Why do up think the BBT is incorrect?

@Heraclitus It mostly has to do with what I believe is beyond the observable universe. To me, it's only logical that the whole universe beyond the observable universe is truly infinite. It's the theory with the least assumptions. It's just one assumption that the universe beyond the observable universe continues forever no matter what direction you travel. If you assume that it ends or is finite, you have to assume a plethora of other characteristics. Where it ends, how it ends, the limits of how much energy and matter there is, it's size and shape, and many more assumptions. To me, the big bang doesn't work with a truly infinite universe.

@FatherOfNyx That does not negate the BBT. The BBT does not deal with what may lie "beyond" the observable universe.

@Heraclitus That's what I mean, the BBT only deals with our observable universe. The idea of only working with what we can observe and not considering the beyond that is what gives Flat Earthers their umph.

@FatherOfNyx OK, fair enough, but then you shouldn't call a theory false for not dealing with what it does not concern itself with.
I have no idea how science only working with what is observable could make the world flat. Flat Earthers ignore all kinds of observable data.

@Heraclitus Maybe a exaggeration, but Flat Earthers think that because they can't directly observe a round Earth, then it just ends beyond what they can observe. So it's similar to as if you were standing beside a Flat Earther and they tell you their theory that Earth ends beyond the observable horizon, their theory doesn't try to consider what they can't directly observe. Plus, almost every time I talk about the big bang, I usually start with saying that I acknowledge that it's the leading scientific theory.. I just don't agree with it. The majority of our observations can be explained with a truly infinite universe, but since the big bang has already taken a foothold, we go about our observations with the assumption that it happened. I find it very similar to how our leading scientific theory on where birds went in the winter was once that they hibernated like mammals. That theory lasted for almost 2,000 years and during that time, scientists were assuming they hibernated. So a couple hundred papers were written detailing how they observed birds hibernating. We now know they migrate and that all those scientists were making their observations fit the theory. Much like when we saw that distant galaxies were much much more mature than they should be according to the big bang, we made is so that now galaxies matured faster in the early universe rather than reevaluating the theory.

@FatherOfNyx
Yes, of course, the BBT may someday be replaced by another theory. In fact, it probably will be. That is the way science works, replacing one paradigm, or scientific model, with a better one.
Secondly, you are referring to the BBT as if it were a static thing. That is not the way scientific theories work. They are constantly being refined, as they should be, by better data. That is a huge difference from a theory being falsified. If it is falsified it gets discarded, not refined.
Thirdly, there is a matter of definitions. In science, though not always in popular parlance, the Universe actually only refers to the "observable" Universe, that is, all that we can know, or more accurately observe, in our own space-time continuum. The infinity that you are referring to is more commonly referred to by other names such as the Hyperverse, or Megaverse, or Omniverse, or Multiverse, which is all very speculate and beyond the realm of science. Even if this infinity does exist, there is no way to observe and measure infinity, so it is beyond scientific inquiry, It is not physics but metaphysics.
As for Flat Earthers, they do not just rely upon what they can observe, but rather they ignore much of what they can observe.

10 easy ways you can tell for yourself that the Earth is not flat:
[popsci.com]

@Heraclitus Not once will you ever hear me use the word infinity. Infinity is a term that got mangled by pop culture. I am talking about something that is infinite. Much like how no one says pi goes to infinity, rather that it's an infinite number. I am well aware of how scientific theories get refined, but if a theory predicts something and turns out not to be true, then that should be cause to at least take a step back to reevaluate everything. No one really did that in my above example of mature galaxies that shouldn't be. In a scientific theory, not all predictions came first. Just like how theory has a different meaning in science, so does prediction. Like with the background radiation. That was first an observation that was worked into the big bang as a prediction. I just think we cling to the theory even though it's been altered to fit our observations rather than letting our observations build a theory because we need a point of definition. The idea of an infinite universe that had no beginning just won't cut it for humanity because we NEED a beginning point. And I wouldn't say science only focuses on the observable universe. Technically, we can't directly observe black holes, but they're a regular term in cosmology. Both have a boundary of observation and more and more scientists are recognizing that there is a universe beyond what we can observe.

Also, the infinite universe I refer to is nothing like the multiverse or any of that. It's simply an infinite universe. None of that "anything that is possible is happening an infinite amount of times with an infinite number of variations at any given moment" crap. Sure, you could argue that in an infinite universe, anything is possible.. but that just means it's just as possible it isn't. A possibility without proof is just that, a possibility. The infinite universe I refer to is a universe that if you travel any distance, you'd simply find more universe. If you were immortal, and set off to find the end of the universe, you'd never find it. You'd only find more of what was found in the observable universe.

@FatherOfNyx

1. Let's not talk past each other by using personal definitions. I use infinity as a noun and infinite as an adjective the way it was originally intended. I am not even familiar with what you mean by the pop culture mangling of "infinity" other than maybe the movie Toy Story which I can assure was the furthest thing from my mind. Also, it is not true that no one ever refers to pi as going on to infinity. I have heard it many times. I can also assure you that not everyone uses the unique definition of infinity that you seem to be making. See, for example:

[quora.com]
"Infinity is a mathematical term used in reference to number , time , space and other measuring units . Like when any number is divided by zero answer will be infinity ."
"Expansion of universe in measuring unit is endless and so-called infinity.

2. The age of the Universe is not a prediction but an estimate which has refined several times and will probably be refined some more. So what? What do you expect? This is science, not a religious prophecy
   .

3. Of course, things should be evaluated when there is new data. What makes you think that is not going on? Of course, that is happening. First of all, that is a recent discovery. This is science, not religion. You can't expect scientists to provide you with instant answers. Further, how do you think they estimate the age of those galaxies? It is by the stars in those galaxies. The difficulty in estimating the age of stars has long been known, has been refined many times, and will no doubt be refined further as a result of this new data. So what? That is the way science has always worked.

4. Don't be fooled by every sensationalistic pop science article you read. There was a big popular fuss make about the so-called Methuselah star that appeared to be older than the universe. It was much ado about nothing. Note this from Space.com:

"In the end, the astronomers estimated that HD 140283 was born 14.5 billion years ago, plus or minus 800 million years. Further observations could help bring the Methuselah star's age down even further, making it unequivocally younger than the universe, researchers said. "

5. Would you rather scientists didn't alter or refine a theory to fit new data? That would be the death of science. If there are enough observations to build a new paradigm then there will be a new theory, but this doesn't happen overnight. Again, this is science, not religion.

6. You say we NEED a beginning point? Since when? That may be true of most laymen, not certainly not of scientists. It was until relatively recently (to me) that nearly everyone accepted the steady-state universe theory of Fred Hoyle. The BBT was revolutionary thought. The infinite universe that you believe is a belief that has existed since ancient times, especially ancient Greece. Aristotle would agree with you. So, up until very recently, historically speaking, the only NEED for a beginning point came from theists who need a creation story. Not only that, but until creation ex nihilo was "created" by the Roman Catholic Church in about the 4th century A.D., most theists believed that creation was a forming of "things" out of pre-existing cosmic "stuff" that already existed. Even the bible can be read that way.
   Furthermore, modern science does not postulate that the BB is the beginning point of the entire Cosmos, only of our universe.

7. Of course, we can observe black holes and do it all the time. Observation in science does not merely refer to our very limited human vision. We observe black holes with scientific instruments and measurements. If we didn't we wouldn't even know they were there.

8 ) If you believe that our universe is an infinite universe, as opposed as to simply believing in something beyond our knowable universe (which I think is quite possible) then you reject the BBT. You are certainly free to reject a scientific theory, but now you are in the realm of metaphysics or belief. Keep in mind that science NEVER asks you to believe in a scientific theory, just to accept the current scientific model that best explains the data until if, and when. a better scientific model emerges, and it almost certainly will eventually.

@Heraclitus 1) There is a very real difference. As you said, infinity is a noun. It implies a place or destination. I've never heard anyone say pi goes to infinity. I would suspect those people see infinity and infinite as the same. I've had 2 math teachers who were anal about pi not going to infinity as well, cause once again, it implies a destination.

2. Ok?

3. All you're doing here is rambling with things I know. I've been studying astronomy since I was 7, you're not going to tell me many things I don't already know unless you've studied astronomy and cosmology in college.

4. I rarely read any scientific pop articles. I've heard of said star before, but as you said, dating isn't easy and without definitive proof, I can't use said star one way or another.

5. Adjusting a theory based on observations is the way to go, yes.. but when a theory predicts something and the observations don't adhere to the prediction, then that should be reason to question the theory.

6. The big bang, before it was the big bang, was the cosmic explosion from the primordial atom. It was created when we first observed the expansion of the universe. It was the front runner, then some proposed the steady state, but the steady state never really overtook the cosmic explosion which eventually evolved into the big bang.

7. Uh, no. We have never directly observed a black hole. We have observed the effects of a black hole, but never directly.

8. The concept of an infinite universe and a finite universe are both beliefs. Neither one can be truly proven. If I believe it's infinite and I take you any distance and show you more universe, all you have to do is say "you can't prove it doesn't end further out". If I believe it is finite, I can take you to the limit and show you the edge or boundary and all you have to do is say "you can't prove there isn't more further out". No matter what, it's a belief. All you're left with is to follow the most logical belief to you, and to me, that's the one with the least assumptions, Occam's razor. Nothing metaphysical.

@Heraclitus Sorry if I seemed like I was being short earlier, I was at work and naturally annoyed as it was. Just seems like at this point you're trying to defend the BBT by defending science instead of defending the BBT and I have no issue with science. That doesn't mean that I can't think a certain aspect is wrong or incomplete. The big bang only deals with our observable universe, which I think is the wrong way to go about it. I mean, black holes and dark energy are a big part of the BB and we have yet to directly observe either. So it's like it's going about it halfassed, picking what unobservable parts it wants to deal with. Science tries to create theories and knowledge off of all sorts of things it can't observe based on what it can. There's a big to do about us observing the effects of another large planet deep in our solar system that we can't observe. So for science to ignore the unobservable universe while creating a theory on the universe is just poor judgement in my opinion.

@FatherOfNyx

1. Of course there is a difference as I myself pointed out. And if I were a math teacher I would probably beat you up about for it the same reason that English teachers beat you up about the technicalities of grammar. (BTW, your math teachers couldn't have been beating people up about using the term..unless they were using the term.) But you and I are not talking about mathematics use of infinity but of a cosmological reference to space. Not the same thing at all. Had I to do it over again I would simply have used the term "infinite universe" if I had known you were going to get upset about it and start applying mathematical arguments to a casual cosmological term.
2. OK
3. Well, if you really know all this, including how science works, then I really don't understand your previous insistence that science has not been re-evaluating all this. How can you agree with me and disagree with me at the same time? And yes, I have studied astronomy and cosmology at the college level.
4. OK
5. Of course, you agreeing with me.
6. OK, a clarification, which I do not completely agree with, that does not alter my point. But, there was no "primordial atom" in the Big Bang or "cosmic explosion". This may be a popular slang term used when some people talk casually about the Big Bang. There were no atoms until long after the Big Bang. The initial conditions did not allow for the formation of atoms. I could beat you up for misusing the word "atom" the same way you beat me up for not using the correct mathematical definition of "infinity", when I wasn't speaking of mathematics, as an atom and a singularity aren't even close to being the same thing...but I won't.
7. Well, of course, we have never observed a black hole directly. Why do you think they call it a black hole? We have never directly observed atoms and sub-atomic particles, or gravity either for that matter, but we don't question their existence.
   8 ) I understand your point, but I simply do not (and most scientists, at least those I have heard speak about it agree) approach science from the standpoint of belief. I adhere to Karl Popper's philosophy of scientific principles as well as non-overlapping magisteria. I do believe in a finite universe and I do not believe in an infinite universe. And, BTW, you still have given no indication you understand what I mean by the universe. You still seem to be using the term in a popular sense. I might also add the BBT does not postulate a finite universe, but an expanding universe and they are not the same thing. But, I will not beat up about your misuse of the word "finite" as I think I know what you mean.
   I rely on data and evidence, not belief. If you do not yet understand this distinction, I'm afraid I may be inadequate to explain it to you more clearly.

@FatherOfNyx
Just read your second reply. Thanks for the clarification. Well, I guess I was defending the BBT theory by defending the scientific method because that is the only way I can defend it. In my experience, very few people really understand the scientific method because they do not really teach it much anymore. I talk to people all the time who seem to be clueless about how science really works even though they say they "believe" in science. And sure you can think aspects of the BBT are wrong. In fact, many aspects of the BBT have been wrong or incomplete and no doubt we will discover more of them. But the BBT only deals with the observable universe (in the sense that I mean observable, not directly observable) because that is all that it can deal with. How do you think one could apply the scientific method to that which cannot be observed, measured, or tested? Does this limit the BBT and science itself? Yes.

@Heraclitus When something cannot be observed, measured, or tested, there is nothing stopping science from at least theorizing what said something is. We cannot observe, measure, or test what is inside a black hole, yet we're constantly building theories, creating predictions about things we can and do observe, and seeing if they hold true. Same with dark energy. We might be able to one day directly observe black holes and dark energy, but we'll never get there if we don't first theorize. Just like how we may one day directly observe black holes, we may one day be able to make the unobservable universe observable. To get there, we will have to build theories on what the unobservable universe constitutes and see if the predictions hold true. The big bang fails to theorize on the unobservable universe.

@FatherOfNyx Actually I agree with this with the caveat that you continue to use the word 'theory' in the popular sense instead of the scientific sense. I would use the word 'hypothesis'.
[sciencebuddies.org]
Whereas, a scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. So, by definition, it cannot be applied to that which is unobservable, unmeasurable, and untestable. Nevertheless, you are correct that the BBT does not hypothesize about the unobservable universe. But, by scientific definition, you are criticizing the BBT for not being what it is not...it is not a hypothesis. Now if you want a hypothesis about the unobservable universe there are plenty of them out there to choose from. Unfortunately, most of them are referred to as a theory in popular literature which causes confusion. As you can probably tell, I am old school in this regards. The use of the word 'hypothesis' used to be common but for some reason we have become allergic to it in recent years and merged the two words. This is unfortunate, and I blame this on our failing educational system.

@Heraclitus I've always considered a scientific theory to be a model while a theory is just a theory. Still skimmed over my point though. In science, we consistently refer to black holes and dark energy, yet we have yet to directly observe them. We've only been able to observe their effects. Dark energy is a key component of the BB, which is technically unobserved. So the BBT does indeed include things that which cannot be measured, only able to hypothesize their effects and see if the predictions hold true. I see no reason that the BB should ignore the unobservable universe as it does deal with things that are currently unobservable. There's no reason we can't hypothesize on the unobservable universe, predict its effects, and see if those predictions hold true. In my theory of an infinite universe, it predicts that we won't see any objects beyond 13.8-13.9 billion light years, cosmic background radiation, and an exponential increase in redshift with distance. All those predictions, we observe. Because the BBT only really deals with the observable universe while including aspects of the observable universe that are unobservable and then essentially ignoring the unobservable universe, I will always think it to be incorrect. If they altered it to at least attempt to include the unobservable universe while making predictions based on the hypothesis of what is beyond observation, then I'd be willing to jump on board.

@FatherOfNyx
Again, Dark Energy is measurable and its effects observable. How do you think Dark Energy was discovered? No one had the idea that there was something called 'Dark Energy' (which BTW is really a slang term) and decided to go looking for it. It was not hypothesized, but its effects directly observed unexpectedly and then measured. Again, you continue to use 'observe' in the popular sense of something we can see with our very limited vision, not in the scientific sense of something we can observe and measure with our scientific instruments. I am sorry, but if you can't understand basic scientific terms I don't know what else to say. If you continue to talk in popular terms while I talk in scientific terms we will never be on the same page. We might as well end this discussion.

@Heraclitus No one had any idea of dark energy because the term wasn't used til the late 90's. Before it was called dark energy, the concept was hypothesized before we went looking for it. Einstein proposed the concept as did others long before we found evidence of it and labeled it as dark energy. Either way, like I said and you repeated, we've observed its effects.. but that isn't a direct observation. Just like with dark energy, we may not be able to directly observe the unobservable universe, but we can observe the effects of it.

@FatherOfNyx I see your point, and I've heard it before, but I have never considered Einstein's cosmological constant to be a hypothesis relating to Dark Energy. In fact, it was a mathematical plug in his field equations in order to allow for a static universe, not a dynamic one as described by BBT.
In fact, after Hubble's findings, Einstein refuted his cosmological constant and referred to it as the biggest mistake of his life. So, I think you are unnecessarily conflating the two.
However, I am now more uncertain than ever as to what your position really is. You've strongly emphasized your criticism of scientists for not hypothesizing further about your "unobservable universe" but now you seem to be claiming that they have indeed been hypothesizing about Dark Energy, which is unobservable according to your definition, at least all the way back to Einstein's cosmological constant. Even given this tenuous link, I don't see how you can have it both ways.

@Heraclitus My point was that they have and do hypothesize about things that are unobservable, but the unobservable aspect of the universe seems to be overlooked when theorizing on the universe. I guess it's just a peeve of mine cause I don't believe we'll ever create a good theory on the universe while overlooking the unobservable universe.

@FatherOfNyx Well, again, I don't agree that anything that is measurable and subject to repeatable experimentation and testing is completely unobservable. What are you calling "observable"? Just that which we can see with our extremely limited human vision? In that case, over 99% of reality is unobservable. No one has ever directly observed gravity either or 99.9965% of the electromagnetic spectrum of light. No one has ever directly observed a human thought, for that matter. But, what do you expect? Science is empirical and limited by its tools of observation, measurement, and testing. The truly "unobservable" is in the realm of philosophy and theology.

@Heraclitus Well technically, I don't think anything is truly unobservable, just not observable with our current understanding and technology. To me, everything about the universe is physical and will eventually be able to be directly observed, or at least in the realm of possibility. Gravity, dark energy, even space itself will be in the realm of possible observation. The unobservable universe and the inside of a black hole do sit a lil apart from that because unless we break the speed of light, which is unlikely, we will never be able to visually observe anything beyond our observable boundaries. (On a side note, the calculated observable boundary in my infinite universe model is 13.8-13.9 billion light years. I based that off the rate of expansion and I don't think it is a coincidence that that's what we observe as its age either.) Even though we may never be able to directly observe what is beyond our observational boundary, we still can see the influences the unobservable universe has on the observable universe. Just like how we can observe the influences of gravity/space and dark energy.

@Secular_Squirrel What I did when I believed my math must be wrong was I took something like a bottle and added a yard-tape measure to its girth and then did the same to a hula-hoop and, lo, the new circumferences lay out the same distance from both. Of course, it's difficult to get these to lie in a perfect circle, but I think it's easy to see that they are the same. A video would be nice!

@Wallace, yes, but as a fraction of the whole, it is very different.

@Stephanie99 Well, it would seem that way (if I understand your point). But Secular_Squirrel initially asked for an example that would challenge his belief, and this is the example I gave. That is, in this case, it is simply not the way it might seem to be. The point is that since the circumference of a circle = pi times the diameter, to increase the circumference of any two circles--say one large and one small--by one amount will be to increase their diameters by one identical amount. Keep looking/thinking and I bet you'll see it!

@Wallace I saw it. I don't agree that it is not the way it might seem to be. But then again I was raised by a math university professor and a math high school teacher.