Until the second half of the twentieth century, the Steady State Theory predominated. This holds that the universe has always existed, very much as it does now. Stars may grow old and cold, but new stars are formed out of the abundant interstellar matter. So, the universe will continue to exist as it does now, for many billions of years.
While the Steady State Theory may still have some adherents, the predominant theory among scientists is called the Big Bang Theory. This holds that, about 13.7 billion years ago, an infinitessimally small point exploded to produce the entire universe. Once again, stars may grow old and cold, and new stars form out of the abundant interstellar matter, but the difficulty of infinite existence does not apply. There are at least two, somewhat compatible, hypotheses as to what formed the infinitessimally small point and triggered the Big Bang.
Some scientists believe that the process that triggered the Big Bang could have occurred more than once. If so, there could be many universes, in what has been termed a multiverse. However, we will probably never become physically aware of any of the other universes.
Radioactivity is since creation of universe.
No. We have some theories that explain important aspects about how the Universe began. The current theories and understandings that we have get to fractions of second after the beginning, but we still have not gotten to the beginning yet. As to any purpose of the universe, science has not attempted to even discern such a thing.
Never. It was one of the theories that were in play during his lifetime, and eventually the heliocentric theory, with the planets orbiting the Sun, was generally accepted. But it was Kepler's theory that has been accepted rather than Coprnicus's theory as supported by Galileo. Whether the Sun was at the centre or not was only part of the whole theory, and Kepler's elliptical orbits are now believed to represent the correct model, and not Copernicus's model which used circles and epicycles.
A law is an accepted truth, whether or not it's been proved. A theory is either an unproven, unprovable or globally unaccepted proposal that explains a situation.
Laws have been proven, theories have not
There has never been a "freezing of the universe".
Theories of the universe are cosmologies. There are three main theories concerning our universe. These are the big bang theory, the steady state theory, and the oscillating universe theory. Each of these attempts to account for the observed expansion of the universe. So far the big bang theory is far and away the strongest of these three. If there was a big bang, there should be microwave background radiation. This radiation has been observed, and the age of the universe calculated to 13.7 billion years.'What are the theories of the universe' in Spanish = 'Cuales son las teorias del universo?'
Radioactivity is since creation of universe.
Fact supported theories and not guesses, but reliable accounts of the real world. Most theories accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and thus can be used to make predictions, which are then most likely to be true
Most probably because the original theories are based on a certain amount of truth. Now a days, theories are not accepted until there is a significant amount of evidence to back it up. If there should be new evidence that states otherwise, then the theory will be modified. Of course, this is not a black and white situation. Not all theories have been "modified." Some have been completely discarded when solid facts have proved otherwise. For example, the Flat Earth Theory and the theory that the Earth is the centre of the universe.
No. We have some theories that explain important aspects about how the Universe began. The current theories and understandings that we have get to fractions of second after the beginning, but we still have not gotten to the beginning yet. As to any purpose of the universe, science has not attempted to even discern such a thing.
Metals are elements. nobody invented them. They have been around since the creation of the universe.
Since start of universe creation. refer to question below.
http://thegreatreason.blogspot.com/
The two primary theories for the creation of the moon are that 1) it coalesced at the same time as the Earth from the original matter circling the sun, or 2) it was the "splash" from another Mars-sized planetesimal hitting the newly formed Earth. The second proposal is the more widely accepted, because it explains why the Moon contains much of the same mineral composition as the Earth's crust, but fewer heavy metals. Older theories like the capture of another orbiting body have been generally dismissed. Creationism, however, posits that the Moon (like the rest of the universe) came from God who spoke the "heavenly bodies" (outer space) into existence on the fourth of the seven days of creation.
While there are many theories introduced to explain the cosmology of the universe, the consideration of newly introduce theories related to the Big Bang Theory is a very subjective. Perhaps this has something to do with what has been taught in a classroom setting.
Basically, the particles in the Milky Way have been present from the time of the creation of the Universe, i.e., from the Big Bang.