It could be better. We could have one with even more certainty.

It perfectly illustrates the uncertainty in your assertion.

Right, but the point I was trying to illustrate was that the term theory does not insinuate uncertainty. For instance, the theory of evolution encompasses a number of facts. One of these facts is that we share a common ancestor with other apes. There is absolutely no uncertainty about this. Technicalities in the theory of evolution may be modified, but the overlying structure of the theory will not change. Similarly, the big bang theory is well enough established to assert that new discoveries may modify the technicalities of the theory, but the overall structure of the theory will remain.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/u...ks_bitches.jpg

Those same facts don't apply nearly as relevant with the big bang theory. There however, is uncertainty of how the big bang even started. There are tons and tons of "theories" floating around. Shit, I have a theory that you aren't even black, all fingers would point that you are because you say you are, but nobody really even knows, and until it's proven factually and can be demonstrated as a fact rather than just a theory it'll remain just that, a theory.q

What?

Absolutely. There is no consensus on this, and I have never asserted that there is.

You're still not understanding what a theory is.

Most scientists agree with the idea of the big bang. They can use math to look back all the way to a split second after the explosion ...but they have had trouble for a long time figuring out past there.

Okay, WKFF, that's the point i'm trying to get across. Sure, they can go on all day explaining that the mass inside of this specific area came together, and densed up to a ponit, got to a certain point where it couldn't go in anymore, and exploded, and shot peices so far to the point that it formed a universe etc etc.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what the big bang theory says.

Sorry, science doesn't interest me that much. But i'm going to stick with "true"

29% are correct.

It's because when you are dealing with a singularity, things get fucked up. It's an object of infinite mass and density.

The current theory that seems to be promenent in all of the shows and books that I've read on the subject all state that the universe formed by the big bang. I want links and proof that someone without a PHD in quantum mechanics could understand stating that this is wrong.

Maybe the whole explosion thing is a bit of an over-reaction. Maybe all that happened is the universe fell into this singular point, and then bounced off of itself, and is now on its "bounce", and will probably just go back to its singularity on day in a bajillion years.


By the way, I didn't vote, because I am uncertain where I stand on this.

That is your theory :haha:

Psst -- don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

And it is also the currently accepted scientific version of things.

I voted false. I have no reason for doing so, save that I don't like theories, even though existence is merely a theory in and of itself. : )

It is not proven as fact. It is just a theory. That is why it seems like a trick question.

Oh. My. God.

Asamin, when theories are consistent they constitute as a form of fact.

Facts globally accepted by most scientists.

Like the big bang.

Buuuut... I don't believe anything is real so I don't have to believe in anything. : )

Like Newtonian physics? Look how that turned out.

First of all, I wouldn't consider Newtonian physics to be altogether incorrect.

I can understand your perspective, though. Nevertheless, being wrong about one thing does not at all imply that you are wrong about something else.