2007-01-01 21:04:47 · 6 answers · asked by melbournewooferblue 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
No.
Because it is the best explanation of observed science. If a better explanation comes along, I will jump on that one.
2007-01-01 21:06:12 · answer #1 · answered by Holden 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I disagree with the big bang theory. Because it says that before the big bang all the mass and energy was concentrated within a small, incredibly tiny ball. There was no time and space. Then suddenly there was a bang, a big bang. Despite of its successes, this model is unable to explain many problems. e.g. it says that the universe evolved from nothingness to somethingness. I don't believe in nothingness. Was there really nothing before the big bang? So when did big bang happened? Because time evolved from big bang we would say that it happened at the start, but when? If there was nothing(no space, no time, no matter or energy), how could we say that there was a tiny ball? Because there was no space, how could we say that there was a sphere? Because there was no time, how could we say that there existed a ball before big bang?
There is another successful model. It is called the brane-world model. It is derived from the calculations of superstring theory and M-Theory. It says that our universe is consisted of 11 dimensions(10 Space dimensions and 1 time dimension). It says that there are many membranes(in short Branes or Dp-Branes or D-Branes), which have dimensions. We live on a 4-dimensional membrane or 4-Brane for short & all the matter and energy we see, even ourselves are tied on this particular brane. We can't see anything out of this brane. We can't go outside it. Our four dimensional brane is entirely restricted to this brane inside a higher dimensional space, called bulk. Only thing which can leave our space is a graviton(force-mediator particle of gravity). So, in the near future we would have constructed gravity phones which will use gravitons to communicate with the aliens living on another brane. There are problems with this model also but less in comparision to the big bang model.
2007-01-01 22:40:10 · answer #2 · answered by Micheal A 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I totally disagree the big bang theory because there can't be concentrated mass. If we think there was a concentrated sphere of mass, then where it resides. It had to be center of something (universe). As we do not able to find the end point of the universe. Then where the center is? or we have to believe that the universe is a type of balloon which is sphere and has end point.
2007-01-02 01:04:01 · answer #3 · answered by Dhiman B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the big bang theory.
Many years ago I sort of favored the continuous accretion theory,But as I learned more I realized it would have to be eternal and I know now that the universe is a finite entity
2007-01-01 23:33:42 · answer #4 · answered by Billy Butthead 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 'big bang' is a very good theory of how the universe was created, but not the only one. Stephen Hawkins is now pressing a theory known as the 'no-boundary' (or inflationary) theory. Altough I am waiting to see how this plays out, I am not losing sleep over it.
2007-01-01 21:38:43 · answer #5 · answered by beenthere 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you have to have a place to have a big bang and they say there was no place before then .. what a weird theory
2007-01-01 21:13:15 · answer #6 · answered by LL B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋