|
Post by Ryan on Mar 30, 2010 14:52:50 GMT -5
If evidence were to support the theory that a universe is created when two universes collide, then the evidence would be not in the past, but in the future. However, suggestion and possibility of such a theory being valid lead me to assume that the big bang is indeed a theory, and by no means proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and thus should remain a theory (and not a law).
Also, something else to consider, in metaphysics (which is basically the philosophy of cosmology if you will), there is no proof that a claim is correct, only proof that it is not wrong. So in metaphysics, all theories that have not been proven wrong, are valid theories.
So given the evidence that our current universe has accelerated from a region of space after an explosion that is hotter than anything ever observed, what other theories, might hold value?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 30, 2010 18:43:50 GMT -5
Not quite. Knowing that something happened for sure does not require knowing how it happened. We can be certain of the occurrence of something without being certain of the cause of it. (Observation is often this way; first we observe something, then after we must figure out what exactly happened to make it that way.) So lack of knowledge as to what caused the big bang does not constitute evidence against it happening. It merely means that we don't know what caused it yet.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. It doesn't really apply to science one way or the other. You're welcome to explore it, but while a theory without proof may be valid in metaphysics, I would contend that a theory with no proof whatsoever is not valid in science when there is an alternative theory loaded up with more than enough proof to be considered conclusive beyond reasonable doubt. Until the alternative theory gives us reason to consider it, we should stick with what we know happened.
Or to word it another way, if we have evidence that shows conclusively that the big bang happened, that evidence by nature makes it equally conclusive that something else instead of the big bang didn't happen. A theory that involves the big bang not happening contradicts all the evidence in favour of the big bang, and therefore needs its own evidence to explain that contradiction before it can be considered valid by science. Ergo, a theory that requires the big bang not to have happened does, in fact, have evidence against it: all the evidence in favour of the big bang.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 30, 2010 21:54:50 GMT -5
But as I said, the evidence only supports a massive, and incredibly hot explosion coming from a relatively small region of space. Universal collision, rupturing super atom, primordial proton collision, all of these are possible theories that are supported by the evidence, and most of the are grandfathered into the big bang, but deal more with how the big bang happened rather than the matter of it's occurrence. I guess what I mean to do is append my question to ask, what possible ways can you think of that are viable based on the evidence as to explain the how instead of the what?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 31, 2010 0:13:29 GMT -5
Ah. Well, I never intended to imply that the universal collision theory was backed up. Only that it had been suggested (in fact, I'm not aware of it having been backed up by evidence; I only read of it a couple times in passing).
To be honest, my stance on this remains "I don't know" why the big bang happened. My personal preference when it comes to the unexplained is to accept that they are unexplained rather than try to think up explanations for them when I'm not suitably educated to do so. I suppose in a sense you could read that as outright rejecting philosophy, but in another sense it is my philosophy. It's okay for us not to know something. We don't have to come up with explanations for things we don't know yet. I'll let scientists in that field observe the data, come up with hypotheses and test them, and learn the truth when and if it comes to be revealed in my life.
Otherwise, I'm not at odds with the fact that there are mysteries about the universe. I'm happy with "I don't know." Yet.
|
|