The Big Bang Theory is wrong in every sense of its name!
First off, it wasn't big...it took billions of billions of years to get to where it is now, and it's still moving! Secondly it wasn't a bang...it happened in space, and in space it's a vacuum, and in a vacuum sound waves cannot travel leading to, I'm sorry, but no bang.
Your thoughts? Better names for the Theory?
2007-11-16 01:45:15 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Small silent theory.
Tiny hushed theory.
Minute soundless theory.
Petite quiet theory.
Miniature noiseless theory.
2007-11-16 01:48:19 · answer #1 · answered by Blue 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It does encompass the entire universe of the the duration of time. You can not get any bigger than that, so I think Big can be applied. If anything it it is an understatement.
The bang part does seem to cause a lot of confusion, as people think of it like a bomb - an explosion of matter in space - as opposed to something swelling -like making polystyrene foam, where everything is there to start with, it just expands and gets less dense.
Part of the problem is it is pretty incomprehensible to most of us. We are not prepared by our experiences to try to understand a universe where the energy flux is so high that matter can not be formed, or the condensation of energy into matter as it expanded.
How about:
"The really ginormous expansion that is really difficult to understand for a lack of references in the current universe, but is still going on today"
That should add a few pages to the cosmology books.
2007-11-16 01:56:02 · answer #2 · answered by Simon T 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is a fine theory..I would like to quote BERNARD HAISCH: You can be a science-oriented person, perfectly comfortable with the Big Bang origin of the universe 13.7 billion years ago, a 4.6 billion year old earth, Darwinian evolution, and still believe that there is room for a God behind it all, and that there is no contradiction. Once you go past the Big Bang and ask yourself what might be the ultimate origin of things, you have a choice. You can choose to assume that there pre-exists quantum fields or inflation fields or quantum fluctuations, and out of those the universe was born. But then there has to pre-exist some form of law or tendency, because if nothing at all existed, nothing at all would happen. So you still have to assume there is something there, some sort of laws of nature pre-exist. Well, then you ask, where did those come from? Or, you can assume that behind it all there is intelligence. That intelligence could be assumed to have a purpose in doing this.
I would think that if you look into The Big Bang theory you will find it's quite sound. Even Albert Einstein who was certain that the Universe was constant..said it was the worst mistake of his life.
2007-11-16 01:50:56 · answer #3 · answered by PROBLEM 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
the big bang describes an event in space that led to the universe we know now... yes that took billions of years but the initial event happened in a tiny period of time and as all objects are moving away from that point then there must of been a "bang" maybe not sound but pure energy...
the name is accurate or maybe you would like God in there somewhere?
2007-11-16 01:52:46 · answer #4 · answered by SARNIE 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Expanding Universe Theory.
2007-11-16 01:52:46 · answer #5 · answered by deztructshun 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the bang isnt meant to be literal, since you would need things to hear the bang too in the sense you are taking it. big is also a matter of perception. its not like the big bang was a tiny start, and slowly but surely grew to what it is now. its said that when the event happened, time and space were created and was quite massive from that instant on, even if it is still expanding now. big is also a matter of importance, not always size.
2007-11-16 01:56:27 · answer #6 · answered by kodama spirit 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Big Bang got its name from fred Hoyle who was an opponent of the theory. Indeed the name stuck. You are incorrect in saying that the big bang iccurred in space. That is not true. Space is a result of the Big bang.
What the Big bang actually was, was an extremely rapid expansion whereby the universe rapidly increased in size in micro seconds. It was simply expansion like blowing up a balloon - there was no explosion or bang.
2007-11-16 01:52:25 · answer #7 · answered by penster_x 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, it's not a very good name. On top of being inaccurate, and creating a false mental image (in our minds, explosions tend to be destructive, so it's hard to visualize one that creates things), it also sounds downright silly.
But I have less problems with the Big Bang name than I do with the utter failure in poetic license that occurred when physicists studying the 'missing' matter that should have formed from the Big Bang dubbed it "Dark Matter".
Here, they were describing a form of matter separate from 'normal' matter and anti-matter, which doesn't interact with other forms of matter, and cannot be detected by normal means, and they absolutely missed the chance to call it "Doesn't Matter".
That one still burns my buns.
2007-11-16 01:53:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
They now refer to the big splat because they believe undulating branes (membranes) to which strings are attached (as in string theory) occasionally slap into each other, creating new universes. Does that help?
Edit: and "Big Bang" doesn't rhyme. It's alliterative. So how about "Seismic Splat"?
2007-11-16 01:51:36 · answer #9 · answered by ZombieTrix 2012 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Horrendous Space Kablooie.
Calvin and Hobbes for the win!
2007-11-16 01:49:08 · answer #10 · answered by . 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Maybe some scientist thought they could get rid of the theory of creation with a big bang.
2007-11-16 01:49:45 · answer #11 · answered by happy_magooo 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋