Why ?

[beerbelly]

In the history of the earth , why is it called The Big Bang Theory ? when most people accept that it is fact !

We do not refer to religion as the god / jesus theory .
I'm perplexed .

[kempie]

Because it is a theory regardless of people erroneously considering it as fact.

[beerbelly]

So are you saying that the Earth IS only 6'000 years old , as it claims in the bible ?

[kempie]

No

[THECORBYLOON]

One definition of the word "theory" is, "a series of ideas and general principles which seek to explain some aspect of the world," which seems to describe the big bang theory.

[beerbelly]

Or indeed , religion !

[beerbelly]

I'm not having a go at the church .
Just cant see why one is called a theory and the other is not

[THECORBYLOON]

Wikipedia says there's 1.1 billion (approx 1/6th of the world's population) who are secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist/antitheistic/antireligious.
As the vast majority accept religion as fact, that satisfies yir reasons for it not being a theory...

[beerbelly]

o k

[beerbelly]

We won't agree on this one , so thanks for the imput , THECORBYLOO , hope i have not offended anyone ...b..b

[beerbelly]

And kempie , of course .

[kempie]

...but accepting something as fact does not make it fact (see my first post).

Also, the 5.5 billion or so who are religious do not all believe the same version of events, e.g. not all are of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition (although approx 53% are), so which of the manifold "facts" for the Creation (or equivalent) is fact.

Being part of the 1.1 billion, I also class religious teachings as theory.

[jno]

there were several different scientific theories about the origin of the universe, as recently as 30 years ago, as I recall. There was the Steady State theory (it's always been here) and another theory I didn't quite get the hang of, something to do with the universe being saddle-shaped. Anyway, subsequent scientific discovery has ruled out the other ones. Some people, particularly fundamentalist Bible-believers, may not accept it, of course; and they may be correct.

I'm not too sure how it could be 'proved'; scientists have deduced it from what they know, and I suspect that's the best we'll ever get.

[jno]

kempie, I'd also add that not believing something doesn't stop it being a fact. So I don't think it's right to say belief in Big Bang is erroneous. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but how can you know? (If you do know, write a book; it worked for Dan Brown.)

[kempie]

My own (perhaps irrational) definition of fact includes the term "provable".

[beerbelly]

So we can never prove these theories one way or the other .!!

[jno]

well, put it this way: as I understand it, observation of stars and everything else shows them all moving away from each other. It seems to imply they started at some central point, possibly in the Piccadilly Circus region, at the same time. I think it's not unreasonable to draw a deduction from that, just as you might deduce something from observing someone moving away a jeweller's shop laden with diamonds. That would quite likely be enough 'proof' for a court. But I suppose it depends what standard of 'provable' you have in mind? What would satisfy you that Big Bang was fact? (I'm being serious, not sarcastic.)

[kempie]

Never is a long time. We haven't proved them yet.

jno - I didn't write "belief in the Big Bang is erroneous" but rather that renaming the "theory" as "fact" was.

[kempie]

Consider this rough-and-ready Big Bang analogy;

You observe a man falling through the air at 120mph. He is 10,000 ft above the ground and you watch him plummet for 2 seconds. You are able to measure these figures and make meticulous notes of your observations.

You presume he was originally in some kind of aircraft. Describe it.

You are aware of gravity and air resistance but can't tell if he has a parachute.

How long since he ejected from the craft?
How long before he arrives at ground level?

Man = Stars
Aircraft = Big Bang
Gravity = Acceleration
Air resistance = Dark Matter
Parachute = Dark Energy

[jno]

I accept the analogy, kempie, but my question - they got a bit out of sync with yours - was whether you think this is actually amenable to proof at all?

To use an entirely unrelated analogy, nobody could ever prove that there were three steps to the door in the house where I grew up. It's long been pulled down, and everyone who ever lived there is dead, apart from me. So could it ever be a 'fact' that there were three steps? I'm not lying, there were, but is it provable? Is it a fact?

Obviously I'm talking about words rather than physics here, but my question is still serious and I don't know the answer.

[kempie]

This is related to perception. I am my brain. And in that vein(!) hereby follows an egocentric explanation of Life, The Universe and Everything...

As far as I am concerned a true fact is anything directly experienced by me (my brain and sensory organs); anybody else's experiences can only be communicated to me in a secondary way, and as such is hearsay. I may choose to believe another's testimony based on a balance of probabilities (or leap of faith!) but "The Absolute Truth" it will not be until I witness it for myself. Experience is proof.

In reality (my reality) a lot of things external to my existence have no need to be true; there is little or no relevance to them being true. Your steps for example - I can go along with the idea that there were three but ultimately it doesn't matter (to me) if that is the correct number or not (no offence!). "Three steps" is not fact - "jno says three steps" is fact.

Of course my own perception of events could be badly skewed but it is my brain which makes sense of and defines the "universe" I inhabit and react to, so it must be true.

This to me is fact ;-)
(but to you is probably opinion)

N.B. I use "fact" and "truth" interchangeably - is this a fundamental error in my reasoning?