That Edwin hubble law wikipedia.
Real scientists do not "gather evidence in support of" any theory. The technical term for that kind of thing is "cherry-picking". Real scientists build a theory to explain the evidence that they have already gathered, and then test the theory to see whether it holds water. The easiest, fastest way to make sure that you are regarded as a wingnut by real scientists is to adopt or invent a theory, and then spend your time trying to prove it.
Yes
NO. take Darwin's theory of evolution for example. there is no real evidence, but it is accepted as fact by most in America today.
Astronomers also use spectrometers to support the big bang theory.Spectrometer-identifies Redshifts in elements-Redshift indicates that objects are moving away, suggesting that they were once un ited. In other words; they have exploded and are now flying away.*Redshift is a shift in the frequency of a photon toward lower energy, or longer wavelength. The redshift is defined as the change in the wavelength of the light divided by the rest wavelength of the light, asz = (Observed wavelength - Rest wavelength)/(Rest wavelength)
There are two questions commonly asked:1. Is it real, or did God create the universe ex nihilo?2. Did the Big Bang create more than one universe?3. How can the big bang account for dark matter and dark energy?
Real scientists do not "gather evidence in support of" any theory. The technical term for that kind of thing is "cherry-picking". Real scientists build a theory to explain the evidence that they have already gathered, and then test the theory to see whether it holds water. The easiest, fastest way to make sure that you are regarded as a wingnut by real scientists is to adopt or invent a theory, and then spend your time trying to prove it.
it real
His real name is Kunal Nayyar.
If you browse around this category, you will find several similar questions with replies that answer your query. ==================================== Real scientists do not "gather evidence in support of" any theory. The technical term for that kind of thing is "cherry-picking". Real scientists build a theory to explain the evidence that they have already gathered, and then test the theory to see whether it holds water. The easiest, fastest way to make sure that you are regarded as a wingnut by real scientists is to adopt or invent a theory, and then spend your time trying to prove it.
Yes
there is no direct evidence but its a theory but can be proven
NO. take Darwin's theory of evolution for example. there is no real evidence, but it is accepted as fact by most in America today.
i believe that the kracken really does exist, but we have no real evidence to prove that theory.....
Depends what you mean by "real" and "theory." When Jesuit priest Georges LeMaitre first proposed the idea, the observational evidence for (or against) it did not exist. Since then, Big Bang Cosmology has been subject to numerous tests, any of which would have shown the idea to be false. It has passed all these tests, and all other cosmological hypotheses have failed such tests. As such, BBC is as true as inter-planetary gravity.
Evolution is not real the only person who created the earth is god not the big bang theory or the theory of evolution it was god he is the real deal I know
Both of them are real. God is real and created the universe, but the Big Bang was a theory or an event that proves the formation of the universe. The Big Bang tells us that there was a state that expanded rapidly and became extremely hot. Because of its size and climate, it exploded and that proves that the planets, stars, and other things were spread out somewhere in the universe. Check the related links for more information.
There is not much evidence to support the theory that wizards are real.