marv
Resident Grandpa
For me, circumstantial evidence doesn't count for scientific proof. Good enough for theory, but not proof.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hell folks, GRAVITY is just a scientific theory, too.
Do any of you doubt that it exists?
In science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.
All the current evidence supports the THEORY that something like a big bang happened, so that THEORY is long past the vague hypothesis stage.
The big bang THEORY is generally accepted as the best possible explanation yet posited to answer some of the questions cosmologists ask themselves.
And FWIW, current comological science doesn't entirely believe that the BIG BANG was necessarily the first thing that happened, either.
That is to say there appears to be mathematical models which suggest that the BIG BANG wasn't a one (and only one) time event.
But cosmologists do accept the fact that, as yet, the only explanations for anything happening BEFORE the BIG bang are entirely based on mathematical models for which no empirical evidence has been found.
There's theis whole theory that there are multiple universes, and that perhaps black holes might be leaks within our own time space contiminium and that our so called BIG BANG is just one event in that grander MULTIDIMENTIONAL universe.
Now that is JUST A mathematical hypothesis because there doesn't appear to be any empirical evidence to support it.
When speaking about scientific principles, the words "just a" and "theory" don't really make much sense.
When one uses a phrase like "Just a scientific theory" and dismisses it a JUST A theory, one is announcing to anyone who understands the meaning of the phrase, that one is basically ignorant of what the word THEORY actually means in science.