Hi Erfan. I believe you may have been somewhat misinformed about certain scientific matters, and I would like to see if I can help you to have a right understanding of them.
Its okay, basicaly the knowledge just came through of what I have been taught in physics on the topic Astrophysic. Maybe my knowledge isn't that broad enough than yours
.
Actually the Big Bang theory is rather well-respected. It is testable, and offers certain predictions. One of the hallmarks of Big Bang cosmology is that it can be used to predict the age of the universe to within an order of magnitude or so, and the experiment used to acquire this data is actually quite simple. As for the issue of no time before the Big Bang, this isn't really such a far-fetched concept. If time doesn't have a beginning, then the only alternative is a steady-state, eternal universe. And since the universe ages over time, it probably isn't eternal. Besides this, the Bible itself implies that there was no time before creation.
Can u possibly explain, what u mean by eternal universe. I mean it may not sense if seen scientifically that before big bang there was no time...I mean then if the universe was in a steady-state, then for how long was it steady (ofcourse it cannot be told since there was no time before universe) and what caused this big bang and what was happening before that, surely the big bang needed some sort of activation energy to begin its process? When approaching this in a scietific way, this may not makes sense really.
And yes, mathematically the space is not inifnite but is curved ( I think you know the Olbers' paradox) and as it suggested that at the beginning of big bang, the expansion of space was rapid, however it is also said that the force of gravity between all masses in the universe has also been acting and so the expansion got slower, thus the universe is suggested to have 3 types of future: Open, closed and flat universe.
There are a few things here I should address. First, I haven't yet heard of any theories to the effect that neutrinos could be responsible for the observed deviation from our understanding of gravity, since neutrinos have a very small mass. However, I should point out that the neutrino's existence has been confirmed, and we can even detect them. Secondly, the existence of black holes has likewise been confirmed. You can even look up pictures of black holes from astronomical observations. Finally, it's important to understand the scientist's understanding of the word "theory." A model (i.e. a way of understanding some physical phenomenon) is only called a theory when it has repeatedly yielded accurate predictions. Science doesn't deal with absolute truth very often, but theories are about as close as we come. So the word "theory" in science is a different usage than, say, in a murder investigation.
Actually neutrinos are one of the aspects, just think about it, yes they do have very small masses but they are really really massive, don't u think if we add all the masses of the neutrinos then, it could be a huge number? Further explanation can be given here:
Neutrinos as Dark Matter
My apologies, sorry yes there have been detection of blackhole. Although u cannot view it visibly, since no light can emit frm black hole, but yes u can detect them by observing the rotation of stars and such.
And yes theory does not contain absolute truth which is what I also meant before. Sometimes they can be quite misleading, remember Olber's paradox again. Newton suggested that the space is infinite, but now it is suggested that it is actually not. The Olbers' paradox is really interesting
Actually the current theory of gravity isn't completely correct, since it contradicts quantum mechanics (which is supported even better). However, the dark matter problem arises from galactic rotation curves, where quantum effects are irrelevant. So the problem with gravity doesn't explain the dark matter problem.
True, I just wanted to put the statement about theory of gravity not being correct even though it is not really related to the dark matter
But isn't this true of all physical observations? You can't prove anything to be completely true except in a philosophical framework. People naturally try to explain physical phenomena that they see in the world, and these explanations are always lacking in one way or another. Science allows us to constantly refine these explanations, and it is a far superior method to random guessing. What you have described actually demonstrates the intrinsic power of the scientific process: theories are always improving. That is why it is reliable.
Yes that is also true.
Let's be careful not to place too much faith in uncertainty. Please remember that Biblical faith is an informed hope in the words of God. The requirement of faith does not mean that it is not possible to be certain about God's existence. For example, do you believe that the apostles who saw the bodily resurrection of Christ from death had any reason to doubt the existence of God? Certainly not, and yet the last chapter of Matthew states that even when Jesus was raised from death, a few among his worshipers doubted. It's a common human trait to doubt even in the absence of incontrovertible proof. Faith in Jesus Christ is not blind faith, rather it is based on objective truths.
Ah yes, its our human nature
to doubt. And yes I agree, faith in Jesus Christ should not be a blind faith, but faith and knowing is two different thing I believe. You don't actually know that God is there because you haven't seen Him I guess, but you believe that He exists and so have faith in Him. (I hope God wouldn't mind of what I am saying here)
What I have told here may not be really right if seen in great details as it is what I have in my knowledge, afterall I was just a student who studied Astrophysic for two years till now and what I have been taught could be just s small bit. It may not look professional since I didn't copy-paste stuff from the net, so sorry if it looks unscientific for some reason
