Was The Big Bang An ENORMOUS Star?
828863
It's very possible, and has been speculated by many scientists.  But the biggest negative arguement is: "Where did the first enormous star originate?"\n\nThis, however, could be the result of extremely concentrated mass, with no where to go but together.
110345
the big bang is just another theory that scientists came up with. it's not proven, just like many other theories are not proven, but it is the most supported by scientists because it says that a molecule (atom) the size of alittle dot exploded 10-17 billion years ago, and kept expanding. this is mostly supported because today, we still see other objects in space red shifted on doppler system, which means that objects are moving away from us, and expanding the border of the universe.
297935
Big Bang is a theory that tries to explain the formation of the universe, its galaxies, its stars and planets etc.\n\nIt says that the Universe was created by an explosion of a Primeval Atom thus causing it to expand and move away from each other. This was actually based on the Hubble Law which says that Galaxies around us are expanding at speeds directly proportional to their distance from Earth, based on the observation of Edwin Hubble, 1929.\n\nIts a huge topic with lots of technical arguments and counter arguments. Here is the link that will satisfy your quest on Big Bang, atleast for starters...\n\n.:Fishie:.
24213
The biggest known star is the Pistol Star.Its size is about 100 times the Sun!It is ten million times brighter than the sun.It is also largest in terms of volume.   Born up to three million years ago, the Pistol Star may have weighed up to 200 times the mass of the Sun before shedding much of its weight in violent eruptions that began about 4,000 to 6,000 years ago.The Pistol Star is invisible to the naked eye because it is hidden 25,000 light-years away behind great dust clouds in the center of our Milky Way Galaxy.It is located in Pistol Nebula in the centre of Milky Way Galaxy.
71447
big bang. and its a big universe, we cant be all alone
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.
580560
Probably like it started, with a BIG BANG.
976621
In a word, no.\nWhen you look that far away, you are looking back into time to the beginning of the universe.\nBut if the universe did originate from the big bang, i.e, a point source singularity, then all of the observable universe that far away was one point (or relatively close to it)!  So what would it really mean for the big bang to have come from a certain direction?  It came from all directions!\nObservations made that far away are made in the infra-red and microwave also.  It forms the 2.7°K background radiation.  This background radiation is not uniform, but it is also not as polarized as you may think. It does form the dipole anisotropy, but is not in general due to the big bang.\nSee:\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html
188040
Absolutely.\n\nIt is now thought (and even more radio telescope survey evidence on this has just come in) that at the very beginning of things (the Big Bang) there was nothing but energy. As the Universe expanded and cooled, elementary particles were formed from that energy, and some time later, things cooled enough for atoms to form and stay together. Since it takes force to push protons together (to form nuclei of the higher atomic number atoms), and the force wasn't available, only hydrogen (and a very small amount of helium and perhaps an even smaller amount of lithium -- the simplest atoms) resulted.\n\nLots of hydrogen, distributed in a sort of clumpy manner, will eventually collapse into stars. Large stars burn through their available fuel relatively quickly, all the while forcing together protons into more complex atoms such as carbon and oxygen and silicon, and so on. When these large stars go nova, they spray a good part of themselves into interstellar space where the material is incorporated into newly forming stars or collected into clouds around them. As those clouds collapse into planets (which must be very common as we have now seen some hundreds of them around stars in the local area in our galaxy (ie, within a few hundred light years)), the non-hydrogen material in them is actually star stuff. Probably not really dust particles in most cases, but...\n\nAnd that's how it was. Fascinating stuff.
844932
i don't think in terms of the universe being massive compared to the size of galaxies,but minuscule compared to that which is outside the universe, that way there is an endless supply of material on hand.here at the"center of the universe"it's all relative to our thinking everything is so large but since all we can do is theorize about whats out there,why cant we theorize outside the box,way outside the box. where did science get this idea ? i believe that a chaotic set of galaxies brings about an ordered universe that is a single organism of a larger set of chaotic universes,which in turn forms ordered groups of galactic multiverses which is a small component of a megaverse ,and so on
164275
I've not heard of this, but the biggest explosion since Big Bang? Sounds very exaggurated in my opinion. There was however an article about a large star exploding and turning into a black hole that was observed.\n\nThe last link I think talks about your event. The middle one is just interesting if you wonder about them in general.
505719
Cheerleader101,\n    Let us go on a bit on the scientific track.  Have you heard about the famous 'Big Bang Theory'?  It says that the Universe was in the beginning a condensed mass which shrank and shrank inwards.  When it could now shrink any more becoming a condensed mass of great pressure, it burst and thus ever expanding Universe was created. This explosion of immeasurable magnitude is called by the scietists who formulated this theory as Big Bang.  \n    Let us now go on the track of Ancient Vedic Wisdom propagated by the Rishis(Indian Saints) of india.  About 4000BC, in the Upanishads, Rishis wrote:  "Asade Vedamagra. Thad Aseeth. Thadandam Niravarthathaya. Thad Visphotayatha. Rajatham cha Suvarnam Abhavath." This is Sanskrit which means :In the Beginning there was mothing.  From nothing existence was born.  And it became a round mass and it began to shrink.  Then when it could not shrink anymore, it exploded" .  This is the simple and plain meaning.  Great amount of explanations and details lie behind these utterances of Rishis.\n    I will write about this in detail later!\n         Mukundan Pallipravan
847665
In my point of view, the Big Bang is incorrect solely from the wording of the title of the theory. A Bang implies an explosion which has to have an epicenter of sorts and an explosion as implied with enough power to spread the universe over billions of years, gravity or not, is mathematically improbable, because the force needed to spread the universe would have eradicated the universe. Thus, a trough effect will have to take place with anti gravity of unimaginable power to start the big crunch. The entire theory is based on the assumption that the universe of finite space and finite time. If Space time is in fact infinite as assumed by many, than the theory is off, but could be construed as a continuing cycle. If the big bang happens, then the big crunch, and then the big bang and so on is in fact a continuous cycle, than the big bang can in fact be correct.
762962
no, but i can tell you what we think it is:\n\nit is a star whose gravity is too great for the nuclear fusion in its core to negate.  it collapses in on itself and goes supernova.  then it is a neutron star.  if the gravity is still too great, it collapses some more and becomes a black hole.  its gravity is so strong that light itself cannot escape it (thus it is 'black').  they are suspected to be at the center of many galaxies, especially quasars and other active galaxies.  one is believed to be at the center of our own galaxy, the milky way.\n\nonce again, no one has really seen one, just the indirect evidence that one exists (strange star orbits, gas being sucked into nothing, strange bursts of some kind of rays (can't remember what kind) coming out of the poles, etc.\n\neverybody is pretty convinced that they exist.  its just kinda hard to prove.\n\nps the idiot down there who said black holes are dead galaxies has no clue what he is talking about. please ignore him.  and its not the size of an atom, its an infinitely small point, the swartzchild point.
1106396
err the big bang was not really a a collision of matter. All mass and energy in the universe existed at a sigularity, or a dimensionless point. The Big Bang simply expanded and inflated it.
959365
It is explosion of Gamma ray that led to the Big Bang as per the theory which is not fully scientifically proved as yet. Because, now also there are Gamma ray explosions take place in the Space from where stars and other Cosmic bodies are formed. Matter formation is billions of light years after the Big Bang.\n\nFor more, please read the fascinating book by Carl Sagan, 'Cosmos'.
320913
Yes, space is big. I mean really really big. You can't possibly imagine how absolutely huge it is. Also it's dark, cold and empty for the most part.