah Michael, expanding bubble lmfao go back to sesame street and start at the beginning
The first thing to note about the Big Bang is that it wasn’t the first event in the history of our Universe. Prior to the Big Bang there was a period of super rapid expansion of the Universe called inflation. Now this raises the question: if inflation came before the Big Bang, then what was there before inflation? Without going into too much detail, it is physically possible for something to appear out of nothing at all due to quantum fluctuation. So, in that infinitesimally small instant after the appearance of what would have been the very first seed, so to speak, of our Universe, inflation took over and blew up the Universe from a region much smaller than a proton to the size of a basketball.
Such a rapid inflation didn’t leave the Universe unscathed – in fact, as a result of this event, ripples were created which propagated as gravitational waves. These waves have recently been detected by the BICEP2 experiment thus confirming the theory of inflation. Only after the Universe had reached the size of a basketball that the Big Bang then took over to finally expand it over billions of years to its current size. Again, all of this is backed up by evidence and research and is not, by any means, immune to scrutiny. Also, space and time do not exist as separate entities and the Universe wasn’t created in space and time but, rather, spacetime unfurled out of the Universe. So, until we have another theory that can challenge the current one, Inflation and Big Bang remain the best explanation we have so far of our observable Universe.
“Inflation and Big Bang remain the best explanation we have so far of our observable Universe”
-Yeah, but how many of the rules of physics does this ‘best explaination’ violate? See my other post on this thread.
In other words it’s all bollocks
1. How is that this quantum fluctuation, which suddenly produces all the matter and energy in the universe, does not violate the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy?
2. How can all the matter and energy in the universe expand fast enough to escape its own gravity well? Shouldn’t the Big Bang have created a giant black hole and not the universe as we know it?
Anticipating that your answer to #2 above will invoke a variable speed of light:
3. Doesn’t all the theoretical, observational, and experimental evidence we have indicate that the speed of light is a constant, and not variable over time? Specifically what mathematical equation within the Theory of General Relativity indicates the speed of light will vary relative to a universal time factor (T).
We don’t know. But publishers like to sell books and television prorammes.
So scientist can observe the Big Bang, hmm….. And from this observation they say that randomly, out of nothing something just happened and here we are.Yep, that’s repeatable and we can surley test it, why we see it all the time things just randomly appearing from nothing. I’ll tell you what I observe, design that has a designer, nothing just randomly happens on its own.
So if I grab a container filled with absolute nothing and close the lid of absolute nothing a million billion years later everything will explode out of it?? Ha ha
that is basically their theory
If I’m not mistaken there is common ground (in part) between these two theories (verifiable), regardless if neither can be theorems (demonstrable). Logically both creation and evolution hold to the premise “in the beginning” meaning they agree there is a beginning point. The fight, I’m perceiving, is not in “if’ by “how vs who.”
The struggle I have with the “spontaneous-combustion-into-eventual-life” is the word, life, and the lack of attention to the necessity of law prior to BOOM! (or inflation). The concern I have with “this Universe is brought to you by [place your deity here]” is dogma, and orthodoxy. Nobody (except our scientific forefathers) have sought to determine the nature of “God” through the nature of … nature. “If God” then all nature are of “God”, and the Law of Conservation (that states energy is eternal) demands “God” must be the source Energy and Force/Law. Running away from “if God” is not scientific, but stating “God must be” should put dogma and orthodoxy to task, “Sorry, but your belief does not hold to the laws of nature… and nature’s God.”
The God question is intuitive (as it was for myself) and logically leads to certain conclusions. Making blatant “There is no God” statements as scientists is adolescent. Go ahead and throw out the bathwater, I’ll help you, but don’t throw the baby out with it.
we are all one