"The Big Bang never happened but fusion will" Topic

"Jonathan Tennenbaum: The Big Bang is probably the most famous scientific theory since Einstein's relativity. The Big Bang theory says that our Universe began with a gigantic explosion, about 14 billion years ago, and has been expanding and cooling down ever since.

Until relatively recently this theory has been regarded as the foundation of modern cosmology, the branch of science devoted to the study of the Universe as a whole.

But not all scientists agree with the Big Bang theory, and some even say it is completely wrong and contradicted by a growing mountain of evidence. In fact, in recent years one hears more and more talk about a "crisis of cosmology."…"
Main page

link

Part II

link

Amicalement
Armand

Will the Thought Police require the renaming of the popular TV show as a result?

People far smarter than me accept it. I know that's a poor line of reasoning.
I myself find Cosmic Inflation hard to grasp, but I'm assured that it's correct.

The bottom line is that the reality of the Big Bang doesn't depend on my belief, like Tinkerbell. If I stop believing, it won't go away.

The big bang -- "And God said … ."

(from a bumper sticker I saw many years ago.)

Jim

Smart people don't "accept" scientific theories like these and the Big Bang; they instead acknowledge the possibility that they may be true. There is nothing "assured" about it.

"Scientists" once thought that the Sun orbited the Earth. Science is about learning, exploring and discovering. It's a journey toward the truth with many wrong turns along the way.

Heard just before the Big Bang – Aw Sh..

Theories are not to be accepted but to be tested. Very few will stand the test of time to be found true and it is normally easier to find evidence to prove a theory fales than true. When a theory is proven it becomes a "law".

Regarding cosmology, there is so much new evidence being discovered and observed that there are more and more theories new popping up that call to question existing theories. It's all a WIP that will never come to a conclusion.

Below is a generalized sequence of steps taken to establish a scientific theory:

Choose and define the natural phenomenon that you want to figure out and explain.

Collect information (data) about this phenomena by going where the phenomena occur and making observations. Or, try to replicate this phenomena by means of a test (experiment) under controlled conditions (usually in a laboratory) that eliminates interference's from environmental conditions.

After collecting a lot of data, look for patterns in the data.

Attempt to explain these patterns by making a provisional explanation, called a hypothesis.

Test the hypothesis by collecting more data (and there always seems to be more and more data) to see if the hypothesis continues to show the assumed pattern.

If the data does not support the hypothesis, it must be changed, or rejected in favor of a better one.

In collecting data, one must NOT ignore data that contradicts the hypothesis in favor of only supportive data. That is called "cherry-picking" and is commonly used by pseudo-scientists attempting to scam people unfamiliar with the scientific method.

A good example of this fraud is shown by the so-called "creationists," who start out with a pre-conceived conclusion – a geologically young, 6,000 year old earth, and then cherry-pick only evidence that supports their views, while ignoring or rejecting overwhelming evidence of a much older earth.

If a refined hypothesis survives all attacks on it and is the best existing explanation for a particular phenomenon, it is then elevated to the status of a theory.

A theory is subject to modification and even rejection if there is overwhelming evidence that disproves it and/or supports another, better theory.

Therefore, a theory is not an eternal or perpetual truth.

Wolfhag

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand