There isn't any real empirical evidence for the Big Bang. However, there are lots of stray facts and some interpretations of possibilities that seem to indicate that something like a "big bang" may have occurred.
But the big bang isn't a "fact"; it happened, or PROBABLY happened, about 14 billion years ago, and nobody was around to take video of it. There are a great number of knowns that sort-of correlate with the big bang hypothesis, and a fair number of knowns that run counter to it. Anybody who thinks that the Big Bang is some sort of Absolute Truth is likely to be severely disappointed when new facts come to light that cause the concept to be revised a little - or a lot!
Al Gore was an idiot; the "science" is NEVER "settled", and anybody who claims that "the science is settled" knows nothing about science. The future will be filled with wonders that we can hardly guess at now.
It is important evidence of the Big Bang.
The 'big bang' theory.
It is quite clear, from observations, that the Universe is expanding, and that it started from a very hot and very dense start, currently called the "Big Bang". It is not quite clear where the energy came from; there are several speculations about this, but there is not much evidence about what happened before the Big Bang - or whether there even was a "before".
The Big Bang Theory is set in Pasadena California.
Researchers found the "cosmic microwave background radiation", which is a heat imprint left over from the big bang. The redshift of light emitted by most galaxies indicates the universe is expanding.
No, it's the other way round. The Big Bang is responsible for the redshift.
One major piece of evidence supporting the validity of the Big Bang theory is the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is a faint glow of radiation that fills the universe and is considered a remnant of the early stages of the universe's expansion.
no the no. of stars in the milky way is not the evidence in support of the big bang cosmology.
The red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation was the evidence used to develop the big bang theory.
They didn't; the big bang theory is just an idea or a theory, not a fact. The empirical evidence that our Universe was, 13.7 billion years ago, much more dense that it is now, is overwhelming. No other explanation even begins to explain what we observe in our Universe. Saying the Big Bang is a "just an idea or theory" is like saying gravity is "just an idea or a theory, not a fact."
yes it will happen again after the big crunch then of course, the big munch..... At present there is no evidence that another Big Bang will occur.
He doesn't
Some questions about the Big Bang theory and its implications for the origin of the universe include: What caused the Big Bang? How did the universe evolve after the Big Bang? What evidence supports the Big Bang theory? What are the implications of the Big Bang for our understanding of the universe's beginning and future?
edwin hubble
There are two questions commonly asked:1. Is it real, or did God create the universe ex nihilo?2. Did the Big Bang create more than one universe?3. How can the big bang account for dark matter and dark energy?
The big bang theory is the prevailing scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. Other theories, such as the cyclic model or the multiverse hypothesis, involve different mechanisms for the universe's origin but are speculative and lack empirical support. At present, the big bang theory is the most widely accepted explanation supported by observational evidence.
Humanists typically believe in scientific explanations for the creation of the world, such as the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory. They focus on rational thinking and empirical evidence rather than religious or supernatural beliefs.