Big Bang? Where's the Proof?

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then lets get back on topic. Big Bang? Where's The Proof?&nbsp;you speak of there being proof, so show it to me. <br /> Posted by my_chemical_science</DIV></p><p>I probably should have clarified that proof is really an abstract concept.&nbsp; Proof is defined by what you can make people believe and not really a scientific term.</p><p>Proof that the brick fell on your food is evidenced by the observation of you seeing it fall and the pain you feel in your foot.&nbsp; You believe that it has fallen on your foot.&nbsp; The evidence supports the proof that you believe it happened. &nbsp;</p><p>Science works with evidence and doesn't really attempt to "prove" anything.&nbsp; Proof is what the individual believes.&nbsp; Science tries to eliminate uncertainties and determine what is most probable.</p><p>Asking for proof of the big bang is an illogical question.&nbsp; A better question is to ask is what evidence supports the big bang.&nbsp; If the evidence is conclusive enough, you may personally find that it is proof.&nbsp;</p><p>The only absolute proofs (not based on what you believe) are in mathematics.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp;The only absolute proofs (not based on what you believe) are in mathematics. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>What you say&nbsp;is quite true.&nbsp; But if you are willing to accept some portions of physics as established, such as general relativity or quantum mechanics then from&nbsp;those theories&nbsp;conclusions can be reached using rigorous mathematics that are as "true" as as are the underlying assumptions.&nbsp; That is the power of mathematics in physics.&nbsp; Or what Wigner would call the "unreasonable success of mathematics in the physical sciences."&nbsp; This is in part what distinguishes the use of the word "theory" in science from the use of the same word in everyday language.</p><p>I know that your are quite aware of this, but it bears repeating for a wider audience.</p><p>In everyday language the word theory is often used interchangeably with the word "conjecture" or "hypothesis".&nbsp; In science a theory is a construct that has predictive power, usually through the application of mathematics, and that has received sufficient scrutiny and experimental verification so as to be known to provide very accurate predictions under known circumstances.&nbsp; It is therefore widely regarded as "true", at least within well-defined bounds.&nbsp; The two premier theories of modern physics are general relativity and quantum electrodynamics.</p><p>The Big Bang, in the sense of an extremely compact early universe, is derivable from general relativity using mathematics.&nbsp; This derivation was produced by Hawking and Ellis and is found in their book <em>The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time.</em><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[my_chemical_science]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I probably should have clarified that proof is really an abstract concept.&nbsp; Proof is defined by what you can make people believe and not really a scientific term.Proof that the brick fell on your food is evidenced by the observation of you seeing it fall and the pain you feel in your foot.&nbsp; You believe that it has fallen on your foot.&nbsp; The evidence supports the proof that you believe it happened. &nbsp;Science works with evidence and doesn't really attempt to "prove" anything.&nbsp; Proof is what the individual believes.&nbsp; Science tries to eliminate uncertainties and determine what is most probable.Asking for proof of the big bang is an illogical question.&nbsp; A better question is to ask is what evidence supports the big bang.&nbsp; If the evidence is conclusive enough, you may personally find that it is proof.&nbsp;The only absolute proofs (not based on what you believe) are in mathematics. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>are you trying to say the proof is believing?<br />Does that mean that there is proof of God? What about the people who do not "believe" in God? what about the people who DO?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080"><strong><em><br /><img id="efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="197" height="106" /><br />If everyone treats you like a kid, you might as well act like one and throw the TV out the hotel window ~Gerard Way</em></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;are you trying to say the proof is believing?Does that mean that there is proof of God? What about the people who do not "believe" in God? what about the people who DO? <br />Posted by my_chemical_science</DIV></p><p>Can you read ?&nbsp;&nbsp; Edit: Sorry, maybe I can't.&nbsp; I read this as replying to my post.</p><p>I said that the basis for the Big Bang lies with general relativity, for which there is a boat load of empirical support, and with what one can derive from general relativity rigorously using mathematics.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><strong>are you trying to say the proof is believing?</strong></p><p>Essentially, yes.&nbsp; For me to prove something to you, I have to provide evidence to back up whatever assertion I am claiming.&nbsp; I have to convince you and make you believe.&nbsp; If you ask for proof of the big bang, all I can do is provide evidence that supports it.&nbsp; It's up to you whether you want to consider that as proof or not.</p><p>If I say to you that the observed expansion (Hubble's constant) is <strong><em>proof</em></strong> of the big bang, you can argue and claim it is not proof because you simply don't believe it is conclusive enough.&nbsp; If you do, in fact, consider it conclusive enough, then that is proof.&nbsp; However, proof doesn't make it a true statement.&nbsp; Walk into any trial and observe lawyers... you will witness first hand that proving something doesn't always rely on truth.&nbsp; It's all about what they can make you believe. </p><p>On the other hand, if I say to you that the observed expansion is <strong><em>evidence</em></strong> in support of the big bang, there's not much to argue except to try to invalidate the evidence.&nbsp; That is how science works.&nbsp; The more evidence in support of the theory increases the certainty that the explanation of the theory is correct.&nbsp; Certainty is never 100%, though... future observation and/or experiments may falsify some evidence and make the theory crumble.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Does that mean that there is proof of God? </strong></p><p>To those that believe in God, yes... there is proof. &nbsp; They can find proof where they choose to look for it.&nbsp; To them, there is most definitely proof he exists.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>What about the people who do not "believe" in God?</strong></p><p>They either see no evidence or consider evidence as inconclusive for the existence of a god.&nbsp; Without any evidence, how can something be proven?&nbsp; Without any evidence how can you make someone believe?&nbsp; For them, there is no proof.<br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>See, I don't see the logic in a "Big Bang". What started this "Big Bang"? A little dense ball that blew up? That makes no sense at all because that brings up the question, where did this "dense ball" come from? "God"? Well then what created 'God"? I don't see how this could happen, what triggered it? <br /> Posted by Thinker_of_many_Things</DIV></p><p>We're seeing an effect. There had to be a cause. In addition, the effect that we observe follows rules. If we take observed slices of time over a long enough period, we can then run it in reverse to see where it takes us.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[v_for_vendetta]

IMO. I think we are only seeing a fraction of the univers, look at the observable universe, we say it's 15 billion years old but&nbsp; it might not be it's actualy age, just like the observable universe is only a fraction of the universe. Most theories we know today might change in 2 billion years, everything isn't exactly known. The beginning, the middle, or the end. Most of the End of the universe scenarios are probably 1/10 possible because we don't know everything as we assume we do.

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO. I think we are only seeing a fraction of the univers, look at the observable universe, we say it's 15 billion years old but&nbsp; it might not be it's actualy age, just like the observable universe is only a fraction of the universe. Most theories we know today might change in 2 billion years, everything isn't exactly known. The beginning, the middle, or the end. Most of the End of the universe scenarios are probably 1/10 possible because we don't know everything as we assume we do. <br /> Posted by v_for_vendetta</DIV></p><p>Right now, the age is at 13.7 billion years old.&nbsp; This is based on several different methods that all agree within their error margin.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>