How do you prove the big bang theory wrong?

Answer 1

The Curvature of space indicated by the distributions of galaxies with distance. If galaxies seem to increase somewhat more slowly than the cube of distance, then this indicates positive curvature and finiteness of space.

If space is finite , the Big Bang is bogus.

The error of the Big Bang is the mis-interpretation of the redshift!

At present, there has never been any measured curvature of space. It is mathematically flat -- and infinite -- to within 0.5% of perfect flatness.

The Big Bang Hypothesis predicted the existence of isotropic microwave radiation whose wavelength distribution would be that of a black-body at temperature 3 degrees Kelvin (3K). When such radiation was found, PERFECTLY in accordance with the prediction of the Big Bang, it went from a hypothesis to a theory, just like plate tectonics.

Red shift can be equally well explained either by the Big Bang or the Steady State hypotheses. No matter how badly the red-shift might be interpreted, the existence of the CMBR can ONLY be explained by the Big Bang.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, there are no tests that can be conducted to confirm the Big Bang theory. Or at least, none that can be devised at this time. However, one piece of evidence in support of the Big Bang concept is the existence of a background microwave radiation which is consistent with - but which does not PROVE - the Big Bang.

Answer 3

The big bang theory was supposedly created by 1/1,000,000th of an electron and that is impossible. A conversation that was between Ravi Zacharias and Vick ramsine, who in the minds of some are highly respected world experts in bioevolution and astrophysics: "The possibility of the human enzyme coming together by random' says Vick ramsine professor of mathematics at Cardiff Wales, 'the possibility of that happening by chance is 1 in 1040,000 which is more than the number of atoms in this universe."

The man who developed the Big Bang Theory was Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest. He called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". This cannot possibly be true, because it doesn't make sense to me. Science has its place, but God set it into motion. You do not need evidence to prove God. He proves himself. However you do need supporting evidence for scientific theories.

_____________

Theories exist on different levels. I might have a 'theory' that there is no or very little atmosphere in space. Once we go there, and determine it first-hand, the theory is 'proven' or 'disproven'. We have been there, and have proven that there is no or very little atmosphere in space.

There are other kinds of theory that are more abstract in nature, and that might be for various reasons beyond our ability to 'experience' in the physical world, even though these theories have led to huge amounts of productive work and other theories/hypotheses that have yielded useful and tangible discoveries. These theories tend to be higher-level, or much more fundamental explanations of the world. Einstein's theories of relativity are good examples, along with his discovery of the equivalence between mass and energy. We can't directly observe the bending of space/time, for example. That hasn't prevented us from using the theories to inspire a great deal of useful and productive work. And even though his equations allow us to predict the energy output of nuclear reactions, there is NO guarantee that there isn't an even better expression of this equivalence waiting to be uncovered. After all, Einstein demonstrated the very real limits and flaws of the Newtonian theories.

The abstract theories are interesting because, perhaps with some rare exceptions, they can NEVER be sufficiently and completely researched, allowing us to consider them proven. At this point in our human intellectual and scientific/engineering development, theories of universal inflation/expansion are firmly on the side of "abstract theory". We are also hampered by some obvious limits of experimentation. The theory is based on interpretations of many inter-related observations from a few different disciplines. In all likelihood it can never, ever be proven beyond all doubt. However, to the point of the question, new observations [not theological or philosophical speculations] might be made that will clearly and unambiguously contradict the current conclusions that most scientists consider true.

That would seriously call this or any other fundamental theory into question, and there will be intense struggles both scientific and personal; long-held theories, especially if they helped shape a number of important professional reputations, do not go down gently. But over time, clear results and the new interpretations they inspire rise to the top. So as long as research supports the prevailing world-view, it remains as a workable and useful explanation. When theories last for many decades or for centuries, they begin to hold more and more weight, and their downfall seems less and less likely. But however long a fundamental theory remains supported, a stunning overturn is NEVERimpossible...

Subtle point here: All of this does not mean that we can never actually arrive at a true and unchallengeable theory. It means only that the heuristic of modern science never allows us to dismiss the possibility that the theory can be challenged and dispoven. In other words, we may develop a theory that IS absolutely true, but we can never know with certainty that it is.

Answer 4

well look at the solar system everything is in order ask yourself this if i had a bag full of stones and put a dynamite in the center and blow it up will everything be in order that is proof.Scientists have prooven that the earth was once a planet of water so people back in 2000 years ago would,NT know would they and god said he promises not to end the world by flooding it that's why after it rains he puts a rainbow to show his still has his promiss. god bless you

***

The above paragraph shows a terrible -- but all too common -- misconception about Big Bang Cosmology (BBC). Specifically, that it was an explosion of matter into empty space. No, it was NOTHING like dynamite in the center of our solar system -- it was an EXPANSION of space itself, with matter becoming less and less dense as space expanded.

The result is a horribly dis-ordered Universe, where very little of what is left has any order to it whatsoever. Most of our Universe is HIGHLY hostile to life, as if life was never meant to exist here.

Fortunately, there are (about) 10^20 stars in that small part of our Universe that we can see, and this small sliver is (at MOST) a mere 1/10^21 of the Universe as a whole. In addition, there may be as many as 10^500 Universes in the multi-verse. To say, "Isn't it amazing that life exists here on our Earth" is akin to saying, "Isn't it fortunate that New York City is on land -- because if it were under water, people couldn't survive there." Life exists -- and cities are built -- where it CAN happen.

BBC makes NO statement about what happened before the Big Bang, or why it started to expand -- any more than statements about gravity try to explain why we have mass in our Universe, and why mass warps space. We know that gravity DOES exists, just like we know that BBC is correct.

There ARE some unanswered questions about BBC, just like there are unanswered questions about lightning in the sky. For the latter, scientists still haven't figured WHY lightning occurs. This can mean (1) scientists need to do some more work or (2) lightning doesn't actually happen, it's just "an unsupported theory." I'm unaware of anyone making the latter claim simply because scientists don't fully understand lightning.

How to prove the Big Bang isn't real? This is like asking how to prove that gravity doesn't exist in our solar system. The observational FACTS about our Universe are pretty unanimous that, about 13.7 billion years ago, space in our Universe began to expand. These facts include Hubble Expansion, cosmic microwave background radiation (its existence, isotropy, and spectrum), and the ratio of hydrogen to helium in all parts of our Universe. BBC fully explains all of these facts, alternative are reduced to saying, "That's just the way our Universe happens to be, and I can't begin to explain why this is so."