Not initially. Indeed, his comments to its first proponent, Jesuit priest Georges LeMaitre, was "Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable." Einstein felt more comfortable with a Universe that was eternally stable, even though the general relativity that Einstein developed did not permit such a Universe to exist. When Edwin Hubble showed that all distant galaxies had a red shift -- exactly as Big Bang Cosmology predicted -- Einstein admitted that his rejection of LeMaitre's idea was his biggest blunder.
no the no. of stars in the milky way is not the evidence in support of the big bang cosmology.
Scientists who study Big Bang Cosmology are (generally) referred to as cosmologists.
The Oscillatory Theory of cosmology.
No such thing exists. Big Bang Cosmology only deals with our Universe as a whole, not individual stars like our Sun.
Amongst cosmologists who have studied the evidence, about 100% of them conclude that Big Bang Cosmology correctly describes our Universe. People who don't reach such a conclusion either- 1) don't understand what Big Bang Cosmology states. 2) don't understand how science works. 3) wouldn't accept these conclusions no matter how much evidence is presented. 4) would -- *IF* they were intellectually consistent -- state that lightning doesn't occur in the sky, on the basis that scientists have to explain why lightning occurs.
All people who believe in the value of observational evidence accept Big Bang Cosmology, just like they accept a heliocentric solar system. In both cases, no other proposal matches what we see, and every significant alternative has been falsified. There are some people who oppose Big Bang Cosmology based solely on their initial presumption of reality: that our entire Universe is significantly younger than 100,000 years. If you START with that presumption, Big Bang Cosmology is, of course, false. The problem is that no observational evidence whatsoever supports that presumption.
In my opinion, I think I shall always remember him because of the "Big Boom Bang" theory.
no the no. of stars in the milky way is not the evidence in support of the big bang cosmology.
The big bang theory is a model of cosmology it does not have any relation with earth's creation .
Scientists who study Big Bang Cosmology are (generally) referred to as cosmologists.
A Catholic Jesuit Priest by the name of George LeMaitre was the first to scientifically and mathematically develop the idea of our Unvierse being the result space expanding from a single point in time. He did so in 1927 to show that Albert Einstein's ideas on cosmology were, at best, ad-hoc. When Edwin Hubble showed that LeMaitre's idea correctly predicted the universal recession of galaxies, Einstein admitted that his original ideas were "the worst mistake of my life." Einstein and Hubble are celebrated scientists; LeMaitre is, for some reason, almost forgotten.
Einstein
The Oscillatory Theory of cosmology.
Big Bang Cosmology deals with the start (not necessary a creation) of our Universe as a whole, not with our Earth.
Jesuit priest George LeMaitre, in 1927, first proposed the idea that became known as the Big Bang. Einstein at first ridiculed the idea, but later accepted it after Edwin Hubble showed that distances between galaxies were, indeed, growing. George Gamow later developed Big Bang Cosmology, predicting (in 1946) a microwave background.
Not just "some," but ALL people who examine the observational facts of our Universe accept Big Bang Cosmology, and idea first proposed by Jesuit priest Georges LeMaitre. Pretty much every observaton predicted by BB (along with Inflation) has been observed, and nothing has been observed that would contradict its basic premise. To say "some people believe" in Big Bang Cosmology is like saying "some people believe" in gravity.
About 378,000 years after the Big Bang. For more details, check the Wikipedia article on "Recombination (cosmology)".