Hacker News Reader

Comment by davidj | Hacker News Reader

"Big Bang is currently accepted to the extent that it is because it has managed to fit the facts best. "

well the problem is is that it doesn't. And in science, if you find a contradicting fact in a theory, then that theory is totally abandoned. The problem with the big bang is that multiple facts have come up debunking the big bang theory, but it is still accepted as a science. I could give you a few facts debunking the big bang theory, but the real question is: If I could prove to you a fact that disagreed with the big bang, would you then abandon the theory or would you not accept my evidence, and believe in two contradicting facts at the same time? When two facts contradict in simultaneously in a scientific theory, it is no longer a science but religion. Therefore, the big bang is actually religion disguised as science.

View on HN

Just prove it, and stop criticising the reaction that you've decided that everyone would have if you did.

One thing I've heard is quasars show the red-shift phenomena may not be as good of an indicator of universe age as we'd thought. The red shift, I believe, is one of our primary evidences for a big bang.

There are a few anomalous millisecond pulsars that are older than the universe. The orthodox explanation is the pulsar age calculations are flawed. The heretical explanation is the age of the universe calculations are flawed.

A theory isn't completely abandoned just because of a single contradicting observation. The theory may explain a host of other phenomena very well, in which case then new observation merely shows a limit past which the theory no longer applies. As an example, we know of many observations which contradict the predictions of Newtonian gravity, but we still use that theory for planning space probe trajectories.

I would like to know what you mean when you say "big bang theory". I think that would help ensure we're all talking about the same thing.

When I say "big bang theory", I mean the idea that the universe we live in was in a very hot, dense state roughly 13.7 billion years ago, along with some other details such as a brief period of cosmic inflation.

"A theory isn't completely abandoned just because of a single contradicting observation."

Uhhh, yes it is.

You've just demonstrated that you're not interested in a conversation.

Welcome to my killfile.

> Uhhh, yes it is.

Did you not see the bit about Newtonian physics in the post you're replying to?

Every scientific theory gets revised as new information comes out. Our understanding of evolution, physics, biology, etc. have all changed drastically over the last few decades, but we didn't throw out the theories - we adjusted them were necessary to more accurately include new data.

"If I could prove to you a fact that disagreed with the big bang, would you then abandon the theory"

Sure I would! What are some of your facts?

red shift

Could you be more specific?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com