is it tru that the big bang theory is provd wrong as it is found tht a star can be formd only aftr milion yrs?
402161
I dont know. Stars forming quickly doesnt disprove big bang. the bang did not make stars. I guess it spread the compounds that stars form out of around. I also wonder at the 'quality' of a star that forms really quickly. But everyone knows big bang is hooey. Odin make the universe from the body of the slain frost giant, Ymir. They should teach that in school.
1006083
Hi bornsmartgal\n\nOther possible explanations for the observations which support big bang theory are numerous.  They tend to focus on trying to explain the redshift observations, and they include tired light, strange compton scattering, large hydrogen clouds, etc.  The thing is that no single explanation (other than big bang theory) explains *all* the observations.  For example very few of them explain the time dilation of distant supernovas.  There's also the Tolman surface brightness test which distinguishes between big bang models and other models by a factor of z^4 (this is a nice test because it gives a very large discrepancy).  Only an expanding universe passes the test.\n\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
1024461
The discovery of  the universe expansion(doppler red shifted spectrum lines) was the source of the Big Bang theory (i think)\n\nBTW: this is a SCIENCE thread, all you Jesus Freak back off!\nthe theory of the Big Bang is compatible with the concept of a god.\nwhat was there before the big bang ..let there be light....BANG.
545813
Time was born along with space and energy in the Big Bang. \nSo, it has no sense at all asking for the "cause" of the BB. Causes precede effects in time. But there was NO time before the BB. Even the statement "before the big bang" is flawed. But our linear minds find it very difficult -if not impossible- to conceive.
746151
The big bang theory makes several very specific predictions about what astronomers should find in the universe if the theory is correct.  One of these is the "microwave background radiation," the remnants of the period in the early universe when it first cooled enough for light to be visible.  The theory also predicts what that radiation should look like in terms of temperature, density, and fluctuations.\nA couple of Bell Labs engineers, working with a microwave antenna, had this persistent noise they couldn't figure out the source of.  After isolating it, and measuring it in various parts of the sky, they discovered it was this very background radiation that was predicted by the big bang theory -- and they weren't even looking for it.  Since then we've launced satellites that have measured the CMB (cosmic microwave background) across the entire sky at high resolution, and it matches the theory's predictions to a very high degree of accuracy.\n\nThat's just one prediction the theory makes that has been found to be correct -- there are dozens of others.  Go to your library and get some books on the big bang and cosmology in general -- too much to answer here :)
633886
No that assumtion is wrong. Space is continuinly expanding, so therefore people will assume it is infininte. Leaving religion out of it, space we know was created by a big bang, I find that hard to believe, not for religious reasons but I see it phyisicaly impossible. It is not infinite, just very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, big
795885
The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory in cosmology, initially suggested by Georges Lemaitre. It is essentially the most widely accepted theory about the universe's origin. \n\nThe idea is that the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago (current estimate ~13.5 billion) from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions. Before that point all matter was concentrated at an infinitessimal point, known as a singularity. \n\nThe idea was most strongly propounded after the astronomer Edwin Hubble (after whom the famous telescope is named) found in 1929 that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance, suggesting at some point they were all at a single point. The theory also predicted the existence of a cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). and received widespread acceptance when this radiation was actually discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in the 1960s.
652025
Many stars are between 1 billion and 10 billion years old. Some stars may even be close to 13.7 billion years old, which is the observed age of the universe. (See Big Bang theory and stellar evolution.) They range in size from the tiny neutron stars (which are actually dead stars) no bigger than a city, to supergiants like the North Star (Polaris) and Betelgeuse, in the Orion constellation, which have a diameter about 1,000 times larger than the Sun—about 1.6 billion kilometers. However, these have a much lower density than the Sun.\n\nOne of the most massive stars known is Eta Carinae, with 100–150 times as much mass as the Sun. Recent work by Donald Figer, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, suggests that 150 solar masses is the upper limit of stars in the current era of the universe. He used the Hubble Space Telescope to observe about a thousand stars in the Arches cluster, a massive young star cluster near the core of the Milky Way, and found no stars over that limit despite a statistical expectation that there should be several. The reason for this limit is not precisely known, but the Eddington limit is part of the answer. The very first stars to form after the Big Bang may have been larger, up to 300 solar masses or more, due to the complete absence of elements heavier than lithium in their composition. This generation of supermassive stars is long extinct, however, and currently only theoretical.\n\nWith a mass only 93 times that of Jupiter, AB Doradus C, a companion to AB Doradus A, is the smallest known star undergoing nuclear fusion in its core. Smaller bodies are brown dwarfs, which occupy a poorly-defined grey area between stars and gas giants. The minimum mass a star can have is estimated to be in the vicinity of 75 Jupiters.
127551
Because the universe is a vacuum and there's nothing to stop it from expanding. This is assuming that the big bang theory is correct and it's expanding because of the explosion .
857388
I think it is some calculation based on the most distant objects we can see (with radio telescopes etc.) and interpretation of 'background' radio echos attributed to the big bang. One figure gave the universe a diameter of 26 billion light years.\nI have heard about the big bang theory and people say they have evidence and the scientist are not really disputing it. As a lay reader this will do it for me.\nBut other possibilities do exist that remain consistent with what we have found out about our universe.\nIs this the first big bang in this universe, could we be expanding in the wake of the last such explosion that occurred in this part of a larger universe?.\nHow many universes are there?\nFrom a mental point of view I find it hard to assign a boundary to the universe and just accept there is nothing beyond it.
696569
The Big Bang  is by far and away the most accepted theory as to the origins of the Universe. I would say that 90% of all cosmologists and astronomers subscribe to it.\n  This much we know as FACT: in 1964 two guys working for Bell Labs, named Penzias and Wilson, accidently detected white noise in outer space. This static was later found to be background residue leftover from the Big Bang. FACT: All galaxies are moving away from us; this is known by the color of "shift" they emit, due to the Doppler effect. a red shift indicates something is receding. The further out they are, the faster they move. This is known as the Hubble Constant.\n  So: we know there was a huge explosion that has caused everything to scatter, and we can determine age from gas spectography from stars, using burned out ones as a guidline. Therefore: Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. There is no other theory out there that meets with even a fraction of the approval this does.
188695
If I were you, I'd search it myself instead of asking people, but that's just me.\n\nThere are so many theories to how the universe started, in which the Big Bang theory is the most popular. In this theory, it all started with a single point with the same amount of matter in the universe and it was really really hot. Then it just explodes, continuing to expand at an alarming speed. It was so hot that not even the particles that made up atoms could not even form until the universe was expanded enough to cool down, and then the first atoms were made. Then it just continues to expand to where we are now.\n\nThat's one theory. I like the never-started theory. There was no beginning to our universe. The reason why the Big Bang theory is the most accepted theory is because we (us humans) like to think that there is a start to everything. It just makes sense that there is a beginning. And it's easier to build theories and ideas upon it.\n\nPS Penguins!!!
789855
I go with the Big Bang theory and that our planet just happened to be in the right place at the right time. If our planet grew life then there is the possibility that other planets in other galaxies grew life as well. We just happened to get the right amount of heat and light from the sun.
857876
The stars say ... No.\n\nNo, there's not.\n\nGood luck!
1074557
Is the Big Bang Theory still as widely accepted in the scientific world? Or is it losing ground to other theories?\n\nThe Big Bang Theory indicates that we live in an ever-expanding universe, moving away from every other universe on the fabric of space-time.  Although some scientists are careful to point out that “Andromeda, our nearest large galactic neighbor, is actually moving toward us, not away. Such exceptions arise because Hubble's law describes only the average behavior of galaxies (Scientific American March 2005).”\n\nBelief in One Theory\n\nSo many take the position that “my idea is all correct and your idea is all wrong.”  These ideas can be labeled as theories, doctrines, or whatever; they challenge us to examine our ideas and the views of others.  If we are insecure, we prefer to dismiss the viewpoints of others rather than examine our own.  However, if we are emotionally mature, we tend to be willing to review our own position and seek the merit in the perspective of others.  Such emotional maturity was once defined as “I am what I am, nothing better, nothing worse, and I find it good.”  This non-competitive stance is essential for open-minded pursuit of truth and knowledge.\n\nAny one who knows about blueprints, mechanical drafting, or architecture understands that it takes at least 3 different viewpoints to be able to accurately understand and recreate anything.  The most commonly used are the top, side, and front views.  For example, a table from the top view is a long and wide rectangle.  From the front view it is narrow and long.   From the side view it is narrow and short.  It is fruitless to argue that any one of these perspectives is false.\n\nIn layman’s terms, we might say that the sky is blue.  Someone else that it is orange.  In comprehensive reality, we can admit that it is sometimes blue and sometimes orange; indeed, sometimes it can be both at the same time.\n\nScientists may argue that light consists of waves, not particles.  Other scientists might insist that light is made of particles, not waves.  However, many modern scientists are beginning to embrace the necessity of models that include both these concepts.  Moreover, the characteristics of something do not have to be restricted to only 2 or 3 substantiated theories or viewpoints; a deep understanding of things may involve a panoramic examination of multiple views, like a spinning and swerving car in a television commercial.\n\nWith that foundation, let us examine the Big Bang Theory, in relation to other current theories of cosmology.  Let me point out the relative merits of each position briefly and how they could possibly harmonize.\n\nBig Bang\n\nThe Big Bang Theory remains the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.  The red shift of light from distant nebulas proves that everything is moving away from a starting point, an expanding universe.  The fact that there is a relationship between these celestial objects speed and their distance reinforces their common origin.  If true, there should be cosmic background radiation, and there is.  Physics tends to support the details of the theory including the cooling that may have lead to the sequential creation of matter and antimatter particles, including quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos and photons.  Similarly, the relative properties of the basic elements tend to support their sequential development, including deuterium (heavy hydrogen), tritium and helium.  The ratio of one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen is a constant in the universe today.\n\nUnresolved problems with this theory are the age of the universe and the basis on a “singularity” (an event which defies current rules of physics).   Also, while the Big Bang Theory defines an event of creation, it does not define what caused it to happen.\n\nThe Big Crunch\n\nIf the total gravitational force of all matter is high enough, it would slow the expansion of the
356868
how else would the universe have come into creation?  Before time existed, there must have been nothing, and at the first possible moment of time, there must have been some minute form of matter.  Whether or not the universe was created in a big bang, I cannot know, since if the big bang theory is true (as well as the Big Crunch theory), then it is possible that the universe has already cycled many times.\n\nBeyond that though, the Big Bang theory does NOT say that the size of the initial chunk of matter was infinitessimally small, it just says that it was supercompact.  It was probably insanely large, but relatively small for all the matter it withheld.
588112
Just check this link and go thru the following article also\n\nhttp://www.big-bang-theory.com/\n\nBig Bang Theory - The Premise\nThe Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. \n\nAccording to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. \n\nAfter its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory. \n\nBig Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions\nThere are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. \n\nAnother misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. \n\nBig Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory\nWhat are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory? \n\nFirst of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning. \nSecond, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law,"