Well at least that's why there giving a Noble Prize to an American scientist this year. I'd get the link, but Im lazy.
move to OG please...that kinda rhymed.
OG, unless the scientist has been studying Bang Ludwig...
They didn't prove the big bang theory.. The took a picture of old light of the universe's early stages at around 300k years old. It improves the basis for the theory, but doesn't prove it as such.
you can't prove a theory to be correct...
you can only prove hypotheses to be false...if a hypothesis has survived tests time and time again, then scientists feel comfortable in calling it a theory. But there is no epistemology that can guarantee you a proven theory. Unless of course you have very optimum cases. For example suppose the thing in question is true by either hypothesis A or B; that is there is no other hypothesis possible that can explain it. Well by proving A wrong for example, you have proven B to be true. Unfortunately though, there are no such disjunctions in real life science. Definitely, the BB theory, at least, ain't like that. But it is true that no one has yet proved it to be false.
oh and Rickson by arm bar... :)
If they proved it, why did they change their minds again about how old the universe was twice this year?
Freakin scientists. Can't even cure the common cold, I'm gonna believe them about the age of the universe?