Big Bang possibly confirmed

[Vapymid]

Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves has been confirmed by observation, which validates the model of the rapid inflation of the Universe in the first few fractions of a second of its existence. The research gives 5-sigma confidence, which is qualified as a discovery but still needs to be peer-reviewed.

 

Amazingly, the utility of a crowbar as a vital scientific instrument in the field of astrophysics has also been confirmed:

 

“This has been like looking for a needle in a haystack, but instead we found a crowbar,” said co-leader Clem Pryke, the British-born associate professor at the University of Minnesota.

 

A helpful diagram of the search for a cosmic crowbar can be found here:

 

 

 

Regards

[Jek Jek Roo]

So there was actually the boom indeed.

[BTGBullseye]

There is the possibility that something else entirely is causing it... No proof yet that it was caused by some "big bang".

[Doom Shepherd]

There is the possibility that something else entirely is causing it... No proof yet that it was caused by some "big bang".

 

At this point, denialism is just sad.

[Vapymid]

There is the possibility that something else entirely is causing it... No proof yet that it was caused by some "big bang".

 

There is such a possibility, of course.

 

However, there is a theory and a model supported by a lot of observations and it predicted these waves. The new observations fit exactly with the predictions made by the model, which gives it overall a very high probability that the model is correct.

 

There are other theories but they need more fiddling and shortcuts than the inflationary model.

 

Of course, this can just be some compression artifacts on the Universal sky-box and we all live in a computer simulation, but I would like to see some comprehensive proof before I believe it

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

I just dislike it when people go around saying that because some observation fits with a theory, it means that the theory is now fact. This is still a theory.

[Vapymid]

A theory cannot be a fact, it's an explanation of why certain fact are what they are or appear to be. If facts don't fit the theory then the theory is wrong and needs revision, if they do - it supports the theory, at least that's how I think it works.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

Just because a fact fits a theory, doesn't mean that the theory is absolutely correct. My original reply was because someone essentially said that it was.

[Vapymid]

Well, it's safe to assume that no theory is absolutely correct.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

Good. At least we're on the same page.

[ThePest179]

I just dislike it when people go around saying that because some observation fits with a theory, it means that the theory is now fact. This is still a theory.

 

The more observations that go with a theory, the more likely that theory may be confirmed as fact. You are still correct, though (for now).

[Pinkie Pie]

It's progress, I guess.

[Doom Shepherd]

If a theory fits "a" fact, or two, it is quite possibly, even probably, wrong.

 

If a theory fits the entirety or the vast, vast majority of a set of interrelated facts, and does not involve impossible things (wizards, magic, honest politicians) it is much more likely to be right.

 

"Theory" is, in fact, the highest level of confirmation that there IS in science, since it stopped generally applying the term "Law" some time ago.

[BTGBullseye]

I absolutely loath it when people say stuff like that... A theory is just a theory... It isn't fact, and until it is, treating it like it is fact hinders real science.

[Alyxx Thorne]

It's God. ^^

[Doom Shepherd]

I absolutely loath it when people say stuff like that... A theory is just a theory... It isn't fact, and until it is, treating it like it is fact hinders real science.

 

But the people who say "a theory is just a theory" NEVER have an opposing theory, mainly because they don't comprehend what a theory actually is, and the rigorous path of discovery, study, testing, observation, and evaluation that it takes to get something called a theory in scientific terms.

 

Often they CLAIM to have an alternative theory, but it turns out that what they have is either an untested hypothesis (value: zero), or more often something more accurately described as "a line of bullshit I pulled out of my ass."

 

For example: intelligent design is NOT a theory. "god did it" is NOT a theory. Homeopathy is NOT a theory (of medicine).

[BTGBullseye]

And there isn't any conclusive proof for the "big bang"...

 

If it isn't fact, don't treat it as fact. Changing the subject to something concerning religion doesn't change that these theories are being portrayed as fact, not as theories like they should.

[ThePest179]

If a theory fits the entirety or the vast, vast majority of a set of interrelated facts, and does not involve impossible things (wizards, magic, honest politicians) it is much more likely to be right.

 

That's what I meant. More facts to a theory, more likely the theory is correct.

And there isn't any conclusive proof for the "big bang"...

Back to square one.

[Vapymid]

I'm probably showing my naivety here but I thought the Big Bang was pretty uncontroversial by this stage?

 

It is a theory which have, so far, most closely and consistently explained the known facts about the Universe - things like the distribution of elements, CMB, visible structure of the Universe, red shift diagram etc.

 

As far as religion is concerned - again, AFAIK the Bible just says that "in the beginning there was light", which seems quite consistent with the Big Bang. So, unless one tries to intentionally disregard all observable facts about our Universe and postulate that it only exists for 5k years or so or that the Earth is flat or something, there is nothing in the Big Bang theory that would require abandoning one's religious beliefs...

 

Of course, if someone will come up with an alternative theory that matches the facts even better, or some new facts will totally contravene the existing theory - then the Big Bang will have to be revised but it hasn't happened yet.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

I never said that it didn't fit, I just said that it isn't fact, and treating it like a fact is unscientific.