wich single event had the greatest impact on history?

[Aenlic]

Big bang is a not very well founded theory. It assumes that the universe didn't exist before it happened, which is a prejudiced opinion remaining from misconceptions of religions, and it's an assumption that has no place in science unless proven first. I doubt there was no time or room dimensions before big bang, but I think it's very likely that a big bang has happened and altered and redistributed matter and energy to some extent. But that it would be a creation of room and time dimensions seems to me completely insane. Anyway, I also doubt anything happening before the first humans were born doesn't count as history, but rather as pre-history, so big bang is an incorrect answer in any case IMO.

Please don't take this the wrong way; but you seem to have a rather warped understanding of the Big Bang theory and the scientific method, especially the concept of scientific theory in that method.

First off, as a theory, the Big Bang theory is exactly science. It is a theory based upon observation of data. It can be disproven if future data contadicts the theory, the experiments which resulted in the data are repeatable and it is not guaranteed to be the absoute truth. As a scientific theory, it is the essence of the scientific method. It's not an assumption at all. It fits the known facts. It remains a theory, however. Your statement about needing to be proven first to have a place in science directly contradicts the scientific method as a whole.

We know that velocity and time are connected. It is an observable fact that time is not constant. Just because that seems impossible to you does not make it untrue. Because velocity is fundamentally tied to space, time too must be fundamentally tied to space. In fact, the reason that time is not constant is because it is a part of space. It's a very basic part of Einstein's theories of general and special relativity. Which have not been disproven; nor have they been proven. But they still fit all observable data. As long as they do, they will continue to be theories. When they no longer do, some other theory will take their place.

The assumptions are all on your side. Obviously, it is difficult for many people to grasp how time and space are so deeply connected. Your post directly refutes Einstein's theories of relativity (again, a scientific theory based on observation of fact but which remains a theory until disproven). We're going to need a little more proof from you than just an assumption and a statement of disagreement. Scientists have been looking for a better theory than Einstein's for a century. You're welcome to try; but simply stating it can't be true is about as unscientific as it gets. Yes, the mathematical foundation of the theory can be pretty esoteric and extremely difficult to grasp. Particularly in regards to string theory, which is pushing the limits of our ability to understand and observe and form hypotheses which fit the observable data.

Saying, essentially, that because you don't understand it, then it must not be true is the exact opposite of science. It's the mentality of the flat earth. It's religion. It's faith. Faith in a lack of knowledge or a lack of understanding is never science. This is how crocks like creation "science" and intelligent design end up accepted by the general population - a lack of understanding of science and the scientific method.

[Justiciar]

Whatever change in the enviroment caused our primitive ancestors to get down on the ground and walk.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Please don't take this the wrong way; but you seem to have a rather warped understanding of the Big Bang theory and the scientific method, especially the concept of scientific theory in that method.

First off, as a theory, the Big Bang theory is exactly science. It is a theory based upon observation of data. It can be disproven if future data contadicts the theory, the experiments which resulted in the data are repeatable and it is not guaranteed to be the absoute truth. As a scientific theory, it is the essence of the scientific method. It's not an assumption at all. It fits the known facts. It remains a theory, however. Your statement about needing to be proven first to have a place in science directly contradicts the scientific method as a whole.

We know that velocity and time are connected. It is an observable fact that time is not constant. Just because that seems impossible to you does not make it untrue. Because velocity is fundamentally tied to space, time too must be fundamentally tied to space. In fact, the reason that time is not constant is because it is a part of space. It's a very basic part of Einstein's theories of general and special relativity. Which have not been disproven; nor have they been proven. But they still fit all observable data. As long as they do, they will continue to be theories. When they no longer do, some other theory will take their place.

The assumptions are all on your side. Obviously, it is difficult for many people to grasp how time and space are so deeply connected. Your post directly refutes Einstein's theories of relativity (again, a scientific theory based on observation of fact but which remains a theory until disproven). We're going to need a little more proof from you than just an assumption and a statement of disagreement. Scientists have been looking for a better theory than Einstein's for a century. You're welcome to try; but simply stating it can't be true is about as unscientific as it gets. Yes, the mathematical foundation of the theory can be pretty esoteric and extremely difficult to grasp. Particularly in regards to string theory, which is pushing the limits of our ability to understand and observe and form hypotheses which fit the observable data.

Saying, essentially, that because you don't understand it, then it must not be true is the exact opposite of science. It's the mentality of the flat earth. It's religion. It's faith. Faith in a lack of knowledge or a lack of understanding is never science. This is how crocks like creation "science" and intelligent design end up accepted by the general population - a lack of understanding of science and the scientific method.

I agree to space-time, but I fail to see why space and time being related means that before a big explosion of matter there wouldn't have been any matter at all. All creation theories, religious and scientific attempts, are based on the assumption that space and time once didn't exist at all. What I'm complaining about isn't the making of assumptions and theories, but the making of an assumption without any argumentation to support it. There's no argument whatsoever that suggests universe was created, and that room and time hasn't existed always.

[Atilius]

What I'm complaining about isn't the making of assumptions and theories, but the making of an assumption without any argumentation to support it. There's no argument whatsoever that suggests universe was created, and that room and time hasn't existed always.

The fact that the universe is expanding (which can be inferred from observation of the Red Shift) means that it was once very much smaller. The existence of the 3 degree K cosmic background radiation implies that the energy density of the very early universe was enormous. In fact, it is consistent with the early universe being so dense that the basic assumptions of physics (spatial isotropy, homogeneity, etc.) can't be applied and any space-time associated with it cannot be described.

Everything which happened after the first few milliseconds of expansion of the early universe is entirely different from what obtained before and can fairly be considered the evolution of a new universe.

Here's a summary of the observational successes of the Big Bang Theory.

[Redleg]

Well I will give my baised based event


The American War of Independence which was based upon the enlightenment philisophy which happened because of the development of the Printing Press which happened because the Roman Empire fell.