What should we call the Big Bang Hypothesis or The Big Bang Theory or The Big Ba

  • 61 Replies
  • 3609 Views
What should we call the Big Bang

A) Theory
B) Hypothesis
C) Law
D)Dud

A hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. It is a proposal, a guess used to understand and/or predict something. A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. ... So, when a hypothesis has been verified to be true, it becomes a theory


https://www.google.gr/search?biw=1920&bih=940&q=difference+between+a+theory+and+a+hypothesis&oq=difference+between+a+theory+and+a+hypothesis

To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Since there has never been done a lab experiment in creating a miniaturized universe, it can’t be called a Theory.

Since we can’t even test to see if it will become a Theory, then we can’t even call it a Hypothesis.

The only other thing that we can call it to be scientifically correct is "The Big Bang Dud".
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun


This is what they teach in college about the difference about Hypothesis, Theory and Law.

And by the way at around 5:37 minutes into the video, he does not list Bing Bang in the list of Theories. I wonder why.

To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

3>1 so read my evidence then I'll watch yours
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

Quote
Theory and hypothesis have different meanings in science. In colloquial use, "theory" means what "hypothesis" means in science. This seems to cause some confusion for people who haven't been educated in the sciences. You often hear the phrase, "Well, this is only a theory..." What they really mean is, "Well, this is only an hypothesis..."
So, ideas start out as hypotheses, and if the available evidence supports the hypothesis, then it can be tagged as theory. This is the case with the Big Bang Theory. But you have to understand, few things can be "proven" to 100% certainty. There is always the possibility, indeed, the likelihood of new knowledge coming to light.
So, is the Big Bang Theory a "belief?" Yes, in the strict sense of it being believed because of the preponderance of evidence. It is not a belief in the sense of a faith. Those types of beliefs are accepted without any evidence, or even in spite of contradictory evidence.


What lab experiments have been conducted, which created a miniaturized universe to justify it to be a theory instead a Hypothesis?

Clearly NONE.

It is a belief and being a belief it is a Religion
.

Christians can also say that there is a "preponderance of evidence" that there is a GOD. Scientist don't beleive them and say that they are a Religion.

But the scientist are two faced. When it’s the Christians, it is a Religion and when it is the Scientist that beleive, then it is a Theory.

They are both a religion!!
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Lab experiments are not the be all and end all of physics observation of the universe can provide evidence of the big bang, yet again I.e. Cosmic microwave background radiation
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

Quote
Wouldn't the Big Bang theory be considered a hypothesis and not a theory? (Intermediate)
Wouldn't the Big Bang theory be considered a hypothesis and not a theory? In my research done by free will I realized that not much proof has acually been given of this major event in space.
Actually I disagree with that. I think that there is now a lot of evidence in favour of the Big Bang Theory. The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is according to my dictionary:
HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.
THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.
I think that there is enough evidence for the Big Bang that it should be called a theory.
1. We can observe radiation left over from the Big Bang in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and even see fluctuations in that from which it is believed the galaxies formed.
2. The expansion of the universe implies that at some time in the past everything must have been a lot closer together and hotter, which sounds a lot like the Big Bang to me!
3. In GR (General Relativity), there is a theory called the singularity theory which can be used to prove that there must have been a singularity (ie. a Big Bang) at some point in the past for every possible way we know to describe the Universe.
There is probably more evidence I could quote if I thought about it some more, but at least this will give you something to think about.


His definitions are wrong thus his argument is useless!!

Quote
A hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. It is a proposal, a guess used to understand and/or predict something. A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. ... So, when a hypothesis has been verified to be true, it becomes a theory
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Quote
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-big-bang-a-theory-or-a-hypothesis.701371/

Your sending me to a forum for accurate scientific information between a Hypothesis and a Theory???
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Quote
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-big-bang-a-theory-or-a-hypothesis.701371/

Your sending me to a forum for accurate scientific information between a Hypothesis and a Theory???

Read the comments aswell, here is a hint read all of what I linked then come back if you have a problem
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

Quote
Lab experiments are not the be all and end all of physics observation of the universe can provide evidence of the big bang, yet again I.e. Cosmic microwave background radiation

By scientific definition:
Quote
A hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. It is a proposal, a guess used to understand and/or predict something. A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. ... So, when a hypothesis has been verified to be true, it becomes a theory

Have the scientist created a miniaturized universe in a Lab to verify their Religion of the Big Bang and make it into a Theory?

NO!!!

To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Quote
Lab experiments are not the be all and end all of physics observation of the universe can provide evidence of the big bang, yet again I.e. Cosmic microwave background radiation

By scientific definition:
Quote
A hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. It is a proposal, a guess used to understand and/or predict something. A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. ... So, when a hypothesis has been verified to be true, it becomes a theory

Have the scientist created a miniaturized universe in a Lab to verify their Religion of the Big Bang and make it into a Theory?

NO!!!


Your definition said nothing about lab experiments, any way of testing it flies so yet again COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION.
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

The lab is not the only way to test it.
You can make predictions based upon the hypothesis and test them.
That has been done.
At no point is it ever shown to be true. It is shown to be able to explain the observed phenomenon.

As such, it is the Big Bang Theory, which is a scientific theory.

If you wish to keep asserting such nonsense explain why re-creating it in the lab should be considered the only way to test it.

Following off JackBlack, when was the last time they tested anything in the Bible in a Lab?
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11108
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Lab experiments are not the be all and end all of physics observation of the universe can provide evidence of the big bang, yet again I.e. Cosmic microwave background radiation

That is quite the leap don't you think? CMBR is proof of the big bang? What qualities of it do you think justifies such a broad conclusion? Especially for something that dips so far into infrared and radio spectrums... This is about like seeing a bird fly, and making the conclusion I myself can fly.

For all we know, it could be the imprint of our local interstellar neighborhood of a few hundred years ago and not echoes of the Big Bang.



I am not sure how else we can determine solid info without lab or controlled studies/observations.... This I am missing, typically science is good with this, for some reason though, everything goes out the window with macro evolution and Origins... Yet for some reason this is ok
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

Quote
That really has nothing whatsoever to do with the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. A theory is an explanatory framework which makes predictions about relationships between different observations.

The Big Bang theory is indeed a theory because it predicts, for instance, that there will be a redshift-distance relationship and that different estimates of distance, such as how far away galaxies appear on the sky and how bright things appear, will agree.


Just because you observe that something does not mean it is the cause of it. The Redshift could be related to something other than the Big Bang.

With that logic, the clock in the train station is the reason why the train will arrive on time in the train station.

Wrong, the clock only shows us that the train has arrived on time. If the train is late, is that do to the clock? NO

Same logic with the Big Bang.


Quote
A hypothesis is a single, testable statement, e.g. "If I measure the redshift of a group of far-away galaxies and also measure their distances, then that redshift and distance will follow this relationship." Hypotheses typically stem from theories, and confirming a large number of hypotheses generally leads to people thinking the theory is likely true.

A huge number of hypotheses derived from the Big Bang theory have been confirmed.


But that does not prove that the Big Bang is the reason for it. They could be independent.

In our train station, the person that sells you the ticket will tell you that the train will arrive at noon.

Is he the reason that the train arrives at noon time, NO?

If the train is late, is he the reason that the train is late, NO?


Quote
I like the description Wikipedia gives: wikipedia said: A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. [...] Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. Hypotheses can become theories, if tests confirm it.

The bottom line is that they have not created a miniaturized universe in the lab to justify it to be a Theory and not a hypothesis.
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

When I have read about the big bang CMB has always been used as semi proof for it. And regardless it's still more proof than the great Bible hypothesis
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
The lab is not the only way to test it.
You can make predictions based upon the hypothesis and test them.
That has been done.
At no point is it ever shown to be true. It is shown to be able to explain the observed phenomenon.

As such, it is the Big Bang Theory, which is a scientific theory.

If you wish to keep asserting such nonsense explain why re-creating it in the lab should be considered the only way to test it.

One major prediction of the BBT has turned out to be wrong: that the expansion of the universe is slowing down. Nobody expected that it is accelerating. It is not clear to me what that actually means for our knowledge of the distant past of our (or actually of the observable part of our) universe.

The observation of background radiation actually only leads us back to a time, as far as I understand, when the universe was a dense melange of 3000K. Considering that 95% of the mass energy density of the universe consists of something unknown to us, do we really know what happened before? We can't even know if the observable universe is an area typical for the universe as a whole.

Quote
The lab is not the only way to test it.

I have to tell that to all the students that are making lab reports in college



Quote
You can make predictions based upon the hypothesis and test them.
That has been done.

When did they create a miniaturized universe in the Lab


Quote
At no point is it ever shown to be true. It is shown to be able to explain the observed phenomenon.
As such, it is the Big Bang Theory, which is a scientific theory
.

The Big Bang has never been confirmed in a laboratory by creating a miniaturized universe.

Remember Refraction and all that you have told me, but for the Big Bang, you accept it, because it is your religion!


Quote
If you wish to keep asserting such nonsense explain why re-creating it in the lab should be considered the only way to test it.

A theory must be proven in a Lab, in a way that can be done over and over again. If you just believe it to be true, then it is a religion and a Theory

Look at the Piltdown Man, where everybody believe it for 45 years, until it was proven to be a lie. How many phD’s were done based on this fake finding.





Quote
Following off JackBlack, when was the last time they tested anything in the Bible in a Lab?

Why has anybody called the Bible a Theory?

First find that one lie in it, and then come and talk to me about the bible!!!
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27027
What should we call the Big Bang

A) Theory
B) Hypothesis
C) Law
D)Dud should be changed to NONSENSE

A hypothesis is an attempt to explain phenomena. It is a proposal, a guess used to understand and/or predict something. A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. ... So, when a hypothesis has been verified to be true, it becomes a theory


https://www.google.gr/search?biw=1920&bih=940&q=difference+between+a+theory+and+a+hypothesis&oq=difference+between+a+theory+and+a+hypothesis
I think that sums it up.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11108
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
When I have read about the big bang CMB has always been used as semi proof for it. And regardless it's still more proof than the great Bible hypothesis

I have no issue saying the Bible is an hypothesis..I always call it faith based off circumstantial evidence.

However, people push macro evolution and Origins as facts. This is my issue... Completely non scientific approach
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

Good Night folks,

See you again on Monday, morning
To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

Lab experiments are not the be all and end all of physics observation of the universe can provide evidence of the big bang, yet again I.e. Cosmic microwave background radiation

That is quite the leap don't you think? CMBR is proof of the big bang?
Evidence, not proof. Big difference.

What qualities of it do you think justifies such a broad conclusion?
Because it is one of the several predictions of the big bang model.

For all we know, it could be the imprint of our local interstellar neighborhood of a few hundred years ago and not echoes of the Big Bang.
And for all we know it could be magic pixie dusts farting all over the place.

I am not sure how else we can determine solid info without lab or controlled studies/observations.... This I am missing, typically science is good with this, for some reason though, everything goes out the window with macro evolution and Origins... Yet for some reason this is ok
Yes, often science is good with that. It goes out the window when it is completely impossible, and instead relies upon studies/observations outside the lab.

Just because you observe that something does not mean it is the cause of it. The Redshift could be related to something other than the Big Bang.

With that logic, the clock in the train station is the reason why the train will arrive on time in the train station.

Wrong, the clock only shows us that the train has arrived on time. If the train is late, is that do to the clock? NO

Same logic with the Big Bang.
No. Completely different logic.
No one has suggested a causal relationship between a clock and the train.
We also understand how clocks work quite well, and so on.

There is also the simple fact that red-shift indicates relative motion of these distant objects, which if we follow back into the past puts the universe as a tiny speck.

But that does not prove that the Big Bang is the reason for it. They could be independent.
And nothing ever will. Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence.
Like you quoted before, no amount of experiments will ever proof a theory correct.

Quote
I like the description Wikipedia gives: wikipedia said: A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. [...] Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. Hypotheses can become theories, if tests confirm it.
The bottom line is that they have not created a miniaturized universe in the lab to justify it to be a Theory and not a hypothesis.
No. The bottom line is that you do not need to create something in the lab to test it.

The Big bang has been tested. It doesn't matter if it is testing in the lab or outside.
Thus it is a theory.

Remember Refraction and all that you have told me, but for the Big Bang, you accept it, because it is your religion!
No. It isn't a religion. It is based upon observations of reality.

A theory must be proven in a Lab, in a way that can be done over and over again. If you just believe it to be true, then it is a religion and a Theory
No. It doesn't.
If you wish to assert such nonsense you will need to back it up.

Quote
Because it is one of the several predictions of the big bang model.

I have a prediction for you, Greece has a special watermelon that the insides is blue, instead of red. This is due to genetic engineering. This watermelon, the instance its outer shell gets penetrated by any form of energy, the blue color turns Black, then purple, then white and finally red. This color transformation is done within a millisecond.

Prove me wrong…


Quote
No. Completely different logic.
No one has suggested a causal relationship between a clock and the train.
We also understand how clocks work quite well, and so on.

No it is not a causal relationship, but a very well documented relationship. The trains 99% of the time arrive at the train station, whenever the clocks tell them to come. To Tarzan who came from the jungles of Africa, this relationship is real, just like to you the red shift relationship with the Big Bang is real. Tarzan has the same knowledge about how trains works as you have about the Universe, both very limited.



Quote
And nothing ever will. Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence.
Like you quoted before, no amount of experiments will ever proof a theory correct

The evidence is based on your interpenetration. Who is correct in the below image



Quote
No. The bottom line is that you do not need to create something in the lab to test it.

The Big bang has been tested. It doesn't matter if it is testing in the lab or outside.

Thus it is a theory.






Quote
It is based upon observations of reality.

So is Christianity, based on observations of reality, but you still call it a religion. Either they are both a religion or they are both a science.



Quote
No. It doesn't.
If you wish to assert such nonsense you will need to back it up.

Oh , really, you don’t need to retest a hypothesis to make it into a Theory. In that case, my watermelon story is true, because you can’t prove it as being incorrect.



I will not check the post day, but tomorrow since I have some other work to do…

To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • Literally everywhere.

This image fucking nails it. Just because the earth immediately around you appears flat, does not mean that the entire earth is flat. Your observation is not the entire story.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

Quote
Because it is one of the several predictions of the big bang model.

I have a prediction for you, Greece has a special watermelon that the insides is blue, instead of red. This is due to genetic engineering. This watermelon, the instance its outer shell gets penetrated by any form of energy, the blue color turns Black, then purple, then white and finally red. This color transformation is done within a millisecond.
This is physically impossible, as the outer shell is penetrated by energy while forming the watermelon.
Regardless, there is another model which explains it much better, the watermelon is red inside.
This also makes sense as there is no evidence of this blue pigmentation, neither directly from the watermelon, nor from analysing the plant, and you have no mechanism for why.

So you don't have a model and a prediction, you have a baseless claim.
Big difference.
No it is not a causal relationship, but a very well documented relationship. The trains 99% of the time arrive at the train station, whenever the clocks tell them to come.
No. More often than not the trains arrive just a little bit early, so they can then leave on time.
And again, there is no mechanism.

To Tarzan who came from the jungles of Africa, this relationship is real, just like to you the red shift relationship with the Big Bang is real. Tarzan has the same knowledge about how trains works as you have about the Universe, both very limited.
No. To the Tarzan who came from the jungle, there is no link. They don't even know what the clock means.
We have a lot more knowledge about the universe than Tarzan has about trains.

The evidence is based on your interpenetration. Who is correct in the below image
The evidence is based upon reality, and seeing if it matches the model.
Both are correct, they are describing the shape they see. 6 and 9 (at least in that font) have the same shape.

So is Christianity, based on observations of reality, but you still call it a religion. Either they are both a religion or they are both a science.
No it isn't.


Oh , really, you don’t need to retest a hypothesis to make it into a Theory. In that case, my watermelon story is true, because you can’t prove it as being incorrect.
Who said anything about not needing to test or retest a hypothesis?

The nonsense you are asserting is that the only way to test a hypothesis is to recreate it in the lab.


This image fucking nails it. Just because the earth immediately around you appears flat, does not mean that the entire earth is flat. Your observation is not the entire story.

No no no. You are only allowed to use this image to question other peoples' observations. Specifically, scientists with theories that you don't like. InFlatEarth can obviously see the bigger picture.

*

Junker

  • 3784
As such, it is the Big Bang Theory, which is a scientific theory.

My good friend, JackBlack, is correct.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19003
  • Or should I?
When I have read about the big bang CMB has always been used as semi proof for it. And regardless it's still more proof than the great Bible hypothesis

Strawman.

I think hypothesis would be a better term than theory, personally, however I am not a scientist.

No no no. You are only allowed to use this image to question other peoples' observations. Specifically, scientists with theories that you don't like. InFlatEarth can obviously see the bigger picture.

They say sarcasm is a metric for potential.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160