my thoughts on these theories...

[jorden]

Ok, first off I'm 22 and I know I'm young, I have no scientific studies degrees or anything even saying I'm an expert in this field. So if you have anything to say to be Dick about it just post your reply and i'll tell you what I think.

 

As far the big bang theory goes it states simply that the universe.was created by a massive explosion. Here's my point its ever so large flaws. If space lacks oxygen or at least enough for human survival, remember an explosion needs fuel, and even though its hydrogen, highly flammable, not so much explosive unless under pressure, which space obviously lacks, then how in the world could it be one mass explosion? Considering the fact that there are also other chemicals mixed in there all with varying combustible temperatures, and space being so cold since there was no sun, how could there have been any explosion in the first place?

To me this seems a very flawed theory with so many holes you can poke at, you can close your eyes and poke it with a stick and be guaranteed to hit one.

 

As far as the primordial soup theory, how does a one celled organism fuse with another one celled to create a two celled organism with only one brain or central control point? In theory, I guess it would be possible if the organisms decided to anything besides live or if they multiplied.to the point that they had no space and thus had no choice or decision in the matter, which in itself is completely preposturous. So, as you can see there is no way its possible without some outside force acting upon them.

 

I googled these theories ferociously and couldn't find a single person who had these same thoughts. I searched through the forums and couldn't find anyone who asked these same questions. I understand a theory is just that, a theory. And I know a theory is hypotheses that can be neither proven or disproved, but with holes this big how can anyone agree with thsm? If anyone has an explanation I would be glad to read them. I probably missed something somewhere but I don't think i did.

Thanks for taking the time to read this long post. Hopefully someone has something to say about this.

[Moontanman]

Ok, first off I'm 22 and I know I'm young, I have no scientific studies degrees or anything even saying I'm an expert in this field. So if you have anything to say to be Dick about it just post your reply and i'll tell you what I think.

 

No problem. lets get to it!

 

As far the big bang theory goes it states simply that the universe.was created by a massive explosion. Here's my point its ever so large flaws. If space lacks oxygen or at least enough for human survival, remember an explosion needs fuel, and even though its hydrogen, highly flammable, not so much explosive unless under pressure, which space obviously lacks, then how in the world could it be one mass explosion? Considering the fact that there are also other chemicals mixed in there all with varying combustible temperatures, and space being so cold since there was no sun, how could there have been any explosion in the first place?

To me this seems a very flawed theory with so many holes you can poke at, you can close your eyes and poke it with a stick and be guaranteed to hit one.

 

The big bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion of space-time, you are correct there was no oxygen, not even atoms as we know them for quite some time after the BB.

 

As far as the primordial soup theory, how does a one celled organism fuse with another one celled to create a two celled organism with only one brain or central control point? In theory, I guess it would be possible if the organisms decided to anything besides live or if they multiplied.to the point that they had no space and thus had no choice or decision in the matter, which in itself is completely preposturous. So, as you can see there is no way its possible without some outside force acting upon them.

 

Your incredulity doesn't make it not true, I do not have the time to explain this in detail but this series of videos by potholer54 (the "Made Easy" series) explains it in a very concise and easy to understand manner far better than I ever could no matter how much time I had.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/DB23537556D7AADB/24/a7u-KsaBlbg

 

I googled these theories ferociously and couldn't find a single person who had these same thoughts. I searched through the forums and couldn't find anyone who asked these same questions. I understand a theory is just that, a theory. And I know a theory is hypotheses that can be neither proven or disproved, but with holes this big how can anyone agree with thsm? If anyone has an explanation I would be glad to read them. I probably missed something somewhere but I don't think i did.

Thanks for taking the time to read this long post. Hopefully someone has something to say about this.

 

Again, watch the made easy series and see if they help you on this but these question have been made and answered many times on this forum.

 

But your ideas on what a theory and a hypothesis is are totally off the mark I suggest you google those terms...

[the asinine cretin]

1. The big bag theory does not involve a chemical explosion. 2. The general concept of abiogenesis (what I believe you're referring to in the "primordial soup theory" paragraph) does not assume preexisting cellular life but refers to the emergence of biology itself.

 

Your questions are understandable but I think you should first read about what those theories actually entail and why. I will spare you the wikipedia links as I don't want to be condescending.

 

 

ETA: Moon's reply is better than mine. I now regret posting at all. :-D Good luck to you anyway!

Edited September 28, 2011 by Ceti Alpha V

[Airbrush]

As stated above, the Big Bang was not an explosion of any sort that we know about. It was an instantaneous expansion of matter/energy/space. It was always in motion from the very beginning. I would think it was like a chain reaction, like a nuclear explosion, which was surrounded by a total vacuum that sucked the matter outward at faster than light speed. It had to be some kind of "gateway" for so much matter to appear out of nowhere. I think white hole caused by colliding higher dimensions is a reasonable possibility.

[jorden]

There not my ideas of what they mean, those were the definitions i was taught 4 years ago. So unless the definition changed or they taught the wrong definition. Now I'm just really confused. If it wasn't an explosion, which is what my biology teacher taught, who held a masters degree, which surprisingly I asked him both these questions and he didn't know the answers, the why call it a big bang? Why not expansion theory? See this is what I mean. Is a masters degree in biology wrong? Or did things change without my knowing?

[Moontanman]

There not my ideas of what they mean, those were the definitions i was taught 4 years ago. So unless the definition changed or they taught the wrong definition. Now I'm just really confused. If it wasn't an explosion, which is what my biology teacher taught, who held a masters degree, which surprisingly I asked him both these questions and he didn't know the answers, the why call it a big bang? Why not expansion theory? See this is what I mean. Is a masters degree in biology wrong? Or did things change without my knowing?

 

 

Either you are confused or your teacher was simply ignorant of the real definitions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

 

Big Bang was originally used as a term of derision to make fun of the people who first proposed the idea the Universe was expanding, the term caught on but it was not an explosion as we know it here on the Earth.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Moontanman

[jorden]

Well moontanman, you just supported my original post. They're possible but no actual proof, nor anything stating they're not wrong. Hypothosis = educated guess. Theory = educated guess with minimal facts and proof supporting it and nothing saying otherwise. So now there's a conflict for the everyone to figure out.

[baric]

There not my ideas of what they mean, those were the definitions i was taught 4 years ago. So unless the definition changed or they taught the wrong definition. Now I'm just really confused. If it wasn't an explosion, which is what my biology teacher taught, who held a masters degree, which surprisingly I asked him both these questions and he didn't know the answers, the why call it a big bang? Why not expansion theory? See this is what I mean. Is a masters degree in biology wrong? Or did things change without my knowing?

 

It has never been considered an 'explosion'... EVER. Your instructor was incorrect.

 

It was called the "Big Bang" theory by a detractor who was mocking it. However, the name caught on and that's what everyone uses now.

[Moontanman]

Well moontanman, you just supported my original post. They're possible but no actual proof, nor anything stating they're not wrong. Hypothosis = educated guess. Theory = educated guess with minimal facts and proof supporting it and nothing saying otherwise. So now there's a conflict for the everyone to figure out.

 

 

No you are now distorting the ideas your self, a theory is a body of facts supported by evidence, often, as in the Theory of Evolution the evidence is totally overwhelming, in science this is what a theory is not something supported by minimal evidence, a theory might start out like that but in science a theory is the best you can do, i think you want someone to tell that something like the big bang or evolution is a fact but in science evidence support facts and facts are what support theories not the theories themselves.

[jorden]

Step 1. Get dictionary

Step 2. Look up hypothesis, theory

Step 3. Get educated

 

By definition, hypothesis is an idea in attempting to explain a phenomena.

By definition, theory is a COLLECTION of ideas in attempt to explain a phenomena.

 

So, at most the theories were taught to me wrong. Not the definitions.

Edited September 28, 2011 by jorden

[Moontanman]

Step 1. Get dictionary

Step 2. Look up hypothesis, theory

Step 3. Get educated

 

By definition, hypothesis is an idea in attempting to explain a phenomena.

By definition, theory is a COLLECTION of ideas in attempt to explain a phenomena.

 

So, at most the theories were taught to me wrong. Not the definitions.

 

Well then if it was so easy to find those definitions then why did you come here and ask the questions....

[jorden]

My questions were about the big bang theory and primordial soup, which apparently is inorganic matters turning into organic matter and building themselves up to becoming walking humans. Now that makes no sense since the organisms they talk about have no nuclei controlling them, then the only thing they were capable of was living.

[Moontanman]

My questions were about the big bang theory and primordial soup, which apparently is inorganic matters turning into organic matter and building themselves up to becoming walking humans. Now that makes no sense since the organisms they talk about have no nuclei controlling them, then the only thing they were capable of was living.

 

Obviously you did not watch the videos I suggested so I suggest you search the forum to see just how wrong you are...., it's all been done before and before and before to the point of nausea but obviously you didn't bother to search for the definitions of Theory or Hypothesis, preferring instead to simply claim disbelief due to to your own refusal to believe... what ever

[Incendia]

Why did you ask you biology teacher about the big bang? Surely you should have questioned your physics teacher...or read some books...or at least used the internet to look it up....or a dictionary.

 

Also, theories can be disproved.

Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Incendia

[Phi for All]

Well moontanman, you just supported my original post. They're possible but no actual proof, nor anything stating they're not wrong. Hypothosis = educated guess. Theory = educated guess with minimal facts and proof supporting it and nothing saying otherwise. So now there's a conflict for the everyone to figure out.

In science, we don't call something a theory with only "minimal facts and proof supporting it and nothing saying otherwise". A theory is supported by massive amounts of evidence and is constantly being tested by experimentation and observation. Trust me, there is almost as much fame to be had from being the person who finally disproves a theory as in proposing the idea that begins one.

 

Nothing ever starts out as a theory in science. NOTHING. It's only after an idea has gone through all the steps of the scientific method many times and been discussed and reviewed thoroughly that scientists start to refer to it as theory.

 

As far as "nothing saying otherwise", an idea HAS to be falsifiable to even be considered. One of the first tests you have to pass is, "could this idea be wrong?" In other words, if we start with an idea that all men are mortal, we can't test this because we can't know that someone alive today may live forever. The idea is not falsifiable, therefore we can't form a Theory of Mortality, despite all the evidence we have. If we start with all men are immortal, the idea could be falsified by producing one dead guy.

 

Big Bang theory was developed over time by observing the structure of the universe. Every time we find something new it's checked against past theories. Everything we've learned continues to support BB, so literally nothing IS saying otherwise. BB continues to be the best explanation possible.

 

Your "outside force" comment leads me to believe you've been talking to some creationists about evolution and abiogenesis. I hope you look at the links moontanman gave you on basic cell biology. I would also direct you to TalkOrigins.org for solid science presented with no agenda.

[baric]

My questions were about the big bang theory and primordial soup, which apparently is inorganic matters turning into organic matter and building themselves up to becoming walking humans. Now that makes no sense since the organisms they talk about have no nuclei controlling them, then the only thing they were capable of was living.

 

We see organic matter forming chemically from inorganic matter all of the time.

 

For example, it's happening right now on the moon Titan without any interference from humans whatsoever.

 

The transition from inorganic to organic is well understood and documented. The transition to cellular structures is understood, but not replicated in a laboratory. The transition from celluar structures to single-cellular life is not well understood yet. The transition from single-cellular life to multi-cellular is understood in principle.

 

In other words, if we start with an idea that all men are mortal, we can't test this because we can't know that someone alive today may live forever.

 

Not really a good example. No one, even someone with a perfectly healthy and accident-free life, will live forever.

 

To live "forever" would require an infinite source of energy!

[Phi for All]

Not really a good example. No one, even someone with a perfectly healthy and accident-free life, will live forever.

 

To live "forever" would require an infinite source of energy!

See, jorden? With a million scientists like baric watching every word, every tiniest bit of evidence, Big Bang has to be the absolute best explanation out there.

 

 

 

I was thinking about the explosion problem. The Big Bang was more like an air bag going off, except the universe is on the inside, and its still expanding. Rapid expansion that continues today. Does that help?

 

Is that OK with you, baric?

[Airbrush]

Scientific Method:

 

1. Wonder - what, where, when, why, how, etc

 

2. Hypothesis - a proposed explanation based on limited evidence, used as a starting point for further investigation

 

3. Theory - idea or set of ideas intended to explain something

 

4. Law of Science - theory has been tested and verified by independent investigators - the theory "works"

 

5. Laws of science may be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them

 

Sources: my dictionary & wikipedia

Edited September 29, 2011 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

Scientific Method:

 

1. Wonder - what, where, when, why, how, etc

 

2. Hypothesis - a proposed explanation based on limited evidence, used as a starting point for further investigation

 

3. Theory - idea or set of ideas intended to explain something

 

4. Law of Science - theory has been tested and verified by independent investigators - the theory "works"

 

5. Laws of science may be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them

 

Sources: my dictionary & wikipedia

Incorrect!!! The steps of the Scientific Method are as follows (I don't know why your Wikipedia entry is different from my Wikipedia entry):

 

1. Define a question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis

4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner

5. Analyze the data

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7. Publish results

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

 

It's only after a period of time and many repetitions of this process that the scientific community will start calling something a theory.

[Airbrush]

Incorrect!!! The steps of the Scientific Method are as follows (I don't know why your Wikipedia entry is different from my Wikipedia entry):

 

1. Define a question

2. Gather information and resources (observe)

3. Form an explanatory hypothesis

4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner

5. Analyze the data

6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

7. Publish results

8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

 

It's only after a period of time and many repetitions of this process that the scientific community will start calling something a theory.

 

You are correct of course. Mine borrowed concepts from my dictionary and a little from wikipedia, and I came up with my abbreviated 5 step process. Let's say I invented a simplified scientific method. You are exactly precise. Is there something specifically wrong with my series? OK, so I left out important detail, but that detail is understood. My step 1 is your step 1&2. My step 2 is your step 3. Then your steps 4,5,6,7,&8 come between my step 2 and 3. You never mention "Laws of Science" an important step in the process. Well-tested theories become Laws of Science. Where did I go wrong, except to leave out understood detail? I think you are correct, but you missed Laws of Science, and I am also correct in my abbreviation for the non-scientist.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Airbrush

[Janus]

I think you are correct, but you missed Laws of Science,

 

No, they don't. There is no hierarchy that places laws above theories. Laws are just formal statements of observed or inferred relationships.

 

An example would be Kepler's Laws of planetary motion. These were purely based on observation. It wasn't until Newton's theory of Universal gravity came around that we understood why these relationships held. The Laws merely stated the observed properties, the theory explained them.

[Airbrush]

No, they don't. There is no hierarchy that places laws above theories. Laws are just formal statements of observed or inferred relationships.

 

An example would be Kepler's Laws of planetary motion. These were purely based on observation. It wasn't until Newton's theory of Universal gravity came around that we understood why these relationships held. The Laws merely stated the observed properties, the theory explained them.

 

Does anyone else agree with Janus?

 

"The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical universe. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_science

 

I don't totally understand this (empiracally determined constant), but Wikipedia differentiates between law and theory of science.

[baric]

See, jorden? With a million scientists like baric watching every word, every tiniest bit of evidence, Big Bang has to be the absolute best explanation out there.

 

 

 

I was thinking about the explosion problem. The Big Bang was more like an air bag going off, except the universe is on the inside, and its still expanding. Rapid expansion that continues today. Does that help?

 

Is that OK with you, baric?

 

 

If my innocuous comment is all it takes to drive you to sarcastic snark, how would you handle an actual review process?

[IM Egdall]

Does anyone else agree with Janus?

 

I don't totally understand this (empiracally determined constant), but Wikipedia differentiates between law and theory of science.

 

I disagree with Wikipedia here. The language of scientists is too imprecise to lend itself to strict definitions.

 

The use of the terms "Law" and"Theory" are arbitrary. A scientific theory can be one with no compelling evidence to support it (like string theory) -- or one with volumes of evidence supporting it (like quantum theory or the theory of general relativity). Unfortunately, physicists use the same word "theory" for both cases.

 

So what makes a "theory" a "law"? Again it is arbitrary. There is no meeting of physicists or committee of experts which decides to promote a theory to a law. It is just a matter of convention. Saying Newton's Law of Gravity is really no different than saying Newton's theory of gravity.

 

And per Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity), Newton's gravity theory is only an approximation for when 1) motions are small compared to the speed of light, and 2) gravity is "weak". (A stellar object whose escape velocity is small compared to the speed of light is considered a source of weak gravity.) So why do we call it Newton's Law of gravity? Just habit from our history.

Edited October 1, 2011 by IM Egdall

[Airbrush]

IM Egdall, thanks for answering my question!