[charles1948 (OP)]

Who cares what Einstein said?  He was just a "theorist". There've been loads of such "theorists" in the past.

Such as Aristotle in Ancient Greece.  He claimed that the Earth was at the centre of the Universe, which consisted of four "elements": Earth, Air, Fire and Water.  Plus a Fifth element, the "Quintessence" which was responsible for making stars and planets glow, and revolve in perfect circles.

This was all complete cobblers, and set back the progress of Astronomy, Physics and Science generally, for 1,500 years.

Until practical scientists like Galileo, Boyle and Cavendish, blew the nonsense away.

They showed that theoreticians are not to be trusted.  What  counts in Science is factual evidence.  Not some deranged theorising.

Unfortunately, modern science is becoming more and more deranged by absurd ideas like "Black Holes" "Wormholes", "Higgs Bosons", and the entire Universe having sprung from a particle smaller than a pea.

Hopefully, this will be put right soon!

[Bored chemist]

Hopefully, this will be put right soon!

Well, if you deleted it, it would stop being wrong.

[Kryptid]

What  counts in Science is factual evidence.

You seem to pick and choose what factual evidence to listen to. If you don't understand it, you blow it off. That's the argument from incredulity fallacy. Not at all a good scientific attitude to have.

[Bored chemist]

Until practical scientists like Galileo

One of Galileo's most famous works was a thought-experiment.
He realised that, while Aristotle had noticed that heavy things often fell faster than light ones, Aristotle's conclusion- that the rate of fall was proportional to the mass- was wrong.
Apart from very light things, everything must fall at the same speed.
And he realised that before he did the famous experiment of dropping things.
He was a good enough theoretician to realise this.
He only did the experiment because the practical  "experimental scientists" of the day wouldn't accept logic.
They needed him to "prove" the obvious.

[charles1948 (OP)]

Thanks, when I referred to Galileo as a "practical scientist" I was thinking more of his telescopic observations of the Moon and Jupiter to refute Aristotle.

As regards the falling of objects, I agree with you that Galileo's idea came from a  "thought experiment", which boiled down to " What if you used a piece of string, to connect a heavy object to a light object"...... the rest is obvious

[charles1948 (OP)]

What  counts in Science is factual evidence.

You seem to pick and choose what factual evidence to listen to. If you don't understand it, you blow it off. That's the argument from incredulity fallacy. Not at all a good scientific attitude to have.

I understand the modern  theories.  But I don't believe some of them are true.

Specifically,  the  theory that the entire Universe originated from a single tiny particle seems  absurd, and unscientific..  Where's the evidence for it?

There isn't any.  You might just as well claim that the Universe has always existed in a Steady State

[Kryptid]

But I don't believe some of them are true.

And the recurring theme on your part for that disbelief is the argument from incredulity.

You say this...

I understand the modern  theories.

And then subsequently say this...

Specifically,  the  theory that the entire Universe originated from a single tiny particle seems  absurd, and unscientific..  Where's the evidence for it?

There isn't any.  You might just as well claim that the Universe has always existed in a Steady State

That tells me you don't understand the theories as well as you think you do. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a chance to prove yourself. Can you explain to us what the Big Bang theory is, why it was proposed in the first place and why it is currently the most accepted theory for the origin of the Universe?

[Origin]

Specifically,  the  theory that the entire Universe originated from a single tiny particle seems  absurd, and unscientific..  Where's the evidence for it?

What is absurd is you saying there is no evidence.  Have you not simply googled "evidence for the big bang"?

[Bored chemist]

Thanks, when I referred to Galileo as a "practical scientist" I was thinking more of his telescopic observations of the Moon and Jupiter to refute Aristotle.

And I was referring to the fact that he shows that you are factually incorrect.

[Bored chemist]

Where's the evidence for it?

Literally all around us.

[Bored chemist]

You might just as well claim that the Universe has always existed in a Steady State

We have known that to be impossible for centuries.
You say you are interested in practical demonstrations, but you don't understand the consequence of a simple observation like "it gets dark at night".

What is the point in observation if you refuse to think what it means?

[Colin2B]

But I don't believe some of them are true.

And the recurring theme on your part for that disbelief is the argument from incredulity.........

.........That tells me you don't understand the theories as well as you think you do. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a chance to prove yourself. Can you explain ito us what the Big Bang theory is, why it was proposed in the first place and why it is currently the most accepted theory for the origin of the Universe?

Good idea, but let’s up the ante somewhat and include Higgs Boson. Let’s also say that @charles1948 is limited to only posting in this thread until he’s has convinced us.
Not just copying from say Wiki, but own, detailed understanding and include sufficient detail on why you don’t believe these are true - no fallacious arguments either.

On any other special interest forum (on any topic) persistent naysayers would be banned, here we are more tolerant and allow alternative views to be expressed in this section. Anyone who persistently posts alternative theories in the main section will be limited to this section only, particularly where those views disrupt valid discussions on a topic.

[charles1948 (OP)]

It's clear that the "Big Bang" theory is too firmly established to be challenged. At least, at present.

This has often happened in Science.  Established theories don't get overthrown, until all the scientists who've been seduced by them, die off.  And are replaced by a new generation of young scientists, who exclaim in disbelief:

"What!  They believed in that!  They thought the entire physical mass of the Universe, all the billions of stars in all the billions of galaxies, were once contained in a single mathematical point?  Were they mad?"

To which the answer is:  No, the Scientists weren't mad - they were misled by the Mathematicians.

[Bored chemist]

It's clear that the "Big Bang" theory is too firmly established to be challenged

No.Anyone with evidence that it is wrong can challenge it.

they were misled by the Mathematicians.

No.
Mathematicians are not generally the ones who gather evidence in astronomy.
The evidence came from observation.

You really should find out how science works before you try to overturn it.

[charles1948 (OP)]

Don't you think that modern "Physics" has been almost entirely captured by "Mathematicians"

Who use their mathematical theories to subvert Physics into a mere abstraction, divorced from reality.

Just like they did in earlier centuries, when they told astronomers that the Moon must revolve around the Earth in a mathematically perfect circle.  So any variations in the Moon's diameter, as viewed from Earth, were illusions.

The variations are actually caused by the Moon's orbit being elliptical.  But the mathematicians didn't like ellipses, which are lop-sided and thus inferior to neat symmetrical circles.

The mathematicians prevailed over the astronomers, and for 1500 years astronomers had to believe that all celestial movements are circular.  Even Galileo did, which is very surprising.
 

[Bored chemist]

Don't you think that modern "Physics" has been almost entirely captured by "Mathematicians"

No.

Just like they did in earlier centuries, when they told astronomers that the Moon must revolve around the Earth in a mathematically perfect circle.

So, you also don't understand what the church did- as well as thinking that mathematicians gathered the evidence of red-shifts.

The mathematicians prevailed over the astronomers, and for 1500 years astronomers had to believe that all celestial movements are circular.

To a pretty good approximation, they are.
It was only when the observations were good enough to show that they weren't circular that the mathematicians did some more arithmetic and realised they were elliptical (to a very good approximation)

You seem not to understand that the mathematicians are, at best, the slaves of the experimentalists.

You really should find out how science works before you try to overturn it.

[Kryptid]

It's clear that the "Big Bang" theory is too firmly established to be challenged. At least, at present.

This has often happened in Science.  Established theories don't get overthrown, until all the scientists who've been seduced by them, die off.  And are replaced by a new generation of young scientists, who exclaim in disbelief:

"What!  They believed in that!  They thought the entire physical mass of the Universe, all the billions of stars in all the billions of galaxies, were once contained in a single mathematical point?  Were they mad?"

To which the answer is:  No, the Scientists weren't mad - they were misled by the Mathematicians.

Nice dodge. Now how about answering my questions?

Can you explain to us what the Big Bang theory is, why it was proposed in the first place and why it is currently the most accepted theory for the origin of the Universe?

[charles1948 (OP)]

Kryptid, no-one can truly explain the Big Bang theory. It seems daft. But is the best one we have so far.

In due course, it will no doubt be replaced by a new and better one.  Doesn't that lead to this principle:

In Science - never, ever, believe unconditionally in any current theory.  Give it no more than guarded acceptance.

Because it'll probably turn out to be wrong.

[Bored chemist]

In due course, it will no doubt be replaced

There is considerable doubt.

In the mean time, answer the question.

Quote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 01:05:16
Can you explain to us what the Big Bang theory is, why it was proposed in the first place and why it is currently the most accepted theory for the origin of the Universe?

[charles1948 (OP)]

You know all this. The Big Bang theory originated because spectroscopic observations seem to indicate that galaxies are presently moving apart from each other.

The mathematicians said that must mean, that in the past, the galaxies were closer to each other.

The mathematicians then said this proved that the galaxies must have come from a single mathematical point.

Isn't that like saying that when a crowd of people go to a football match, and after the match is over, are observed to be dispersing and getting further apart,  that the crowd must have come from a single mathematical point within the football stadium.