how did they prove the big bang theory wrong?
372465
They didnt, its still alive and well and generally believed by educated people.  They recently changed it to include an early period of rapid expansion, called the inflationary period.
784346
well, it's simply that if you measure the speeds of galaxies, and their acceleration, and put all the data together, it shows that, at some point back in time, all the visible stuff in the universe was at the same "point" (it cannot exactly be a point, because that would be of infinite density, and Einstein's equations break down in such conditions).\n\napparently there are some people who seem to believe that God and the Big Bang are incompatible - but this is wrong, and actually quite a few scientists believe in God and simply put Him at the source of the Big Bang.
374191
cannot prove or disprove this hypothesis.\n\npast empirical proof has been to tell someone to throw something up and see.  this worked until we started putting things in orbit...and beyond.\n\nnow, how do we know (or not) that those items that have exceeded our known local planetary orbit patterns will not come back because of a larger as yet unforeseen orbit?\n\nif anyone attempts to prove or disprove this it must include a hypothesis that effectively refutes the steady-state universe vs. the big-bang theories.\n\nthis would effectively place matter consumed by black-holes back to the initial "down" and all "up" would eventually return to the same place or "come down."\n\notherwise it is a lie.  technology and our knowledge of the structure of up and down have already effectively refuted this infantile "law" of gravity.  but thanks for reminding us of our humble beginnings in thinking.
725562
The essence of the Big Bang theory is pretty simple:  sometime billions of years ago the universe began;  everything now in the universe was created from energy/matter that was compacted into a really, really small volume/space, and indeed that really, really small volume/space was all there was to the universe at that moment; and since the universe began, it's been expanding.  These are the essential points of the theory.  Over time, we've added new details, such as pinning down the age of the universe to within a few hundred million years (last I heard, we thought it was 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years old).  And a lot of theoretical and observational work have gone into investigating and refining the theory.\n\nAs to why we think that there was a Big Bang instead of, say, a universe which had always existed or a universe which came into being pretty much fully formed, the main reason and the reason we started thinking there was a Big Bang in the first place is because of very peculiar observations that we can make of distant galaxies.  This observation is that, except for a bunch galaxies which are both nearby and gravitationally bound to our own galaxy, all the galaxies we can see are moving away from both our galaxy and all other galaxies.  Also, the speed with which a galaxy is moving away from us depends directly on how far away from us it is (e.g. galaxies farther away from us are moving away from us faster than galaxies which are closer).  And the reason we first infered a Big Bang from this is that if you imagine running this movement backwards, doing a cosmic rewind if you will, then all the galaxies will be moving back towards each other, and eventually will all find themselves in the same place.\n\nSeveral years after this observation, a key predicition of the Big Bang theory was verified.  When the universe was young, it was also really hot and so for a time would have given off light all its own (I'm simplifying things a bit, but these are the essential facts as we know them).  It was predicted that some of this light should still be around.  And, lo and behold, at the very same time that people were making this prediction and beginning to think of looking for it, practically right down the road some experimentalists stumbled upon it accidentally.\n\nSo, in short and hopefully simple words, that's what the Big Bang is and why we think it happened.
885546
The big bang theory explains why ALL matter in the universe is expanding outwards from a central point in space (just like it would if there were, let’s say, an explosion) and that is all it explains. No, it doesn’t collapse and expand again.\n\nWe do not fully understand evolution. It is a theory…….The theory which all the evidence suggest, hence the reason it is the accepted theory. It doesn’t attempt to explain the origin of life, there is no evidence to formulate a theory on the origin yet but we are working on it.
1108644
this is actually a common misconception about the big bang.  the big bang theory says that spacetime itself originated in that event.  the big bang theory is supported by evidence very well.  no other theory or hypothesis is.\n\nread these:\nhttp://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
53598
there are many theories had been formulated by scientists...\n1. the big bang theory -- it states that at first there was a blazing or hot sphere...untill time goes on this sphere continues to acccumulate heat..after such time it bursted and emitted particles and this particles formed into different galaxies.\n2. the collision theory--scientist said that there was a comet heading to another comet in space..then this two comets collided with each other and there particles scattered into space and therefore creating galaxies.\nand there are other more theories..\nbut for me it is really god who created the galaxies and space...cause if there is a thing or a galaxy probably somebody puts it there..or somebody is responsible for it to be created...
196438
In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang theory is based on the observed Hubble's law redshift of distant galaxies that when taken together with the cosmological principle indicate that space is expanding according to the Friedmann-Lemaître model of general relativity. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony).\n\nThe term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began — calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (±2%) — and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory [1].\n\nOne consequence of the Big Bang is that the conditions of today's universe are different from the conditions in the past or in the future. From this model, George Gamow in 1948 was able to predict, at least qualitatively, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) [2]. The CMB was discovered in the 1960s and further validated the Big Bang theory over its chief rival, the steady state theory.\n\nThe Big Bang theory developed from observations and theoretical considerations. Observationally, it was determined that most spiral nebulae were receding from Earth, but those who made the observation weren't aware of the cosmological implications, nor that the supposed nebulae were actually galaxies outside our own Milky Way[3]. In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"—what was later called the Big Bang[4].\n\nIn 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. He discovered that, relative to the Earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the Earth. This fact is now known as Hubble's law [5]. Given the cosmological principle whereby the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding contradicting the infinite and unchanging static universe scenario developed by Einstein.\n\nThis idea allowed for two opposing possibilities. One was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow. The other possibility was Fred Hoyle's steady state model in which new matter would be created as the galaxies moved away from each other. In this model, the universe is roughly the same at any point in time[6]. It was actually Hoyle who coined the name of Lemaître's theory, referring to it sarcastically as "this big bang idea" during a program broadcast on March 28, 1949 by the BBC Third Programme. Hoyle repeated the term in further broadcasts in early 1950, as part of a series of five lectures entitled The Nature of Things. The text of each lecture was published in The Listener a week after the broadcast, the first time that the term "big bang" appeared in print. [7]
1137564
In physical sciences there is no such thing as a proven theory. The best thing a theory can do, is to undergo innumerable tests of which not a single one contradicts it (example: the second law of thermodynamics). Then we speak of it as a reality.\n\nI'm far away from being an expert, but since there are so many different "Big bang theories"  (cosed universe, open universe...) I would say, that none is very close to being "proven" (because the appropriate experiments are not yet possible or found). \n\nHowever I think that the idea of an early universe which was very hot and dense (one of the model's crucial ideas) is widely accepted. Facts pointing in that direction are the observations of  redshifts by HubbleSpaceTeescope or the detection of an isotropic cosmic microwave background (in it's own rest-frame!)
1057840
No one "discoverd" the Big Bang - it is a theory, not a fact - just like evolution.\n\nIf you believe in God and believe that God created the universe you can still believe in the Big Bang theory - it may be the method in which He created the universe. \n\nBut to believe in the Big Bang theory without believing in God is a Big Mistake. "Nothing" cannot begat something, whether it is the universe, or life. To believe that out of nothing all of a sudden something came into existence defies good science. Even science iteself had to start somwhere - it could not come out of nothing!\n\nLife did not begin in some premordial ooze as the result of a reaction between certain chemicals catalyzed by sunlight. That theory is sheer stupidity and requires more faith to believe than it does to believe in God.
43519
It hasn't been "proven" wrong, but there are several alternatives.  Check these sources for in depth information.  I got this information from James P. Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible", which covers evolution, cosmology, physics, environmentalism, AIDS, and the general attitude that the most prevalent theories must be right.
565730
The short answers are:\n\nNobody really knows,\n\nand,\n\nYes, it's possible the universe is collapsing.\n\nIn fact, it's amazing how little we really "know" about the universe.\n\nOf course that just encourages people to propose more theories.  After all, to get a Phd you only have to write a thesis, you don't have to prove it!  Yes, you have to "defend" it, but that's not the same as proof.\n\n"The Big-Bang", "String Theory" (proposed to prevent the Big-Bang from collapsing) and "Steady-state Universe" are all conjectures based on imagination.  So far, there is only contradictory evidence to support any of these theories. We'll have to await the next Einstein to sort it all out!\n\nBy the way, what has Hawking contributed to cosmology?  I've read his stuff, and all he does is elaborate on other's thinking.  Just like Carl Sagan.  I think both are overrated and unoriginal. \n\nWhat do you think?
1005839
We don't know. The physics were different at that point in the universe's development.  That doesn't mean that the big bang is wrong.  All we can say to answer your specific question is, we don't know.\n\nThe same way that we don't know why electrons only move in discrete  jumps in their orbitals or why the gravitational constant is what it is.  That doesn't make the atomic theory wrong or our theories of gravity wrong.  Just incomplete.
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.
774298
Nowhere in the Big Bang theory it says that before it there was nothing. Basically because the big bang theory does not study what caused it and what was before it.\n\nSo your whole statement is wrong from its basis. The thermodynamic laws where not there before the big bang. Matter and energy and laws that govern it are for this universe we live in and experience daily and did not start to apply to only a few fractions of a second after the big bang. \n\nJust an addition for Mr Drummer boy below.\n\nWhen you start going back to far, things become fuzzy. The physical laws we’re all familiar with start to break down under such high energy densities. Really weird stuff starts to happen, like different fundamental forces ceasing to exist and merging with one another.\n\nThanks to work in particle accelerators, which can recreate such high energy densities for brief fractions of a second, we’re starting to get a feel for how physical laws operate under these conditions, and thus, are slowly working our way backwards. But there comes a point where we just don’t have a good enough handle on things to be able to say how things work back to pretty early (10-35 seconds), but things were happening so fast and furiously, there’s still a long ways to go before we can uncover what happened to cause the whole mess.\n\n\nWe only now start to see what was like in the very few fractions of the second after the big bang and there is plenty of evidence in the universe that something like that took place.\n\nOh by the way I cannot believe that you are a physics major and wrote to us that 10 to the minus 43 is .10000000000... which is obviously equal to 0.1 - 10 to the minus 43 is 0.000000000000000000000(42 zeros)1. If you got a physics major I am an astronaut.
440137
Repeat after me:\n\n"There is no explosion in the Big Bang theory, only expansion."\n\nThe name "Big Bang" was actually originated by opponents of the theory, and unfortunate name as the theory involves no "bang" at all.
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.