2006-11-09 10:10:15 · 6 answers · asked by heyheyheyhey2222 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
In my point of view, the Big Bang is incorrect solely from the wording of the title of the theory. A Bang implies an explosion which has to have an epicenter of sorts and an explosion as implied with enough power to spread the universe over billions of years, gravity or not, is mathematically improbable, because the force needed to spread the universe would have eradicated the universe. Thus, a trough effect will have to take place with anti gravity of unimaginable power to start the big crunch. The entire theory is based on the assumption that the universe of finite space and finite time. If Space time is in fact infinite as assumed by many, than the theory is off, but could be construed as a continuing cycle. If the big bang happens, then the big crunch, and then the big bang and so on is in fact a continuous cycle, than the big bang can in fact be correct.
2006-11-09 11:51:38 · answer #1 · answered by Professor Sheed 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think there were any nutshells around when it happened :)
Haven't got a clue, it is no something my brain can handle. It can see all the bits afterwards, but not the bang itself.
2006-11-09 18:12:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
there was a big bang, and then the universe existed.
No nutshells were harmed in it's production.
2006-11-09 18:24:42 · answer #3 · answered by binary 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In a multi-dimensional space, a quantum fluctuation took place and our Universe came into being. The nice thing about this is that it only has to happen once per Universe.
2006-11-09 18:32:07 · answer #4 · answered by eriurana 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
God spoke it, and BANG, it was there.
2006-11-09 18:13:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
' B I G - B A N G! '
not concise enough for you??
2006-11-09 18:28:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋