--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Chad Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>I disagree with the Big Bang theory because there is too much >conflicting
>evidence otherwise.
I have not seen such evidence. There are, indeed, cosmological anomalies
that exist, and there may even be some that will require modifications to
existing theory (one can always hope. :-) ) But, there is not strong
evidence supporting the steady state universe (the main alternate theory of
this century) for example, and there continues to be a wealth of data
supporting the big bang.
I agree with you in that most newer BB theories use the
>inflationary model, with a lot of singularity conditions to describe U.
>
>This is my pet peeve here, but it is not directed to you... I hate
>references to BB that imply that BB Thoery is fact. It is still a >theory.
As is the heliocentric solar system, Newton's laws of motion, universal
gravitation, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, special relativity, etc.
They are all "just" theories. As I have mentioned elsewhere may times, we
can see the purpose of science is to model, predict, and allow us to
manipulate phenomenon. Theories are proposed to explain a body of
experimental data. Whenever possible, predictions of the results of
measurements made by experiments nut yet undertaken are made. Then, these
experiments are run, and the results compared with the theory. If a theory
explains a wealth of results, and these new experiments it is considered
verified. If the data is found to be inherently inconsistent with the
theory, it is falsified.
Now, there are always anomalies that are not yet explained by theory. The
orbit of the moon was not reconciled with classical mechanics for about 100
years, IIRC. Further, general theories, evolution or the big bang, are
subjected to "friendly amendments". Examples of this would be DNA
underlying evolution or improvements in modeling weather. None of these
improvements to our understanding represent a refutation of the original
theory.
>The MEME for BB being fact has permeated into popular culture, >including
>as far as the Pope declaring that the Catholic Church >endorse the BB as
>the "Official" way the Universe began. Imagine >that!
Ah, I'm 99.99% sure that's not what happened. I think the Catholic Church
accepts as a fact that the big bang, as well as evolution, is a very well
accepted and well-verified theory. (I read about the acceptance of
evolution.) It officially states that, for theological purposes, it
interprets scripture and the writings of the church in light of the fact
that the big bang is a well-supported explanation of how the universe began.
>As far as I know it is still unproven
Indeed it is, as is every scientific theory. Scientific theories cannot be
proven. The can be verified or falsified, but they cannot be proven.
>and newer models come out almost daily as some observable
>fact appears to contradict the "pure math" of the latest BB theory.
I think that this post, as does the previous, indicates a binary view of
science that is not consistent with how science is really done. The general
overview provided by the big bang is well verified. It explains why
everything is going away from us. It predicted a background radiation at
3K, which was observed by Penzia and Wilson in 1965. It gives roughly the
right ratio of H/He observed in the sun. It is consistent with the
experimental work done in high-energy physics.
It is true that a simplistic big bang model does not explain all of the
data. There is still theoretical as well as experimental work to be done.
But, the need for refinements of theory is not falsification of that theory.
An example is the development of QED as an extension of QM. QM was not
falsified by QED, but enhanced.
Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge.
Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
