No amount of science or math can disprove anything about God. God is not matter, he is nothing solid or gas or liquid, so by science he can't exist. But God is much more, people tend to try to disprove him using math equation's and scientific theories, but what you have to understand is that God is not like anything on this Earth, so no amount of science or math will ever be able to disprove him because they are all based on Earthly things.
Isn't this exactly what i've been saying? That science and religion should be treated as two different things.
Now, to prove that the big bang theory is correct you'd have to be there back when it happened. Scientists say that the universe is expanding, but how do they know that? They are basing anything they come up with, with stuff they know to be true on Earth. What they are seeing may not be the universe expanding at all. Unless someone gets in a spaceship and flies all the way to the outter edge of the universe, then you'll never be able to fully prove it. There is no solid proof that science is right and religion is wrong because you have to look outside the box and realize that things are different in different parts of the universe so equation's that make since here may be totally wrong out there in the far reaches of space.
That's where you're very wrong, this entire universe is based on the same laws. While for example strong gravitational forces like a black hole can "bend" these rules they apply wherever in this universe you look.
You would have to travel to another universe in order to change the basic laws.
Now for your proof, they have this really big magnifier called a telescope. The telescope in space called Hubble that among other has a (had it broke) red wave spectrometer can pierce the normal parts and see deeper into the universe.
As for proving that the natural laws apply everywhere they simply have to look and compare, the amount of background radiation is the same (not around a black hole) planets are in the same steps of "evolution". Light bends the same way. etc, if something were different they'd see it. Stellar orbits for example are the same everywhere. You dont need to actually travel somewhere when it comes to this, that would probably even make it harder because then you would be in a chaos unable to sort what is what. If you're going to work on something in your math book you dont rip every page out and nicely put them spreading outward on the floor.
How do they know that the universe is expanding, well know that we've said that the laws are the same in the entire universe the "proof" is as follows
1. Olbers' Paradox
Why isn't the night sky as uniformly bright as the surface of the Sun? If the Universe has infinitely many stars, then it should be. After all, if you move the Sun twice as far away from us, we will intercept one quarter as many photons, but the Sun will subtend one quarter of the angular area. So the areal intensity remains constant. With infinitely many stars, every angular element of the sky should have a star, and the entire heavens should be as bright as the sun. We should have the impression that we live in the center of a hollow black body whose temperature is about 6000 degrees Celsius. This is Olbers' paradox. It can be traced as far back as Kepler in 1610, and was rediscussed by Halley and Cheseaux in the eighteen century; but it was not popularized as a paradox until Olbers took up the issue in the nineteenth century.
There are many possible explanations which have been considered. Here are a few:
1. There's too much dust to see the distant stars.
2. The Universe has only a finite number of stars.
3. The distribution of stars is not uniform. So, for example, there could be an infinity of stars,
but they hide behind one another so that only a finite angular area is subtended by them.
4. The Universe is expanding, so distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity.
5. The Universe is young. Distant light hasn't even reached us yet.
The first explanation is just plain wrong. In a black body, the dust will heat up too. It does act like a radiation shield, exponentially damping the distant starlight. But you can't put enough dust into the universe to get rid of enough starlight without also obscuring our own Sun. So this idea is bad.
The premise of the second explanation may technically be correct. But the number of stars, finite as it might be, is still large enough to light up the entire sky, i.e., the total amount of luminous matter in the Universe is too large to allow this escape. The number of stars is close enough to infinite for the purpose of lighting up the sky. The third explanation might be partially correct. We just don't know. If the stars are distributed fractally, then there could be large patches of empty space, and the sky could appear dark except in small areas.
But the final two possibilities are surely each correct and partly responsible. There are numerical arguments that suggest that the effect of the finite age of the Universe is the larger effect. We live inside a spherical shell of "Observable Universe" which has radius equal to the lifetime of the Universe. Objects more than about 13.7 thousand million years old (the latest figure) are too far away for their light ever to reach us.
Historically, after Hubble discovered that the Universe was expanding, but before the Big Bang was firmly established by the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, Olbers' paradox was presented as proof of special relativity. You needed the red shift (an SR effect) to get rid of the starlight. This effect certainly contributes. But the finite age of the Universe is the most important effect.
2. The hubble law describing linear distance compared to the laws of red shift show distance and length of the universe showing that it is expanding.
Hubble lawRedshiftWe know that both the hubble law and redshift is facts instead of theories and you can check them for yourself so there isn't really any question about this "proof"
3. Timedilation, it only acts to ensure the above mentioned facts.
Excerpt from a 27 page long report...
R-band intensity measurements along the light curve of Type Ia supernovae discovered by the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP) are fitted in brightness to templates allowing a free parameter the time-axis width factor w = s(1+z). The data points are then individually aligned in the time-axis, normalized and K-corrected back to the rest frame, after which the nearly 1300 normalized intensity measurements are found to lie on a well-determined common rest-frame B-band curve which we call the ``composite curve''. The same procedure is applied to 18 low-redshift Calan/Tololo SNe with z < 0.11; these nearly 300 B-band photometry points are found to lie on the composite curve equally well. The SCP search technique produces several measurements before maximum light for each supernova. We demonstrate that the linear stretch factor, s, which parameterizes the light-curve timescale appears independent of z,and applies equally well to the declining and rising parts of the light curve. In fact, the B-band template that best fits this composite curve fits the individual supernova photometry data when stretched by a factor s with chi^2/DoF approx = 1, thus as well as any parameterization can, given the current data sets. The measurement of the date of explosion, however, is model dependent and not tightly constrained by the current data.
We also demonstrate the 1+z light-curve time-axis broadening expected from cosmological expansion. This argues strongly against alternative explanations, such as tired light, for the redshift of distant objects.
Basicly what he describes is that with distance light redshifts and slows down making so that a supernova which could take 20 days to finish is observed as 40 days from earth.
This timedilation works as a measurement for the length of the universe and it increases.
4. Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. I am however not versed in this theory/fact and need to read up on it.
5. CMB: Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, also CMBR, CBR and the "3 K blackbody radiation". Radiation left over from the hot Big Bang which has cooled by expansion to a temperature slightly less than 3 degrees above absolute zero. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html6. A variation in the TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
Feel free to read up on it...There's more but i dont know everything. So just cut the crap because some things are facts and some are not, while you can feel free to criticise theory's such as evolution dont step on things proven and seen because there
cannot be an exception to the laws and observations made by for example hubble shows it. Would you doubt your own eyes?
The only possible error would be to have a couple of aliens manipulating the data hubble sends, which by my standards are rather farfetched.
I'd advise you to read some books, and no not religious ones.
People criticise me that i'm closed minded and think differently (strange) and can't always bring up proof but have you ever looked at yourself and how utterly <beep> you are simply letting such things exit your mouth.
And now im so closed minded because i look at this from my perspective, well in this case it isn't
my view, it is how it is
How about bringing something up that could counter this or prove that the natural laws aren't the same everywhere instead of just, "ooh your pretty numbers mean nothing as you haven't been there in a space ship"
