The "Big Bang Theory" is just that, a theory, and, as such, one should expect it to be proved incorrect. One of its gaping holes is the question of what was there before. One may just as well answer "Dunno" as "God" or "The fart of a pan-dimensional space goat" - at present we do not know and cannot tell, and, when (if) we can the Big Bang Theory will have been blown to pieces.
My previous posting addressed this matter, from both perspectives.
By the way, on what day did God create Aston Villa FC...
Um why? All the evidence suggests the Big Bang Theory is what happened.
), sentient or otherwise.
None of which is conclusive, and it could be proved wrong at any time if evidence against it comes to light.
With the certainty that you say that, I take it you must either have been back there to see it for yourself, or have some very compelling evidence that you've not shared with the scientific community.
Indeed, all the evidence they had at the time suggested that it was flat. New evidence came to light which showed that it wasn't.
I think we're a bit more advanced, and know more about the Universe, than they did then.
Come across them before. I'm still trying to work out if it's one big troll.Try tellingl that to these people; theflatearthsociety.org
So where is the evidence that the BBT is going to disproved? The comment I replied to said we should "expect" it to disproved. The BTT has been around for decades, and so far all the evidence we have gathered supports it.
Einstein's theory of relativity has never been proven wrong; and in fact it has been tested and has passed those tests.
Eratosthenes proved the Earth was round in 240BC, so the evidence was there.
Pretty much all scientists are in agreement that it is what happened. Don't be misled by the word "theory". A good scientific theory is backed up by extensive factual evidence, and is about as real as anything can get in science.
Because a) most theories prove incorrect, and those that don't usually do in time and b) there is no evidence of what happened, merely logical extrapolation from observation of consequent events.
As I said before, I suspect there is a horrible tangle at the centre of Einstein's theories because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of time
You appear to know something the rest of us, and the greatest minds of the 20th and 21st centuries don't. What is it? The BBT was first postulated in 1929 - almost a hundred years ago- nothing credible has come about to challenge it.
I don't think you know what evidence is.
So you think you know better than arguably the greatest mind of the 20th century? As I said before his theory of relativity has been been tested, and has passed those tests.
Where is the evidence that it won't be?
But that does not mean it will not be disproved in the future.
Source, please.
But until proven, it is not necessarily correct.
What is it you know that makes the hypothesis of the big bang theory correct?
So, a theory that is unchallenged is automatically the correct one?
Note how it is evidence that supports the big bang theory, not evidence that proves it.
Which bears no relevance to the big bang theory, which is what is being discussed.
I like how some people on internet forums assume the level of knowledge others have.
Einstein being correct about the theory of relativity, doesn't mean he's right about everything.
I go by what I read, which is a bunch of people poo pooing something, that is generally accepted to be true by the people in the know, like they know something they don't
But the theory of relativity is what we were talking about and is what is relevant here.
I talk with the certainty of decades of research and observation.
Maybe, but it's not looking that way. We know more about the Universe than we ever have and the BBT is still the front runner for an explanation as to how every began.
There wasn't anything. Everything we know was created at the moment of the BB, including time.
None of which has conclusively proved the big bang theory.
How can you say it isn't going to be disproved?
Exactly - the evidence supports it, it does not prove it.
But you can dispute it - that's the whole point of science, to question and test what is accepted as well as new ideas, and to try to expand our knowledge.
We know more than ever, but still don't know very much in the grand scheme of things.
And you know this for certain because...?
Everything points to it being true. Unless you can bring something new to the table that hasn't been considered trying to dispute it is pointless.
I never said that. The point I made was that arbitrarily stating that it's only matter of time before it's dis-proven, based on no evidence whatsoever is ridiculous.
It seems to me that you're never going to believe it. Maybe because you don't want to?
Um, that's not how science works at all: to try picking holes in established science just for the sake of it.
I'd prefer if actually brought new ideas to the table instead of pulling science apart because they think they should. This is exactly the same argument as I have with anti-evolutionists and anti-vaccine people. People who have no idea at all about science or how it works using arguments that make no sense, or are based on misconceptions, or trying to make out scientists don't know what they're talking about, when that's so far from being the case it's ridiculous.
Because it's what evidence seems to show.
Again, everything pointing to it being true isn't the same as it definitely being true.
No more rediculous than stating for certain that there was nothing before the big bang.
Actually, I believe that the big bang theory is probably correct.
So everybody should just accept that it must be correct because it's been around for a long time?
So if there's no alternative theory, we must believe the current one is the correct one?
Now you're putting words in my mouth.
