*IF* our Universe was, for a small amount of time, so dense that all protons and neutrons in our Universe had a chance to fuse together into helium nuclei, then a specific fraction of those protons and neutrons would have done so in all parts of our Universe. We know that probability of such reactions at a specific density, and Big Bang Cosmology makes a specific prediction for the length of time that such a reaction could take place. When you do the math, you find that BBC predicts that all parts of our Universe should be about 90% hydrogen and 10% helium. That is, indeed, what we observe, even in those parts of the Universe where no stellar nucleo-synthesis has taken place. Those who advocate alternatives to BBC are reduced to stating, "This ratio is a fact about our Universe that I cannot explain -- it just IS that way."
No
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 Doppler effect and background cosmic radiation are the big ones.
According to the believes of physics and the big bang, we know that the big bang was both big and a bang. Since we are still receiving radiation from the big bang, So considering that factor I would say that it was big and a bang. What do you believe?
Big Bang - Big Bang album - was created on 2009-08-19.
Hydrogen and helium were the two main elements created in abundance during the Big Bang nucleosynthesis. These elements were formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang, when the universe was hot and dense enough to support nuclear fusion.
They do not, per se. The perpetual expansion of the universe does.
Discard it all.
Cos it is an amazing tv show
The Best of Big Bang
my big bang x-power seems to handle 990x just fine. dosent seem to be any problems. allthough it is not currently support by MSI