Quote:
|
Well, truth be told, no one really knows proof positive for sure what the history of the universe is. The Big Bang, though the most widely accepted theory, is still a theory. That leaves room for growth, improvements, and maybe even new interpretations of the data as more data is discovereda nd processed. That's what makes science so much fun - you get to redefine conventional knowledge !
|
Truth be told, but theories in science are *Big Stuff* and are right up there at the top to explain the Laws of Science. There is nothing higher in science to go than to formulate and prove theories from the given observations. The Big Bang is VERY BIG STUFF. I think that the new Brane inspired theory of the Universe is mostly based on computer simulations and hopefully a lot of it relates to observations (as I have read it does). It is nice to have a new game in town but it is hardly going to supplant the Big Bang easily. There are a lot of steps to be made before that happens.
I happen to like Superstring Theory and M Theory which is an extension of Superstring Theory. I have attended symposiums about M Theory.
But the Big Bang is going to be a difficult theory to supplant.
Science does not involve itself with *Proof Positive* about anything. Proofs are steps toward making theories. Science does not go further than theories. Laws are the discovered information and facts out there in the World and in the Universe to be observed and from which the wonderful scientific theories are formed.
The Big Bang has a lot of observational support, so I do not think that it will hit the dust bin of science easily.
ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]