Is The Big Bang is All Wrong...?

Question

No doubt a lot of so called astronomers will cry Blasphemy..
When I say that they all should sit down and consider wether what they have read about the Big Bang being the start of the Universe is TRUE...
Its only a Theory and not even close to have been proven.
Is it not true that they assume it to be true because some theorist say's that this how it started and they believe him/her.
without any evidence what so ever.
Now dont say that there is eveidence that a big bang occured because there isn't any..
All the so called believers in the BIG bang theory are in for a BIG surprise..That it never ever occured...
Well whats your opinion...?

red shift blue shift we know..red moving away blue coming to us ..I know..I know..Proves nothing

anyone can devise a theory but proving it is a different story..

Now I'm not a religious fanatic but the bible is also a theory..and yet astronomers dismiss this theory..so astronomery are right and the bible is wrong..is that what astronomers are saying.leaving god aside just book for book if you know what I mean..

Sorry sweetie but I understand a little about red shift and blue shift.
A galaxay thats moving away from us has a red shift and one that is moving toward us has a blue shift. but still proves only that..relative to us..no point of origin..

sorry braxton..but you cannot find a person guilty without hard evidence..
Is this not also a Law.

oh dear here we go about the doppler effect...
as if we are all pretty dense about it..
still does not prove a theory..does it now..

river honey..I never accept answers until they are 100% correct...

If the central point of origin has been predicted then there should be more background radiation at this point yet nothing indicates this

nadine see what I mean..no offence here..but everyone accepts what other scientists says as fact without question..
even though its still theory

basicaly thats all that they are doing is pulling rabbits outta their as...and saying look you public we are right you sit and listen

Here is a theory..we could all hve been in a black hole then the black holle exploded hence our universe...Its a theory like all others and would also fit modern maths to..

likewise auntb93...if people are not willing to learn someting new then they have reached the end of their knoledge..
open your minds please...

however auntb93..I respect your comment...

please..I never said that the bible was true or false..only commented on a statement

Answer 1

You are somewhat right in your opinions, but that's just my opinion. However, where you (and many others) are incorrect is when it comes to Creationism being in competition with the Big Bang. While it used to be, back when the church said that Earth was the center of the Universe and that God created it in 7 days... Science has long proved these things to be false. As a result, the church had to find a way to save-face but still evoke that God created us...and surprise, surprise... The Big Bang Theory was developed by a Catholic Priest! So this idea that it's Science vs Religion is incorrect when it comes to the Big Bang Theory. It's just that most people don't know this, but then most people don't know very much about the Big Bang Theory either... While some claim that we humans seem to think research forms some sort of proof of the result of a big bang (pretty egotistical), few of them realize that the origin of the big bang (as said in the theory) is not stated and also states that the universe was once smaller than an electron. That all this mass came from something that can barely be called a grain of sand. Even Einstein didn't agree with this and many many others don't either. They like to agree with "parts of it", as the results of research in the universe (while looking for proof of the Big Bang) seems to point to some of it being true - the rest is Grey. But somehow we overlook that. It's okay, one day we'll have a more reasonable explanation... not that that one will be correct either.

Just because we don't have the definitive answer to this question - How did the universe form - doesn't mean we should grasp onto what is considered the "best idea" as the ONLY option. That sounds a lot like religion to me! I mean, is it such a terrible thing to admit that we DON'T know how the Universe came to be? Why is it so difficult to admit that we are human and don't know everything and in not knowing, we still exist and thrive.

Answer 2

There is a resurgence right now of ill informed people who think that becasue the Big Bang is a theory, that therefore it must be wrong.

In science, a theory is a tool.

When you make a guess about what could explain some event, it is called a hypothesis. From the hypothesis, you create models (equations and so on) to predict elements of the process.

Once you have a body of explasnations and equations and so on that have been checked and that do explain what is observed, it becomes a theory. You use it until someone finds an even better theory (meaning: more useful).


There have been many hypotheses about the origin of the universe, and a few theories. As we make more and more discoveries, they all fall by the wayside.

Right now, the one called Big Bang is the most useful because it is the best at explaining what we observe.

The original hypothesis (called primeveal atom) was formulated by a priest. The priest, being a good Christian, had no problem with this hypothesis as it fits the Bible ("In the beginning..." implies that there was a beginning).


A lot of theorists tried to fit models around this hypothesis and just as many theorists tried to show that the hypothesis was wrong to begin with.

The most common counter-theory was called Steady State ("there was no beginning"). Both theories were very popular until the cosmological microwave background was observed. It was easily explained by the big bang theory, while, according to Steady State, it should not have existed at all.

That is the day the Big Bang theory became the most useful.

Is Big Bang "right" or "wrong". Don't know. What we do know is that it is the most useful one so far.

Answer 3

Actually there is evidence, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, discovered about 30 years ago. Light from the Big Bang. Since we know the universe is expanding, if you run the clock backwards everything will come closer and closer together. It is beyond hubris that astrophysicists can explain the high energy nucleosynthesis back to 10^-35 of a second ATB (after the Bang). If you doubt that, you must also doubt scientists' understanding and successful application of quantum theory, the quantum tunneling that takes place in computer chips and without which a computer would not work. Or a cell phone. Or a color TV. You reap all the benefits of the knowledge of science, yet you dispute the wealth of information literally at your fingertips if only you would do a little research. As for what started the singularity, nobody knows, but at least it is still an open question. The only thing that closes inquiry is to just say that God did it, end of story. That is the only reason I can fathom why anybody would even be opposed to the amazing discoveries and the window that has opened into the universe since Newton's time.

Answer 4

To say the big bang is all wrong is...not quite right. The big bang is the theory that best fits all the observations and the important thing to scientists is that the theory makes predictions which they have been able to verify.
The reason that it remains a theory (and the layman's misunderstanding of what theory means is another discussion altogether) is that as the maths approaches to the time=0 point it breaks down. It is at this point, to the best of anybodies knowledge,impossible to get information before a few trillionths of a second after the big bang.
Your supposition that it is not close to being proven and that there is no evidence shows that you have a lack of information that needs to be changed and would require a few solid semesters of astronomy and astrophysics to get a better understanding. However, I do not get the feeling that anything said on this board will change your opinion.
Do not be fooled by the name "big bang" by the way, this implies some sort of explosion whereas the mechanics are that of inflation. The universe started small and got big very fast and is still getting bigger today.
Where scientists disagree and where there is no clear evidence is the trigger for this expansion. What ever you may believe is the trigger do understand that other models of the universe (steady state for example) have fallen by the wayside due to lack of evidence and what is left is the theory that prevails.
I'll take a wild guess that you believe that evolution is "theory" which has no proof.

Answer 5

1. When general relativity is applied to a uniform density universe, it predicts either expansion or contraction. Since this is our most accurate theory of gravity (sucessfull comparison to experiments), it is a good idea to pay attention to what it says. Otherwise, we would have to come up with a better theory of gravity. People have tried. None have succeeded.

2. The redshifts from distant galaxies are proportional to the distances of those galaxies. This is exactly what general relativity predicts for a Big Bang and is also what is needed for there to be no center of expansion: all galaxies are equivalent.

3. The abundances of small elements (hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium) is consistent with the universe going through a hot phase where is was rapidly cooling. This is what the Big Bang model predicts. This consistency is difficult because of the number of different elements and the sensitive dependency the abundances have on the model.

4. The cosmic background radiation is an almost perfect black-body raditation. This is what a Big Bang model predicts. No other scenario gives a black body radiation that is distributed over the sky and is as accurate as the observed radiation.

5. The (very small) fluctuations in the background radiation are seen to correspond to the observed galaxy distributions. Again, this has only been found in theories that have Big Bangs.

If you want to disagree with the Big Bang, that is your right. However, to be taken seriously, you have to account for *at least* the observed redshifts, elemental abundances, the background radiation, the fluctutations in that background radiation, and make your viewpoint consistent with a theory of gravity that has some experimental success. At this time, nobody has been able to come up with an explantion of the avaliable evidence that does not involve a Big Bang (and even an inflationary phase).

Answer 6

There is evidence for the Big Bang in exactly the same way that smoke is evidence for fire, or blood is evidence of murder. By observing the movement of all galaxies in the universe, the background radiation around, and other similar factors, scientists discovered the following:

1. All particles in the universe are moving away from each other - that is, just like in an explosion away from a central point
2. The background radiation is exactly what you'd expect to see after a big explosion has died down

This proves that if you rewind time the galaxies would be seen to be closer and closer together. Scientists understand the laws of movement (this cannot be denied, as we live upon this understanding - it is used in all modern machinery)and these laws show us that all particles originally came from a single point, and must have exploded from there.

So yes there is evidence for the Big Bang, however no one knows for certain the details of the event.

Answer 7

Opinion being the operative word, As you know (looking at previous answers) red shift & blue shift show movement towards the point of veiwing or away from the point of veiwing.
Now given that we accept this, then consider if we see in the same line of site 2 objects, 1 with red shift & 1 with blue shift then we can believe that these 2 objects are traveling away from each other and that we are just observers of this action. This being the case & that has been proved, there are 100's of 1,000's of objects to see and apply this scientific proccess to. It is now possible to calculate the point of origin, within certain limits but the universe, it's a big place. It has been proved that more than 95% of the contents orginated from one area and all these objects are still moving away from that area. ie it's an expanding universe. Now to move so much matter and keep it moving for so long we have to make - yes wait for it - the assumption that there was a very large explosion or BIG BANG to get it all going..Just an opinion!

Answer 8

This is a very difficult question to answer and a true scientist will admit that at the moment the evidence is split between supporting the big bang or not. Any scientific theory has to be based on observed phenomena which is why astronomers do not consider the bibles explanation about the origin of the universe a valid scientific theory. If you can argue convincingly for one or the other theory then you should consider a career in cosmology as no one has yet written a conclusive argument

Answer 9

Of course it's only a theory. Nobody knows how we came to be. But, do you have a better idea? One that is backed up by as much science as the big bang theory?

Why are you wasting time arguing the obvious? Did anyone ever say that the big bang is an irrefutable fact? Nobody knows why or how we came into existence, and it seems that nobody will, indefinitely. The big bang theory is simply an elegant idea that is quite nice to behold. If you are thinking that anyone will come up with proof positive of how the universe came to be during your lifetime, well... hang in there buddy!

You are either quite young, or simply fighting a battle against your own idiocy.

Answer 10

Why do people think a 'theory' is a wild guess by the village idiot?

It is neither a 'shot in the dark' nor is it 'concrete proof'.

If you want the former, see the afor mentioned village idiot.

If you want the latter, see a Priest, as no one else can be certain, except on faith.

The Big Bang is a dandy theory. It has been changed a few times over the years as new data comes available, but it still is hanging on.

Kudos, Mr Big Bang!