At present there is no observational evidence that would cause someone to question the idea that, about 13.7 billion years ago, the space containing our entire Universe began to expand and has been expanding ever since. Until about 1998, astronomers thought they had detected white dwarf stars that were older than that, but that dating has since been revised.
Big Bang Cosmology, with inflation, makes certain predictions about what we would see if it were true -- and we see all of those except the overwhelming predominance of matter. We do not see any of the predictions made by alternatives to BBC.
Answer2:
The redshift data does not support the Big Bang Theory and without the redshift interpretion favored by the Big bang, there is no Big Bang.
Edwin Hubble did not believe that the redshift indicated expansion. Hubble saw the redshift as an hitherto unrecognized principle of nature.
The redshift is the effect of centripetal force mv2/r = mv2/ct = v/c(mv/t) = v/c(p/t)= (v/c)m
The unrecognized principle of nature is the refraction effect of gravity on light.
n=c/v or v= c/n.
The Universe is older than 13.7 Billion years, likely around 16.5 billion years
The proper law of Gravity is W = -mGM/r + cmV = -mu/r + cP where cP is the so-called "Dark Energy", or the actual vector Momentum Energy cmV= cP. This is The Quaternion Universe with scalar and vector energy!
The work provided even more additional evidence to support the Big Bang theory of the universe.It was also regarded as the starting point for cosmologyas a precision science.
The red shift doesn't just indicate that there is evidence for the Big Bang theory: the Hubble red shift is evidence supporting the Big Bang theory.
No
It is not so much that the universe is expanding, but rather the rationalization for its expansion that provides evidence to support the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang supports interpreted observational evidence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) barrier that there is an evolutionary expansion of the universe which promotes a finite age for the universe.
no the no. of stars in the milky way is not the evidence in support of the big bang cosmology.
The work provided even more additional evidence to support the Big Bang theory of the universe.It was also regarded as the starting point for cosmologyas a precision science.
The red shift doesn't just indicate that there is evidence for the Big Bang theory: the Hubble red shift is evidence supporting the Big Bang theory.
Discard it all.
No
The red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation was the evidence used to develop the big bang theory.
It is not so much that the universe is expanding, but rather the rationalization for its expansion that provides evidence to support the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang supports interpreted observational evidence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) barrier that there is an evolutionary expansion of the universe which promotes a finite age for the universe.
Well I do now one theory about the universe. It's the big bang theory. The big bang theory is a theory about how the universe was created.Scientist think that a big explosion created the universe.Scientist found lots of evidence that the big bang theory was true.
It is not so much that the universe is expanding, but rather the rationalization for its expansion that provides evidence to support the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang supports interpreted observational evidence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) barrier that there is an evolutionary expansion of the universe which promotes a finite age for the universe.
the big bang occured
no the no. of stars in the milky way is not the evidence in support of the big bang cosmology.
edwin hubble
expansion of the universe as shown by the Hubble constant3K universal microwave background radiationetc.