How is the validity of the Big Bang supported?

Answer 1

It isn't ,it is against the laws of Phisics; One of the Laws of Physics;Conservation of Angular Momentum

e.g.If an object is spinning clockwise and bits fly off it they will also spin Clockwise as they fly off.

Try it at home!; get some Friends on a merry go round get some Strong guy to spin your freinds round clockwise and when they fly off,they will fly off spinning clockwise never anti clockwise.try it.

Anyway according to the big bang theory all the matter and planets came from the big bang.all the matter and planets should be spinning the same way off it-true?

How come Venus spins backward?

How come some moons spin backward than their planets?

How come whole galaxys spin backwards???????

If it all came of the big bang then why isn't it all spining in the same direction?

If the Big bang were true it should all be spinning in the same direction.

Answer 2

I have Questions that support why the big bang theory is a lie.

Where did the dense mass come from that started the Big Bang?

How did this dense mass originate from nothing?

Some claim mass existed from all eternity and hence had no beginning but, if mass had no origin, then how could mass presently exist?

If this dense mass originated from energy, that is, from Einsteins equation for mass, m = E divided by c squared, then where did the energy originate?

If this dense mass somehow materialized from the curvature of space, then where did space come from?

If this dense mass somehow materialized out of nothing, then where would the driving force be for the materialization?

Some claim the origin of this dense mass was outside our understanding of time, but if this is true, then how did this dense mass introduce itself into our present understanding of time?

So how do atheists answer these questions?

Many atheists claim that the origin of mass in the Universe is quite speculative at this point in our history, but, perhaps someday scientific research will shed light on this mystery.

In other words, they admit that they do not know.

In the atheists concept of the Universe, there can never be a First Cause, even though the conservation laws of matter and energy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the mathematical science of statistics and the application of logic and reason clearly point to a First Cause.

And the few atheists that will admit to a First Cause, will always rationalize that this First Cause has no intellect.

At present, science can no more explain where our Universe came from than they can explain why there is lightning in the sky. To the same extent that the existence of our Universe "violates" the laws we have come to work with, the existence of lightning violates the atmospheric laws we use.

We can choose to react to this fact about lightning in one of two ways:

1) this is proof that lighting must be the result of a rational, purposeful supernatural being.

2) scientists needs to do more work. More specifically, they need to find out where our present "laws" (which change all the time -- that's how science works) fail to work in explaining lightning.

And we have the same two choices about the existence of our Universe.

Scientists experience no moral or psychological angst when saying, "We do not know." And, when they do so, it can NOT be used as an argument that their observations are false or (even more insidiously) are a lie. Johann Kepler said the same thing when he was able to show that planets went around our Sun in elipses -- he knew that they DID, he just couldn't explain WHY. Fortunately, later work in science found an answer to that. In no way whatsoever could any intelligent person go from "Kepler could not explain these eliptical orbits" to "Eliptical orbits are a lie."

Scientists all agree that SOMETHING caused our Universe to come into existence, that this something pre-dates our Universe, and that they can't say exactly what this something is. The something might have thought, purpose, and even morality behind it. Or it might not. Based on present cosmological evidence, both choices are equally likely.

What can NOT be disputed, based on cosmological evidence, is that our Universe, about 13.7 billion years ago, began to expand; and that this expansion continues to this day. In other words, the Big Bang is as solid a statement as planets going around our Sun in eliptical orbits.

Answer 3

The big bang theory is that our Universe began with an expansion of space (NOT an explosion of matter into space) that continues to this day at a rate that has remained fairly constant over the last 13 billion years or so.

The evidence for this is pretty overwhelming:

1) All galaxies outside our Local Group are red-shifted, and the rate at which their distance from us is increasing, is directly proportional to the distance they are away from us.

2) Microwave radiation with a black-body spectrum of 2.7 K is coming to our Earth from all directions, with an isotropy of one part in 100,000.

3) The ratio of hydrogen to helium in all parts of our Universe is about 90% to 10%.

All three of these facts were observed after the Big Bang predicted them. If either failed to be observed, then the Big Bang would have been completely rejected. No other cosmological hypothesis can explain them beyond, "We know they're what you see, but we have no explanation for their existence."

4) The abundance of deuterium and tritium are as predicted.

5) No quasars exist closer than two billion light years from us; almost all exist at a distance of nine to eleven light-years. Again, this is easy to explain with the BB, impossible to explain with any other model.

6) The ratio of long-lived isotopes (half lives of billion of years) to their decay products are consistent with the former existing for about ten billion years.

7) No white dwarfs -- stars that will remain stable for hundreds of trillions of years -- have been found older than about ten billion years.

The evidence for the Big Bang is as strong as the evidence for inter-planetary gravity.

Answer 4

Mainly

(a) The redshift of distant galaxies, which is believed to be caused by the Doppler effect,

(b) The cosmic background radiation, which agrees closely to the theoretical predictions about the Big Bang,

(c) Calculations that a static Universe can't be stable,

(d) Similarly, a static and eternal Universe would stagnate due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (there would soon be no available energy left), so the Univese must have had a beginning.