big bang

[Fletch]

A theory may always be revised or discarded, something that is harder to do with religion.

Yeah, no revision or discarded history in religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha# ... ristianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan_beli ... _Christmas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council

Yup... no changes at all.

[Minos]

... it stays the same shit afterall though, fletch... just with different words

[Lurker]

In science, the term theory is generally given to a piece of work that attempts to explain what happens in a certain instance, ie. the Big Bang theory. Once a scientific theory is proven based on fact, it's called a proof. So if this research proves that the Big Bang actually did happen, it would no longer be a proof, rather a proof. Happens in mathematics all the time. An extremely simply example would be:

1 + 2 = 6 - 3

A theory, really, until someone understood what to do with the numbers to have them equal each other, in which case it was proven to be true.

And yes, when you have a proof, you have enough evidence to prove that there is no other sequence of events that would lead to the exact same situation (in other words, proving that this event did happen).

[Pericolos0]

In science, the term theory is generally given to a piece of work that attempts to explain what happens in a certain instance, ie. the Big Bang theory. Once a scientific theory is proven based on fact, it's called a proof. So if this research proves that the Big Bang actually did happen, it would no longer be a proof, rather a proof. Happens in mathematics all the time. An extremely simply example would be:

1 + 2 = 6 - 3

A theory, really, until someone understood what to do with the numbers to have them equal each other, in which case it was proven to be true.

And yes, when you have a proof, you have enough evidence to prove that there is no other sequence of events that would lead to the exact same situation (in other words, proving that this event did happen).

this is not true, there is no such thing as 100% solid proof in science. Proof is for mathematics.

[Section_Ei8ht]

and mathematics technically isnt a science.

[Lurker]

In science, the term theory is generally given to a piece of work that attempts to explain what happens in a certain instance, ie. the Big Bang theory. Once a scientific theory is proven based on fact, it's called a proof. So if this research proves that the Big Bang actually did happen, it would no longer be a proof, rather a proof. Happens in mathematics all the time. An extremely simply example would be:

1 + 2 = 6 - 3

A theory, really, until someone understood what to do with the numbers to have them equal each other, in which case it was proven to be true.

And yes, when you have a proof, you have enough evidence to prove that there is no other sequence of events that would lead to the exact same situation (in other words, proving that this event did happen).

this is not true, there is no such thing as 100% solid proof in science. Proof is for mathematics.

So you're saying that photosynthesis is a theory, not a "proof"? Some things just are. They happened, they aren't theory.

A science is knowledge of a subject derived from observation, experimentation, and study. Technically, mathematics IS a science, and technically a lot of things outside of chemistry, biology and physics are, too. If something is observable in the physical world and can be evaluated using a scientific method, in my opinion, that's a valid science.

Edit, via Wikipedia:

"Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space and change. It developed, through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, from counting, calculation, measurement, and the study of the shapes and motions of physical objects."

Via Princeton:

"a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement "

If it looks like a science, acts like a science, and quacks like a science, then it's probably a science.... or something like that.

[mawibse]

Sorry Fletch, none of the links provided make it seem easier to revise a religion then it is to revise a scientific theory. Please try again.

Photosynthesis is a theory, a very very well established theory, but so are evolution and radiocarbon dating and a surprising many refuses to believe in them.

And as we all now, everything we base on observation, measurements and such are never 100% but may still be considered a fact when exact enough. The very image this thread is about has an error margin of at least 0.5% due to measurement discrepancies and such but it is still used as a scientific basis for verifying loads of cosmological theories because that is good enough, for those theories, other theories need to wait for even better observations.

A scientific proof is never 100%, but to be fair, a scientific proof is more proof then any other proof we are aware of in existence.

[Pericolos0]

In science, the term theory is generally given to a piece of work that attempts to explain what happens in a certain instance, ie. the Big Bang theory. Once a scientific theory is proven based on fact, it's called a proof. So if this research proves that the Big Bang actually did happen, it would no longer be a proof, rather a proof. Happens in mathematics all the time. An extremely simply example would be:

1 + 2 = 6 - 3

A theory, really, until someone understood what to do with the numbers to have them equal each other, in which case it was proven to be true.

And yes, when you have a proof, you have enough evidence to prove that there is no other sequence of events that would lead to the exact same situation (in other words, proving that this event did happen).

this is not true, there is no such thing as 100% solid proof in science. Proof is for mathematics.

So you're saying that photosynthesis is a theory, not a "proof"? Some things just are. They happened, they aren't theory.

A science is knowledge of a subject derived from observation, experimentation, and study. Technically, mathematics IS a science, and technically a lot of things outside of chemistry, biology and physics are, too. If something is observable in the physical world and can be evaluated using a scientific method, in my opinion, that's a valid science.

Edit, via Wikipedia:

"Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space and change. It developed, through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, from counting, calculation, measurement, and the study of the shapes and motions of physical objects."

Via Princeton:

"a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement "

If it looks like a science, acts like a science, and quacks like a science, then it's probably a science.... or something like that.

It was once a well know fact that there were only 4 elements. This was the truth, it was considered proof. Because of this arestotelian science, scientific advancement in the western world has stagnated for about a millenium. The genius thing about modern science is that there are no things that are 100% certain, and theories only exist until they get falsified. Some theories may never get falsified, we'll never be 100% sure.

[jfas]

im suprised you guys are arguing over symantics and not the actual big bang... you guys are literally arguing over the definitions of the words instead of what this could mean.

if you are a man who respects science, i take it you are like "f'in a, kick ass"

if you are a man who respects the scripture, im sorry.ohhhhhhhhhhhhh...no im just kidding...no really

now what this picture is, is PROOF, it is WHAT HAPPENED, what a hundreth of a second after the universe was created, that doesnt mean the big bang is true, it just means its probably true. i expect a movie to come out about it shortly.

[mawibse]

....tell me Holeman, as a man who respects science, what do you think this new image means that we didnt "know" before?

[Ginger Lord]

1 + 1 = 0

[jfas]

It is just evidence, its just new information that we didnt have before, maybe we'll learn more about the universe from it.

[Skjalg]

Theres too much science cant explain, so we do assumptions. All laws of physics are based upon these assumptions, so everything you "prove" with science contains some assumptions. Thats why you cant really have anything 100%, all we can do is say that "It is most likely like this".

I'm not good at explaining, but atleast, thats basically how my physics teacher started the year =)

[mawibse]

Theres too much science cant explain, so we do assumptions.

Except those mentioned in this thread, what important stuff is it that science cant explain you think?

All laws of physics are based upon these assumptions, so everything you "prove" with science contains some assumptions. Thats why you cant really have anything 100%, all we can do is say that "It is most likely like this".

And most likely it is close to 99,9% on most basic stuff which is as good as it gets.

I'm not good at explaining, but atleast, thats basically how my physics teacher started the year =)

If you study physics enough, there is this stage that begins with "Everything you have learned about physics so far, I want you to forget it."

[Taylor Swift]

big bang is known, but what is before bigbang is unknown.

explain that now.