Timmah! on 04 July 2007
| footbag said: "That's why it's still called a theory. " Hey Timmah... Scientific theories have to be proven and testable. To test the big bang, you asume the hypothesys is correct and make assumptions. ie 1. If there was a big bang, all of the universe will be expanding outward from a center spot. Observed and confirmed 2. If there was a big bang, all of the most distant galaxies will resemble the early composition of the universe. Observed and confirmed 3. If there was a big bang, there would have to be a large amount of matter or energy that we are not seeing. Sure enough we discover Bocround Microwave radiation. Observed and confirmed 4. If there were a big bang that produced X energy, then we should be able to deduce the distribution of elements specifically He-4, 3 and deuterium. Observed and confirmed Don't confuse Scientific method with common speech. You may have a theory on something, but when a scientist has a theory is must be testable and widely accepted. A Law, which is used to hypothesize and later confirm, is set in stone and is universal. Many of the above examples rely on laws to fill in the unknowns, and the rest is basic algebra. (OK basic to Einstein) |
Effect does not prove cause. Like I said before, if you see a big tidal wave, that does not prove how it was formed. It could be hypothisized that the wave came from an asteroid, an earthquake or any other phenomenon that could produce such a wave. Many theories of can be developed to explain a particular cause, the big bang is one of them. If I were to state that God flung the universe into existence in such a way that it is expanding, that would also fit the current observation. I'm just saying that cause cannot be PROVEN by effect if effect is the only thing that can be seen, cause can only be theorized.
