how do scientist know that the world were formed by the big bang?

Question

i don't understand why there are 8 planets instead of 9 could you please explain?

Answer 1

I agree with Kris. Why do so many people insist on answering science questions when they evidently know very little about science ... much less about astronomy or the big bang?

First, the big bang is about the origin of the universe, not the solar system, and it has nothing to do with the question of planets. As for why 8 planets rather than 9, that is only an issue about the definition of the word "planet." Better and better instruments were finding more and more bodies about the same size and characteristics as Pluto. So rather than adopt a system that admitted dozens of new planets with no end in sight, astronomers made the definition more scientific, which unfortunately changed the status of Pluto. Again, that's just a definition of a term ("planet") ... nothing actually changed in the universe.

As for the big bang, why do people think that astrophysicists like Hubble or Hawking are morons? They don't pull theories out of a hat. They base theories on *evidence*.

1) The universe is expanding;
2) The background radiation in the universe is exactly what is predicted by the big bang theory;
3) The universe has structural ripples as predicted by the theory;
4) The distributions of the elements (mostly hydrogen, and helium, but also the other heavier elements) is exactly as predicted by the theory.

Numbers, 2, 3 and 4 would take some time to explain. But #1 is pretty self-explanatory. Since the universe as we see it today is expanding, the *scientific* conclusion is that if we look backwards in time, the universe was smaller and smaller and would eventually have to have started as an infinitessimally small point. That's it. That's the big bang.

If someone has a better, *scientifically testable*, explanation for the current expansion of the universe, then there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you!

Believe it or not, astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists (people like Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Edwin Hubble, George Gamow, etc., etc.) are *not* total idiots.

Incidentally, the theory was originally proposed in 1927 by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest. It is NOT anti-God.

Answer 2

The world wasn't formed by the Big Bang, the Universe was. Earth, along with the rest of the solar system, was formed about 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

As for the number of planets in our solar system, it doesn't really matter. "Planet" is just a term made up by humans to describe the large things that orbit our Sun, as opposed to small things like asteroids and comets. The thing is, we're still trying to figure out where the dividing line should be between those small things and the large things. One might rightly question why there needs to be a dividing line at all? It is an issue of semantics, not science.

Answer 3

First, just to get issues out of how, in a contest of mind and skills between "Dr. Dino" and Stephen Hawking ... uhm ... i will take Hawking thank you. upload names like Edwin Hubble (ever heard of the Hubble telescope), George Gamow, Carl Sagan, and so on., and so on. and that i comprehend the place my money could pass. As for its explanatory power, confident the great bang concept has a great variety of questions ... even though it is not any longer honest to declare that it "explains no longer something." It surely explains extra desirable than "God spoke." yet on your question, scientists think of the universe (no longer in basic terms the earth) replaced into shaped in the great bang extra often than not because of the fact they see that the universe as we see it right this moment is increasing. because of the fact of this in the far distant previous (and that they could calculate how far decrease back ... approximately 15 to 19 billion years in the past), it is going to have been condensed into an infinitessimally small element. Even Einstein, who initially resisted the assumption (because of the fact it sounded somewhat too very like creationism), had to confess this. And whilst those astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists (some very extremely clever human beings) take measurements of the present universe, and do the maths, they arise with predictions approximately issues like what the background radiation of the universe could be, or what form of platforms we would see in very distant stars, or what the distribution of aspects could be ... and each time, those predictions have became out to be precise. The Nobel Prize for Physics this 12 months went to John Mather (from NASA) and George Smoot (from UC Berkeley) for precisely this sort of artwork applying the COBE satellite tv for pc to degree the background radiation which usually shown the great Bang. it is for those reasons that maximum scientists who spend their lives engaged on those issues (returned, those are extremely clever human beings) have self assurance that the great bang concept interior of reason reliable. P.S. ... lest all persons have self assurance that the great bang concept is a few concoction by using athiests, it replaced into initially proposed in 1927 by using Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest. it is not any longer anti-God.

Answer 4

They don't. It's just a convenient theory they chose to buy when they couldn't explain away how the universe was formed.

It's funny that even non-scientific layman could understand that millions of things don't just happen in such an orderly manner by coincidence.

It's the age old debate of creation vs big-bang, orderly vs chaotic, divine purpose vs chance happening.

The fact that they discarded Pluto from the solar system after all these years should convince you that you can't rely on your Science book for the truths and facts.

Answer 5

look there was no big bang!! scientists think that just becuz they have the title as a scientist that everyone should believe what they say even when its full of crap. ask urself questions..they say that the big bang started with a bang and then cells turn into forms of life and so on and so forth ..BUT like they said how monkeys turned into cave men and then cave men evolved into humans..thats a load of crap if that were true..then why arent monkeys turning into men now? HUH HUH HUH>>>>???? yea see!

Answer 6

The point is that science can't prove the big bang THEORY by scientific methods. All science is discovery not invention. No one knows the beginning.

Answer 7

Scientists don't know for sure. That's just where the evidence points.

Evidence like waves.

An explosion like that would give off various kinds of waves, which scientists believe they are detecting from that explosion. Sound waves, radio waves, micro waves, etc.

Answer 8

From Al-Quran, a message from Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. dated around in the year 600++ AD.

Answer 9

i dont understand it either at school we just say it is a planet for now

Answer 10

They know as much as any of us do. Almost nothing. They guess at such things,and it's easy for them,because there is no way to prove them wrong. I laugh at their stupidity. I love to hear Carl Sagan talk,but I think he is so wrong. Steven Hawking knows nothing.