0
What else can I help you with?
The best evidence that the big bang theory was real?
That Edwin hubble law wikipedia.
Is there a loophole in big bang theory?
It is important to first realize that the big bang theory is a theory; it is not a physical law on its own for which there might be loopholes. However, I think (correct me if I am wrong though), that you are referring to the idea that the big bang theory states that the Universe started with a bang which just came into being out of nothing. This is not entirely correct, the big bang theory does not implicitly say that the Universe came into being at some point; it only says that in the distant past the Universe was very small and that it has been expanding ever since. This statement is well verified by observations and measurements. It does not claim or explain how the Universe came into being. It might sound reasonable that the Universe somehow came into being as a point, and it would fit with the above statements, but the creation of the Universe itself is not yet something that science can say much about. There are models, such as string theory, that sometimes have things to say about this, but they are far from testable at this stage. So, yes, it is possible that something else happened before the Universe became tiny and started to expand, and it wouldn't contradict with the big bang theory at all.
Is the big bang nonsense?
The Big Bang Model has survived every test that has been put up against it, starting with the existence and the spectrum of the cosmic background microwave radiation. To say it is "nonsense" is the intellectual equivalent of saying that Newton's law of gravity is nonsense.
What are facts about debunking the big bang theory?
First Law of Thermal-dynamics states the Conservation of energy. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. In order for the singularity to exist it had to be transferred from another energy source. The only way this could be possible is if there are parallel universes in which this energy could be transferred from. All rules of scientific method show that this is not testable or calculable and cannot be derived through experiment. As such the big bang theory should be considered philosophical science. There are a number of other possible explanations to describe the appearance that the universe is constantly expanding. Given the Infinite size everything we observe still lies within a very small quadrant of the universe. It is possible for the motion of this visible quadrant to not reflect the average expansion of the total universe.
Why aren't the big bang theory and the steady state theory considered scientific laws?
They can't be proven with 100% scientific certainty. No one was there to witness the big bang, so we can't technically say that it definitely happened. And we wouldn't call the Steady State Theory a law, since it has been seriously discounted in recent decades. It is worth adding that when time honored theories become 'laws' it is not because they have be proven with 100% certainty. It is because they have survived the test of time and the test of many, many scientific challenges. Nothing can really be proven with 100% scientific certainty.
In what way does the Big Bang Theory conform with the law of conservation of energy?
The law of Conservation of Energy states that energy can't be created or destroyed, so the Big Bang theory would condradict that.
Do astronomers use the terms theory and law?
Certainly; for example, the Big Bang theory, Kepler's Laws.
The best evidence that the big bang theory was real?
That Edwin hubble law wikipedia.
Why is the big bang a theory and not a law?
In science, a theory is the highest denomination that can be given to an idea. In other words, the big bang theory will never graduate into the big bang law. Instead, laws are used as explanations that govern theories. Example: gravity is a theory which is described by Newtonian laws.
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.
Ideas like the big bang make it impossible to believe in god?
No the opposite is true actually. The law of cause and effect is one of the fundamental principles of physics. According to the Big Bang theory, all the matter and energy in the universe were concentrated in one area. This leaves the ulitmate question 'where did this energy and matter come from?' The Big Bang theory is a physical answer to an eternal question. That is why it falls short of being the ultimate theory that it claims to be. Who created the Big Bang? Things DONT just happen for the sake of it.
Does big bang violate the first law of thermodynamics?
The Big Bang theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. The Big Bang theory posits that the universe began as a singularity containing all the energy in the universe, which then expanded and transformed into the universe we see today. This transformation of energy is consistent with the first law of thermodynamics.
Why did many astronomers not believe Hubble's law?
The Big Bang Theory predicted that galaxies should be moving apart, just as Edwin Hubble suggested. The theory soon became popular and acknowledged as the standard universe-creation theory. However, Hubble’s theory can not explain: o The location of the singularity point, and how it started o The density and the mass of the singularity point to construct this huge universe 38 o The Big Bang Theory talked about things that occurred after the Big Bang, but not before or during its occurrence. o The explosion of the singularity point should have made the universe identical and harmonized. Although the Big Bang Theory made some predictions that corresponded with some observations and discoveries, the theory left many things to be explained and improved, see my book “The Atom and the Universe” at Amazon.com
What is the diffrence between scientific law and scientific theory?
A scientific law describes a consistent and universal relationship observed in nature, like the law of gravity. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on evidence and reasoning, like the theory of evolution. Laws describe what happens, while theories explain why and how it happens.
How was universe created over and over?
Who says it was? We have no evidence whatsoever that there are other universes, or that the universe is somehow cyclic. In fact, it's quite likely that we can never have proof of that, since we'd have to somehow go outside the universe to check. Good luck with that. Einstein's theory explained the Big Bang. He said 'we are like insects living in a bubble and when the bubble expand, that is call the big bang.' But what happen before the Big Bang? that is when string theory comes in. Strings theory says that there are other universes out there, there is no rule law of physics that says 'multi universes cannot exists'. where the big bang came from? when the two universes collide, it can form another universe, when the universe spit in half, it becomes two universe. That is what physicists think 'that is the big bang.
What are the six laws which serve as arguments for creation?
There are many laws of the universe and nature. I don't know of six but here are a few: law of gravity; law of biogenises; law of thermodynamics, law of physics, law of genetics. Then there is the supporting ideas from the Big Bang Theory, and observations of the physical universe.
Is there a loophole in big bang theory?
It is important to first realize that the big bang theory is a theory; it is not a physical law on its own for which there might be loopholes. However, I think (correct me if I am wrong though), that you are referring to the idea that the big bang theory states that the Universe started with a bang which just came into being out of nothing. This is not entirely correct, the big bang theory does not implicitly say that the Universe came into being at some point; it only says that in the distant past the Universe was very small and that it has been expanding ever since. This statement is well verified by observations and measurements. It does not claim or explain how the Universe came into being. It might sound reasonable that the Universe somehow came into being as a point, and it would fit with the above statements, but the creation of the Universe itself is not yet something that science can say much about. There are models, such as string theory, that sometimes have things to say about this, but they are far from testable at this stage. So, yes, it is possible that something else happened before the Universe became tiny and started to expand, and it wouldn't contradict with the big bang theory at all.
