Coming from an atheist, this view might surprise some people but after studying this subject hard and giving it due consideration and comparing it with some religious doctrines, I have arrived at the conclusion that this theory is just a rubbish made up to explain some observations (as the religious made up God) but which, like God, fails woefully when probed further.

There are many holes in this theory. Even though it expalins a lot of things, actually contradicts itself.

Just last month, the most ardous proponents of the big bang as the ultimate explanation admited that they were mistaken by more than 80 million years. http://www.todayonline.com/daily-focus/science/universe-ages-80-million-years-big-bang-gets-clearer

80 million years! Think about it. The so called scientific community swept this under the carpet and said the fundamentals didn't change. Give me a break.

Let's look at the theory proper. Many scientists found problems with this Big Bang nonsense but the proponents, instead of using science, took a leaf from religion and invented something that explains away every problem: cosmic inflation!

Ask them to calculate the size of the universe if they know the beginning and the rate of acceleration, and they look like monkeys in a headlamp.

"You don't believe cosmic inflation, hey, here's dark matter." What is dark matter? Wait for it. "It is that which cannot be seen, be felt, or be heard, but we believe it is there because it makes sense for it to be there." Sounds familiar?

I believe in the ability of science to solve problems but I cannot accept blatant nonsense just because it comes from people with vested authorities.

Imagine this: A few million years ago, scientists in a far planet looking at earth and observing huge birds floating around the sky would conclude that there was not enough gravitational pull on earth to make things stick on the ground. So forget deduction through observation without all the facts.

Of course we all know that. Except for the scientheists in the house.

Wow i tink dis is what u call atheism being able to think right and not believe some jargons some people created such as religion and d big bang theory in which there is no concrete evidence to support their claim

Reyginus: Of course we all know that. Except for the scientheists in the house.

What is scientheist?

Rey is so crazy

just to make things clear. Though i know that i use big b.ang so much in my discussions, i understand that big b.ang is not enough to explain ALL observations in the universe. What i subscribe to is CYCLIC COSMOLOGY. googling that will tell you something more.

[b]Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang", expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.

Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950. [/b]

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

ooman: just to make things clear. Though i know that i use big b.ang so much in my discussions, i understand that big b.ang is not enough to explain ALL observations in the universe. What i subscribe to is CYCLIC COSMOLOGY. googling that will tell you something more.

well reading on the issue of cyclic cosmology. i see it as another indefinite and inconclusive explanation of the origin of the earth.
you see this things in general make me at times want to term myself a agnostic when it comes to the origin of the earth.

Chicken and egg which one came first?

No one knows the origin of the universe. Just like no one knows the origin of God.

Yimple and yhort.

Ymodulus:
well reading on the issue of cyclic cosmology. i see it as another indefinite and inconclusive explanation of the origin of the earth.
you see this things in general make me at times want to term myself a agnostic when it comes to the origin of the earth.

except cyclic cosmology does not explain the origin of the earth but that of the cosmos.

Nothing about the origin of the cosmos is fully understood, we must space travel to fully understand anything about our universe

euromilion: Chicken and egg which one came first?

the egg. that is a very old question that has been devoured by evolutionary science.

pic of universe expansion

ooman:

except cyclic cosmology does not explain the origin of the earth but that of the cosmos.

Nothing about the origin of the cosmos is fully understood, we must space travel to fully understand anything about our universe

i quickly read more on Einstein Relativity theory. and i think there is one point that should be read and understood carefully.
This statement
"The universe is expanding, and the far parts of it are moving away from us faster than the speed of light."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity


Now compare that statement to the Big bang theory. You might ask if the earth dis-tengrates or tear apart at the speed of light, wouldnt have the earth been broken down by now? you see this is one thing i really don't like with the relativity theory. though i appreciate the fact that it expatiates much on the use calculation for natural science

ooman: pic of universe expansion

Can we get any prove of the earth expanding?? as in size?. Mathematical proofs if possible

Ymodulus:
i quickly read more on Einstein Relativity theory. and i think there is one point that should be read and understood carefully.
This statement
"The universe is expanding, and the far parts of it are moving away from us faster than the speed of light."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity


Now compare that statement to the Big bang theory. You might ask if the earth dis-tengrates or tear apart at the speed of light, wouldnt have the earth been broken down by now? you see this is one thing i really don't like with the relativity theory. though i appreciate the fact that it expatiates much on the use calculation for natural science

Einstein's equation is divided into two parts Special Relativity and General Relativity. When talking about Einstein's equation, you must specify which you refer to.

For your question, we dont know the extent of space yet. But believe me, we know that the sun is got 10 billions years more to live before it explodes as in supernova through measureing its amount of H2. That is what cosmologists think will destroy the earth.

The earth is so small to be affected by the expansion of the universe now. Give it time, everything will be affected and death will come to all life.

Discussing this matter is really scary. Lets discuss how to make life sweet for us now that we can live.

Ymodulus:
Can we get any prove of the earth expanding?? as in size?. Mathematical proofs if possible

the earth is NEVER expanding, only the universe. Where did you get the idea of an expanding earth.

musKeeto:
What is scientheist?

Scientheism! Ooman is typical.

ooman: Rey is so crazy

hi lord ooman!

Reyginus: Scientheism! Ooman is typical.

what?

ooman: just to make things clear. Though i know that i use big b.ang so much in my discussions, i understand that big b.ang is not enough to explain ALL observations in the universe. What i subscribe to is CYCLIC COSMOLOGY. googling that will tell you something more.

Cyclic gini? *The the next thing now he will demand googling* looses the zeal to argue.

Reyginus: Cyclic gini? *The the next thing now he will demand googling* looses the zeal to argue.

with whom would I argue? with someone who doesnt know what inanimate means? pls

ooman:

with whom would I argue? with someone who doesnt know what inanimate means? pls

Lol. You're really serious on this your 'inanimate' campaign. Interestingly, you forget so soon that where you come from, animation is achieved in the absence of an existing entity. The quack scientist!

Reyginus: Lol. You're really serious on this your 'inanimate' campaign. Interestingly, you forget so soon that were you come from animation is achieved in the absence of an existing entity. The quack scientist!

some1 who understand what this thing wrote should help.

ooman:

some1 who understand what this thing wrote should help.

I think he called you a quack scientist.

alfaman2:

I think he called you a quack scientist.

am not moved by that. it doesn't matter what recommendations a fool gives.

what am struggling to understand is his previous sentence before that.

ooman:
some1 who understand what this thing wrote should help.

Lol. Are you asking me to dumb down?

Reyginus: Lol. Are you asking me to dumb down?

what you wrote made is absolutely inexplicable except where you abused me.

ooman:

what you wrote made is absolutely inexplicable except where you abused me.

Lol. What do you mean by this? 'what you wrote made is absolutely inexplicable'

Reyginus: Lol. What do you mean by this? 'what you wrote made is absolutely inexplicable'

even with that typo, its still understandable than what you wrote without typos.

Op, not sure what your point is. Are you saying the big ba.ng is incomplete? That isn't exactly new news

wiegraf: Op, not sure what your point is. Are you saying the big ba.ng is incomplete? That isn't exactly new news

I'm saying that it makes no sense. It explains nothing that can't be explained by other theories. It creates more problems and confusion than it resolves.

Even if we ignore all its inadequacies, its fundamental fails woefully in calculating the exact size of the universe, which it could easily do if it were right in any way.