Big bang hypothesis

So the Big Bang. Its just a hypothesis, where we build a theory around? And whatever knowledge we find, we attribute it to that?

It's not meant to be the be-all-end-all theory of origin. It's just a model used to explain what we know. Scientists discovering new shit so far have been going "huh, guess it works with big bang" most of the time rather than "it must be because of big bang."

>not knowing the difference between hypothesis and theory as properly used in a scientific context

Theory =/= Hypothesis

kys retard
Big Bang is a proven theory
Green is predicted Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation according to the model.
Red are actual CMBR observations

Then you agree the big bang should be tossed out of school!?
There isn't proof of any sense. Scientific context sounds like people bullshitting eachother
>2017
>trusting models.
Its funny how accurate/spot on that graph is. Its almost as if the observations match the truth.

This dude's a retard; don't listen to him. Physicist here to correct the dumbfag.

Big bang (the "hot big bang") is NOT proven. It is just the best current theory that explains the observations we have. Of these, there are three main pillars onto which the big bang is built: 1) the cosmic microwave background 2) big bang nucleosynthesis and 3) the expansion rate of the universe. People say it's proven all the time, but these people haven't even taken beginner cosmology apparently. Theoretically there's many alternatives, it just gets hard to build one that fits the observations so well (but note there are severe deficincies in the current big bang model such as the amt of lithium produced)

>Then you agree the big bang should be tossed out of school!?

That stupid-as-shit name "Big Bang" should be thrown out.

If we can rename Pluto to be a "Dwarf Planet" then we can rename it the "Initial Singularity" or something like that...getting tired of creationist faggots trying to use that moronic "nothing exploded for no reason!" line of attack...

>proven theory
lmao

>Nothing created everything
So much for conservation of energy
I dont understand why people still say that the expansion of the universe is caused by the big bang. With the discovery of dark matter couldn't they claim that's the reason for the expansion we see now? I mean they already reckoned that's why the universe is accelerating fast.

If the loss of singularity resulted in the universe we know of now, does that mean than everything outside of this universe is in singularity or not?

Expansion isn't caused by the big bang. Expansion is caused by the energy density of space (related by the Friedman Equation). It's just well described in the Big Bang cosmology.
Also, conservation of energy breaks down at early times. Conservation of energy is only (for flat spacetimes) when your lagrangian is invariant w.r.t. a shift in time--not true due to the scale factor in the early universe. That's the difference between talking about this as a popsci brainlet and someone who actually knows (or read the wikipedia where the info probably rests).

Whatever knowledge we find, we check whether or not it's compatible with the theory, either confirming it, clarifying it, or disproving it. That's to say that if we ever find something that wholly disproves the big bang theory, we will make the theory into a historical afterthought just like we did with other popular theories like the big crunch and the aether.

We don't attribute the facts to the theories; we attribute the theories to the facts.

Regards,

This is obvious bait.

This is obvious bait.

This is obvious bait.

Any questions?

>Big Bang is a proven theory
>proven
>theory
imagine being this fucking retarded

You don't have to read a Wikipedia article to be aware of energy density. Even a popsci brain let like me could come to that conclusion by watching a documentary. Doesn't necessarily disregard my thought. So your telling me energy density just set itself?(thank you God)
What happened to the big crunch? I like that theory.
> (OP) (You)
>Whatever knowledge we find, we check whether or not it's compatible with the theory, either confirming it, clarifying it, or disproving it. That's to say that if we ever find something that wholly disproves the big bang theory.
You make it sound like your testing a theory against another theories when you say that. Rather than theories against facts. But I know that's not your saying
Hello question man ;) I've missed you

Negro you're either dumb as shit or clogging up the board.
The big bang theory hasn't been proven, but it is still theoretically possible.
>higgs field
No mass before big bang, but plenty of energy. Mass is just energy (thanks Einstein). After its conversion it gained volume

>but wut about before higgs field? Hmmm?
With an eternity of in chaos, anything that can happen, will happen
What's your answer for before God who created us in his own image?

>but science said eternity isn't real
our universe isn't, it's just a sane blimp in eternal chaos

That's why I started this thread. Have you seen how many people said the big bang was proven.
So with all your Higgs bozo nonsense your saying that the universes is ultimately finite? Why has popsci been lying to me for so long?

Why isn't the model used poly directional

No, I distinctly used the word eternal and eternity.
Our universe is a finite blimp on that radar.

Also, this "nonsense" was predicted by doctored and respected scientists and confirmed in a lab by LHC a few years ago.

Post something constructive else you'll get banned.

Post something constructive? Your the one that keeps assuming shit. Am I not allowed to agree with you? Anyways I got what I wanted nothing much else to discuss.
You'll have to ask himProbably had to dumb things down for peeps

The big bang is when the simulation started.

Or when God decided to fart. It's not at all impossible. Isn't it the deeper we get into shit the stranger shit gets like quantum non-locality.