0
There is cosmic background radiation that is thought to be the "smoke" after the big bang which can still be measured in space today. This is low energy radio waves (which we pick up as static) that can be detected at about the same level wherever we look, leading scientists to think that it is the result of the entire universe having expanded from a single point. Then there is a specific ratio of the elements. After the Big Bang, it is believed only the simpler elements, such as hydrogen and helium, existed and that all other elements were created in the high energy environment of stars.
==================================
Once again, the question has the whole thing backwards.
Scientists do not get together at the coffee shop to dream up a theory, and then
go out looking for evidence to support it. That's not how it works. Scientists make
measurements and observations that describe what is, and then work to assemble
a theory that can explain the evidence they already have.
From that point, their job is to tell a good theory from a bad one. Any theory that
seems to explain what has already been seen also predicts things that have not
been seen yet, and that leads to the other half of the scientists' job ... testing
the predictions of the theory. NOT looking for evidence to support it, but testing
the predictions it makes to see whether they're true ... Or not. If most of them
are true, then the theory survives, with possibly a few changes. If most of them
are not true, then the theory is out. The evidence is still there, along with the
new evidence that came from testing the predictions, but the theory itself is as
good as gone.
Scientists are human people, which leads to the inconvenient fact that there are
good scientists and poor ones. The scientists who go around looking for evidence
to support their favorite theory are generally not the good ones.
What else can I help you with?
What evidence do scientists use to support the geocentric theory?
i'm not sure so why dont u ask ur teacher man? LOL
Why did most scientists reject Wegner theory for nearly a half century?
They rejected Wenger's theory for half a century because he didn't have the evidence to prove his theory No, He did have evidence to prove his theory, they just did not believe him- TheSystem because of their lack of knowledge of the Earth He actually had evidence, but it was actually because the hypothesis interferred with their own hypothesis about how mountains form.
Did scientists support Dobereiners theory?
Some scientists supported Johann Dobereiner's theory of triads, which suggested that certain elements had similar properties and could be grouped together. However, the theory was later replaced by the modern periodic table developed by Dmitri Mendeleev.
What else supports the big bang theory besides the red shift?
Other evidence supporting the Big Bang theory includes the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements in the universe, and the large-scale structure and distribution of galaxies in the universe. Additionally, observations of the universe's expansion and the Hubble law provide further support for the Big Bang theory.
HOW DOES THESE FORMS OF EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE THOERY RED SHIFT and EXISTENCE?
It isn't clear what forms of evidence you are talking about. Also, redshift is not a theory; it's an observational fact. The THEORY (actually, the only reasonable explanation) for redshift on large scales is that it is due to the expansion of the Universe.
How do scientist prove a theory?
Scientists prove a theory by conducting experiments, making observations, and collecting data that support the theoretical predictions. Consistent and reproducible results from these experiments provide evidence to support the theory. Additionally, peer review and scrutiny by other scientists help validate the theory.
What do you think scientists would do if they found evidence that did not support the Big Bang theory?
Discard it all.
If new evidence does not support a scientific theory scientists will most likely?
if new evidence doesn't support a scientific theory, scientists will either revise the theory to accommodate the new evidence or discard the theory altogether in favor of a more accurate explanation. This process is crucial for the progress of science as it ensures that theories are continuously tested and refined to reflect our understanding of the natural world.
Do you think it's wise for scientists not to accept a theory immediately even if the theory has a lot of evidence to support it?
Each scientists have there own opinion. Some accept theories and some have to have facts.
What evidence support spontaneous generation?
There was no evidence and still is none. Louis Pasteur along with countless other scientists have disproved the theory of spontaneous generation.
Why was wegener's theory not accepted by all scientists?
Wegner's theory was not accept because he didn't have much evidence to support his theory with and scientists thought that there might have been a land bridge between the continents. Another reason to why his theory was rejected was that he was a foreigner, by that; the scientists didn't really take him seriously.
What is the primary source of evidence proposed by scientists to support the theory of an ancient Earth?
The primary source of evidence proposed by scientists to support the theory of an ancient Earth is radiometric dating of rocks and fossils. By measuring the decay of radioactive isotopes within these materials, scientists can estimate their ages and establish a timeline for Earth's history that stretches back billions of years.
What is evidence in support of a scientific theory?
Evidence in support of a scientific theory includes experimental results, observational data, and mathematical models that consistently explain and predict phenomena. Peer-reviewed research papers, replication of results by other scientists, and the ability of the theory to make accurate predictions are all forms of evidence that strengthen a scientific theory.
What are two tools used to gather evidence in support of big bang theory?
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.
How do scientists know that a new theory is accurate?
Because all of the observations and evidence are used for support.
What is the theory that all the scientists provided evidence for the cell theory?
For their own benefits.
What evidence do scientists use to support the geocentric theory?
i'm not sure so why dont u ask ur teacher man? LOL
