Criticize Big bang Theory????????? Hey this can get interesting attempt plz!!!!!!!?

Question

How many of you are against big bang theory and how many for????
Why????
What do think was there even b4 big bang?
What is the universe expandiing into?Like when u blow the balloon it is expanding into air.wat is it 4 the universe?
wat shape is the universe?Like earth is spherical.
Plz attempt.......I wanna know ur opinion
Wat Qs pop in ur mind when u think of big bang?

Answer 1

I am for it.

I suppose the universe is spherical, because the piece of matter that started the Big Bang must have expanded in all directions at the same speed.

The two big questions that I think of are 'How come the small piece of matter was there in the first place?' and 'What caused it to start exapanding?'

Answer 2

I am a Christian now, however, even when I was an atheist, the Big Bang still didn't fully convince me.

Me: "What started the universe?"
Science: "The Big Bang"
Me: "What started the Big Bang?"
Science: "A quantum singularity"
Me: "Where did the material for the quantum singularity come from, and what set the initial 'spark' in motion if there was nothing else in existance, and where did the vast emptiness that is space come from?"
Science: "I dunno..."

The problem with the Big Bang, and other 'scientific' theories regarding the universe's creation is that everything that has a beginning requires a cause. Each of those causes also has a beginning, once again requiring a cause, and so on ad infinitum.

On top of that, energy cannot be self-generated from nothingness. If all that existed was indeed just a quantum singularity, it could not generate enough energy within itself to cause it to inexplicably, yet safely, explode. At best bet, there would be no universe, but a little black hole that immediately catches and destroys everything that it just sent out. It also means, that if left entirely to chance, it would have to have been gotten right the *very* first time, lest existance would never be. This also disproves the 'rebounding universe' theory, as one screw-up, and the universe is nothing but eternally floating space dandruff.

Just as nothing natural can be self-created (as that's akin to asking "who is the bacheleor married to?"), it leaves the problem of where all the material that'd ever be needed came from, and how it got stuck in the singularity in the first place.

It becomes infinitely complex, as each cause requires a cause. Science can study it infinitely, yet will never truly come to a conclusion, as the question will always come up with "where did *that* come from?".

I'd rather trust the words of the infallible Eyewitness who was there in the beginning, and who hasn't been wrong yet, as opposed to the words of mankind, who flip flops in theories every few years (are eggs healthy? is chocolate healthy? is wine healthy? I've seen both yes and no, and sometimes back to a yes, within my lifetime).

Answer 3

I thought the universe was the area of space were stars and planets etc are found. As the stars etc move farther way from eachother, the universe expands. The big bang theory is that a huge explosion caused all these stars and stuff and that they are expanding. It makes sense than eventually gravity will pull all that stuff back together into a big ball and an another big bang will happen. Over who know how many years, it could have happened already several times.

Answer 4

Umm, the big bang theory is more of an observation than anything else...

Observation - all of the galaxies are moving away from each other. (this is unavoidable proven fact)

Theory - at an earlier point in time they must have been closer together. (today, they're farther away from each other than yesterday, and tomorrow they will be farther away than today)

Extrapolation - If we keep going back in time, they must have been closer and at some point they must have all been in the same spot.

Deduction - In order for them to get from one spot to expanding away, there must have been a big fat explosion when they started expanding.

Hence the Big Bang Theory. There's really not much to dispute.. and by the way, the earth is not a sphere, it's fat in the middle (too many twinkies is my guess)

Answer 5

because it suits each merchandise of information, each commentary and each calculation without exception. If it did not then it does no longer be called a medical idea. vast Bang does no longer describe an explosion yet a short enlargement of a severe ability particle which interprets its ability into count number because it cools. it truly is for this reason a helpful enlargement; no longer a detrimental explosion. Your comprehend-how of how hydrogen and oxygen react jointly is particularly shakey at perfect, as is your idea of how existence began in the international (and neither have something to do with vast Bang): hydrogen and oxygen will combine particularly gently lower than some circumstances. on the time that water changed into being formed there changed into no existence. existence got here a lot later so it does no longer were harmed even if water is formed by ability of the biggest attainable explosion. Meteors have continuously fallen in the international and volcanoes have continuously erupted. in the course of the first billion years or so of the Earth's heritage there have been certainly assorted tremendous meteorite impacts and volcanic eruptions, alongside with comet impacts which delivered to earth very much of the water now discovered in the international. existence in easy words began after this chaotic era, approx. 3.5 billion years in the past.

Answer 6

BB came to existence because redshift has been explained only by Doppler effect. I believe Compton effect is also a fact. Then there is no need any more for an expanding universe and the same time no need for BB..
I believe in an eternal cosmos: no begin and no end.
(Birth and death is biology !!)
Th