Skeptic? Was there really an explosion per Big Bang theory?

Answer 1

The Big Bang theory is the theory that best fits the facts that we have. For instance, the galaxies are all moving away from each other at a tremendous speed. The universe is filled with radiation from some unknown origin. There is a universe.

I think one of the problems with the Big Bang is how people visualize it; it isn't an explosion, as there was nothing to explode into. Imagine you were inside a balloon that had no air in it. As you stand there, the balloon begins to fill up. You'd watch the walls of this balloon expanding rapidly in all directions, not into anything, but away from each other, stretching the plastic as it went. That's more akin to what the big bang would have looked like.

Answer 2

Yep. Here's the scientific proof.

In the 1930s the Big Bang theory was the crazy idea, the accepted theory was steady state. A Big Bang scientist said, if the Big Bang was real, we should see an afterglow of microwave radiation everywhere with a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin.

In the 50s two guys were trying to understand static. They found that some microwave static was everywhere they pointed their antenna. 3 degrees Kelvin. That won them the Noble Prize and convinced most scientists the Big Bang was real.

The clincher came when a scientist predicted that the Big Bang radiation would have certain specific tiny ripples in it, remnants of irregularities that formed stars. A satellite was sent up to measure them (can't do it on Earth) and there they were exactly as predicted. That convinced everyone.

Good book about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Afterglow-Creation-Fireball-Discovery-Ripples/dp/0935702407/sr=1-1/qid=1169252121/ref=sr_1_1/102-3405237-5799337?ie=UTF8&s=books

Answer 3

Did the Big Bang happen? Yes, all the evidence we have to date strongly suggests that it did - expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background radiation, etc. But it wasn't really an explosion, not in the sense of dynamite or a nuclear bomb, or even a supernova explosion. The term "Big Bang" is really a misnomer.

Answer 4

it is only reasonable to think that there was.
we have observed that the universe is expanding into the future away from its center. knowing this, we reason that the further back in time, the closer to the center all things were and that at one point in time they were in one point of space.
if the process were started by a gentle breeze we might never have know it, but long ago it was calculated that if it were started by a massive explosion that there would be a residual radiation through the universe. this was subsequently discovered.

Answer 5

There's no evidence to support the contrary; and because the universe is expanding at a constant rate, science assumes it to always have expanded at that rate. You can argue that it might not have, but if you have no evidence... Then we all might as well have been created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Answer 6

At least, that is the only theory capable of explaining most (only most, not all), observable phenomena.