has any theory other than the big bang been accepted now?
117141
I assume you mean "has any theory explaning the existence of man and the universe been accepted?"  The answer is no, but you should not assume that the big bang hypothesis is correct as the 2nd law of thermodynamics (AKA entropy) disproves the big bang.  It just depends on which group of thinkers you follow, if you follow secularists then you will most likely accept the big bang hypothesis, if you follow religious thinkers then you most likely will not.
509195
When you look out into space and see 2 galaxies\ngoing in opposite directions you can deduce  \nthat they were closer a year ago and closer yet a million\nyears ago and closer yet a billion years ago. Astronomers\nhave basically looked at countless pairs like this and\nfound that they all were as close as  one point\napproximately 13.8 billion years ago. From that point in\ntime, everything exploded in opposite directions and kept\non getting farther and farther away from the start. So\nthe starting point is called the big bang.\n  What it started with and why  is still conjecture. \nIt has not even reached the level of being called a theory.\nAnd by the way, a scientific theory is not merely a wild guess. It's the best possible, and most widely accepted logical and natural explanation for the evidence.
645859
No practical method has been found yet (unless I missed a memo somewhere), though it's still a very tantalizing possibility.  We'll have to be careful when the time comes near, however.  There's a chance that we could start a second Big Bang and pop another Universe into existence inside our own.  A rather significant environmental impact.\n\nMeanwhile, have a read of Arthur C. Clarke's novel "Songs of Distant Earth," where he talks about vacuum energy and such trivial concepts as stopping the expansion of the Universe.
838357
Current theory places the Big Bang at 13.7 billion years in the past, with a possible error of 100 million years.  This is based on the Hubble Constant, studies of formation of galaxies, distribution of quasars, all sorts of arcane things in astronomy.   Telescopes can pick up things dating from 300,000 years after the Big Bang, but theory suggests space would be opaque to visible light earlier than that.
846148
From what I have read, what happened before the big bang has no effect on the universe and therefore can not be theorized about.\n\nOr, as Stephen Hawking said in "A Briefer History of Time"\n\n"All our theories of cosmology are formulated on the assumption that space_time is smooth and nearly flat. That means that all our theories break down at the big bang: a space_time with infinite curvature can hardly be called nearly flat! Thus even if there were events before the big bang, we could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would have broken down at the big bang.\n\nCorrespondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we cannot determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences and so should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that the big bang was the beginning of time. This means that questions such as who set up the conditions for the big bang are not questions that science addresses."
205330
The Big Bang Theory has not been proven. Don't believe every piece of hype that you read. Many predictions of BB and related theories have been verified. Many others have been contradicted. Same with some ID and Creation theories. Some have been verified, some have been contradicted. Many evidences claimed to support a billions-years-old universe also support other explanations. Usually it's just a matter of premises.
990294
The scientific theory is that the Universe started as a fluctuation of the vacuum. Such vacuum fluctuations make appear a small amount of energy, for a small time. This phenomenon is responsible for the existence of forces, that hold the Universe and matter together.\n\nNormally the bigger the energy fluctuation, the smaller the time it is in existence.\n\nNot so the Big Bang. That was a HUGE fluctuation. So big that a lot of energy came to appearance in the form of mass, elementary particles. These particles started expanding, before the vacuum could reclaim the energy.\n\nAnd it is still expanding today. 14 billion years later.\n\nThe Big Bang theory itself, doesn't say anything about the *cause* of the explosion. It describes only how the Universe evolved after the explosion took place.\n\nNow for some speculation. Is our Universe the only one? Maybe not. The Big Bang was one big fluctuation, maybe other smaller or bigger, take place all the time.\nBut most of these fluctuations will produce Universes in which conditions are just not suitable for life.\nThe Universe we observe is by necessity one in which the conditions are just right for us to have evolved into Homo Sapiens capable of asking philosophical questions.
854866
Everything we know about, everything we can see, behaves as if 13.7 billion years ago it was a dense, hot plasma that has been expanding and cooling ever since.  That's the Big Bang theory, and there is a tremendous amount of overlapping, detailed evidence to show that it's correct.  The Big Bang theory being wrong is about as likely, and makes about as much sense, as the idea that a Sun-centered solar system is wrong.  Essentially all of modern astronomy depends on the Big Bang to make sense.  The main observations are:\n\n1) The redshift of more distant galaxies is larger than that of nearby galaxies.\n\n2) Quasars and radio sources are seen to evolve.  There were many quasars in the past, now there are almost none.\n\n3) The amounts of the light elements Deuterium and Hydrogen make sense in the context of neucleosynthesis in the Big Bang.\n\n4) The Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation is as predicted by the Big Bang theory, both in magnitude and in the details of its anisotropy in amplitude and polarization.\n\n5) All stars and galaxies evolve as if that evolution were set into motion by the Big Bang.\n\n\nYour notion of mirages and crests makes no sense in the context of modern physics.  We do see some warpage of space, particularly gravitational lensing by clusters of galaxies, but the Cosmic Microwave Background is most certainly only 400,000 lightyears from our event horizon.\n\nMany current versions of the Big Bang involve a Universe that exists eternally in both the past and future.  Our Big Bang was not necessarily the beginning of the Universe.
631597
Just one doubt about your  theory,how do you know that only one big bang has taken place as you say that a second one is coming up???And tell me how you would accelerate something to the speed of light as the mass would become infinite.\nAnd according to your theory the total energy in the universe will go on increasing.You are stuck in a viscious circle!!!
47579
Steady state theory has no answers for two major astronomical observations.\n\n1. Cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)\n2. Hubble expansion.\n\nAs a result the theory has been discarded by the majority of professional astronomers.  The Big Bang theory does provide answers for those two bits of observation.  It may not be perfect but it is the best we got.  That's what theories are...the best explanation until something better comes along.
1073869
It hasn't been completely accepted, but it is widely believed to be the correct direction to go.  They are still trimming the fat, and many of the theories will never be tested as we can not experience some things that occur in the extra dimensions that we can not see, according to string theory.  (Theory is not accepted as fact, its a theory)
492769
the most widely acceted theory is the bing bang theory \nthere is also one "statis state theory" but it has a lot of discrepancies\n\n\n4 more info:\n\nhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978prpl.conf..399R\n\nhttp://www.gitamrta.org/bigbang.htm\n\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html
26538
Surely you know the proponants do not have an answer. On the same note, neither can anyone answer (yet) what was there before Big Bang?
360105
at the present time, the only widely accepted, scientifically valid theory of the origin of the universe is the "big bang" theory.  british astronomer fred hoyle gave the theory this name to ridicule it.  the big bang is substantially supported by evidence.  for the first 380 000 years, the universe was opaque.  light could not travel far without interacting with a charged particle (electron or atomic nucleus, mostly hydrogen and helium nuclei).  the universe became transparent when the electrons and nuclei combined to form atoms.  light could travel unhindered because the atoms have no electric charge.  because of the expansion of the universe, we see this light at much longer microwave wavelengths.  this is called the cosmic microwave background, and we can see nothing of the universe before this.  within the first fraction of a second, however, the universe became much larger during an extremely short fraction of a second.  this super-fast expansion is called inflation.\n\ni can't really say much about the many myths of the origin of the universe, what the universe is, or even if the universe had an origin.
23168
In an extention of the big bang theory, the size of the spots in the microwave background radiation can indicate the geometry of the universe. Recent (2001) measurements confirm that the universe is "flat" (for an explanation of shapes, see source link). There is a 2% margin of error in this measurement.\n\nAs for what is beyond space, I would say the question isn't possible to answer, as most people define "space" to mean "Everything there is". What is outside of "everything"? Nothing, it would seem.
586516
No, the big bang is not  pseudoscience. It is the best theory going for how scientists think the world works.\n\nPseudoscience would be like believing in something by faith alone with no proof at all, and no way to disprove it.
24461
I don't see why the "God" and the "Big Bang" theories can't go hand-in-hand. My personal opinion is that GOD made the two atoms ram into each other, thus causing the BIG BANG occur. I think it makes sense enough, but that's just me...