Aestu wrote:
Big bang theory hasn't been "experimentally validated" (evidence that the universe is expanding is present but attributing that expansion specifically to the big bang is merely one interpretation of the data).
Still, this seems to be sensationalist journalism. It doesn't matter, really, because such questions have little relevance.
I said relativity has been experimentally validated (both special and general relativity), and it has also been tweaked over the years.
And while there are several different versions of what could be called big bang theories, there are shared assertions between them, especially among expansionist theories, that have held up under experiment and observation.
None of them are near being entirely validated though, but that's well accepted. However, such questions do have incredible relevance, because a lot of the mysteries of the current universe are deeply hinged on the conditions at the beginning. Postulations about the "big bang" have led to theories about Higgs fields, why we see constant cosmic temperatures in the background radiation, and have also predicted deeper symmetries between basic particles (some of which seem to be well founded, some which have been sent back to the drawing board). Our explanation for increasing entropy as time moves forward is reliant on the conditions at the start as well.
To put the question in perspective, a century ago when Einstein was developing general relativity you might thought that it was irrelevant to us, as we can't move at speeds great enough to see it's hypotheses in action, or experienced changes in gravity strong enough, being bound to Earth. But not only would our space program not really exist without it, even things such as your common GPS would fail without it. You can't ever tell what relevance a scientific theory will have tomorrow.
As for this kid, I hope he does have some genius insight, it never hurts to push things forward.
Akina: bitch I will stab you in the face
