Because if everything we can see is moving away from us, and the further away the faster it's going, if you extrapolate back in time you realize that at some point everything must have been very close together. That's more or less the core of the Big Bang theory.
answer2:
The Big bang is a bust if there is no expansion , motion! Red shift is interpreted as the motion, thus the Big Bang is possible. However, the red shift is misinterpreted. Hubble himself, did not accept the red shift as recession, rather Hubble called the red shift, "a hitherto unrecognized principle of Nature".
The red shift is the indicator of the centrifugal force, associated with the "Dark Energy", the vector energy Ev=mcV. Properly interpreted, the red shift indicates no Expansion, no Big Bang.
Other evidence supporting the Big Bang theory includes the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements in the universe, and the large-scale structure and distribution of galaxies in the universe. Additionally, observations of the universe's expansion and the Hubble law provide further support for the Big Bang theory.
All modern models based on science that are worth their salt would be. The only major theory I know about the origin of the universe is the Big Bang Theory, which is supported by Red Shift observations. Galaxies we can observe are all moving away (we know this due to Red Shift) from a central point, believed to be the epicenter of the Big Bang.
big bang: This is the big bang theory
A theory that the universe formed in a huge explosion
Briefly, redshift shows that most objects move away from us; this means that the Universe is expanding.
No
The red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation was the evidence used to develop the big bang theory.
Other evidence supporting the Big Bang theory includes the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements in the universe, and the large-scale structure and distribution of galaxies in the universe. Additionally, observations of the universe's expansion and the Hubble law provide further support for the Big Bang theory.
massive energy created matterTo get to the theory ... the red shift (and Hubble).If you're referring to how the big bang began, science has no answer.
No, it's the other way round. The Big Bang is responsible for the redshift.
Red shift caused by the galaxies moving apart.
Hello i am minakshi answer is that the big bang theory is an example of old scientific theory as big bang theory explains that there was an explosion but the isotropy and the homogenity of the universe is not explained by big bang theory to explain his we connect inflatation theory with big bang theory to explain it so the big bang theory is also an example of old scientific theory.
All modern models based on science that are worth their salt would be. The only major theory I know about the origin of the universe is the Big Bang Theory, which is supported by Red Shift observations. Galaxies we can observe are all moving away (we know this due to Red Shift) from a central point, believed to be the epicenter of the Big Bang.
The redshift of galaxies is evidence for the Big Bang theory because it shows that the universe is expanding. When light from distant galaxies is redshifted, it means that those galaxies are moving away from us, indicating that the universe is getting larger and supporting the idea that everything originated from a single point in a massive explosion.
the big bang theory
The Big Bang Theory is set in Pasadena California.
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.