How much truth is there to the statements many of the astronomers and geophysicists claim?

Question

regarding the origin of earth and what is presently happening in the universe. They have shown spectacular videos of the formation of various stars, and galaxies and other heavenly bodies however, were these real? No one seemed to discount what these people were saying. Or were all these simply theoretical.

Answer 1

Just depends on what area of astronomy you are in. People like Steven Hawking are theorists....people who create off-the-wall theories about how the universe was formed and what goes on inside black holes. These theorists rely on astrophysicists and astronomers to prove these theories to be true.

Answer 2

Since I do not know which statements, by which astronomers and geophysicists, then I do not know.

If you are talking about animations of star (or galaxy) formation, the video is not "real" in the sense that no one actually filmed a star being born (it takes billions of years to go from the collapsing cloud to the present-day sun and solar system).

However, many of them are "real" in that they are reconstructed from evidence that has been observed.

In the same way that CSI can reconstruct a crime scene from the evidence they collect. They can't show you the actual crime because they did not see it. However, they can know a lot of details about what must have gone on.

One example: recently someone was able to determine that certain marks on the cliffs (on either side of the lower Niagara river) were caused by the Spring regrowth in the area (e.g., markings by pollen every year). In that way (and using other evidence found in the area), they were able to show that the Falls have been in existence for close to 30,000 years.

Someone made a computer generated animation to show how the Falls moved back (up the river) over the centuries. Of course, everyone knew that the video was not "real" (cameras did not exist 30,000 years ago) but still, it was a helpful way to show how all the evidence came together to explain a phenomena like the progression of the Falls.

Answer 3

Theory and concepts come first. Observations over decades with increasingly sensitive instruments and increasingly complex mathematics and computers either confirm or refute the theories.
So as they learn more they adjust and modify the theories to account for observations. As our instruments become more sensitive and sophisticated we can image things that we never could before.
In many cases, those observations confirm the theories.
In some cases, those observations cause the theory to be revised or dumped.

So the theories about the origin of the Earth, the current observations of the universe, and all the other stuff they are studying are as accurate and complete as current knowledge and data make possible.

And while the average person doesn't question what the astronomers say, other astronomers do. Part of the scientific method is that any proof of a theory has to be confirmed (through independant testing or observation) by a lot of other scientists before the community as a whole will accept it. Even then, there are always scientists that don't agree and continue to work to disprove something generally accepted. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't.

Answer 4

As an amateur astronomer myself I find the statements of Astronomers and Physicists to be very accurate. When they say we know something to be true it is because it has undergone rigorous investigation by meny separate sources. When something is “believed” to be true it will be referred to as a theory or stated as “we think”. While meny things have proven, the speed of light, the weight of the Moon, etc. These things are proven by the ability to send a probe sling shooting around the solar system with a single thrust from Earth, then just gentile nudges from tiny thrusters using the “known” masses and motions of the planets as additional thrust.

Things like the age of the universe have been “estimated” for meny years. Each advance in knowledge and improvements in instruments to measure the tell tail information has narrowed down that “estimate”. No one could say for certain that the universe was created on Sept. 12th 13,723,752,118 BC “and no one tries to say so”. The current “estimate” is 13.7 billion years ago. This is estimated by measuring meny things and applying calculations “known” to be accurate to give an answer accurate to the limits of current measuring equipment.

My point is hard science “Chemistry, Astronomy, Physics” is very careful about what they clam is fact or theory. Other “sciences” like anthropology or paleontology have a habit of taking the verifiable facts and mixing them with theory and presenting the whole thing as fact.

Answer 5

You say: "Or were all these simply theoretical." This shows a basic misunderstanding of how the word "theory" is used in scientific discourse, as opposed to everyday speach. A scientific theory is a hypothesis which has been proposed, then tested thoroughly for accuracy, and only then becomes a scientific theory. You simply can't dismiss a scientific theory as "only theoretical": theories are the building blocks of all of science.

Answer 6

I think we need to start at the beginning.

"Theoretical" does not mean... a really good guess. You start with a 'really good guess', called an hypothesis, gather data that either supports it or not, then come to some conclusion. If the data supports your hypothesis, then by gumm you gotta "Theory"

Lets take another example. The lands of the Earth were created by someone dipping their spear into the oceans and dripping the clods of dirt onto the water forming the continents.

Uh, exactly how do we gather data to support or disprove this 'hypothesis'? You can't. Tough luck.

So, summarizing. Is there any truth to the statements astronomers make? Dunno about 'truth', but i bet true or not, its at least supported!

Answer 7

Or did God create the earth in seven days and everything we know is a lie. Or is there a giant turtle that holds up the world. Or does Atlas continue to carry the weight of the sky on his back. Honestly, unless we have a time machine, we can't really know what happened to create the earth, and we only have our limited, primitive readings to understand the universe. You have the choice to believe or not, but considering that most of science has been right, it might be prudent to believe.

Answer 8

what makes everything so difficult is it all revolves around mathematics. This makes or breaks a theory, so for people outside of this "grand club" we cant really make out what is truth from fact. but essentially even with the math it is neither here nor there until more evidence is found to back it up.

Answer 9

Well, nobody has actually seen a star being formed, if that's what you mean. It takes more than a lot of human lifetimes. They make their observations, then work backwards to find what could have led to things being what we see today.

If you dont want to believe it, then don't. I won't complain.

Answer 10

Those are models and theories. They are build on some facts and many, many assumptions. Some of those theories will fall apart by new evidence shown with new space telescopes. Many theories printed in schoolbooks as facts are already outdated by newer findings.