Big bang?

What makes scientists think that there was a big bang and not just a big
expansion?

MAYBE YOUR HEAD EXPLODED?

Saul Levy


On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:04:40 +1000, "Andrew W"
wrote:

What makes scientists think that there was a big bang and not just a big
expansion?

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:04:40 +1000, "Andrew W"
wrote:


What makes scientists think that there was a big bang and not just a big
expansion?

This is a very good question. I've asked many for some answers or
explanaiton but have not found anything meaningful. I'll watch this
thread and hope that someone can shed some light on this dark corner
of physics. Gordon

On Sep 28, 7:04*pm, "Andrew W"
wrote:
What makes scientists think that there was a big bang and not just a big
expansion?

My "Critical Mass Density Theory" gives the reason for an
explosion. treBert

PLEASE POST DETAILS OF YOUR I'M A SENILE OLD FOOL THEORY!

Saul Levy


On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:31:38 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

On Sep 28, 7:04*pm, "Andrew W"
wrote:
What makes scientists think that there was a big bang and not just a big
expansion?

My "Critical Mass Density Theory" gives the reason for an
explosion. treBert

On Sep 28, 4:04*pm, "Andrew W"
wrote:
What makes scientists think that there was a big bang and not just a big
expansion?


Big Bank is kind of a misnomer. Some scientists say it was more like
the big whoosh!

Double-A

On Sep 28, 4:04*pm, "Andrew W"
wrote:
What makes scientists think that there was a big bang and not just a big
expansion?

Or the big ongoing that's only a logical process of our known universe
displacing throughout the dark/clear aether with ordinary matter.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:04:40 +1000, "Andrew W"
wrote:

What makes scientists think that there was a big bang and not just a big
expansion?

While the Big Bang model is widely accepted by scientists, it is not
the only model of the Cosmos that is compelling.

Those scientists who accept the Big Bang model actually think of it as
an "expansion" of the Universe, and not as a "bang" or an "explosion"
of any kind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

When scientists began to accept the Big Bang model, it had originally
been named the "hypothesis of the primeval atom" by the Catholic
priest Georges Lemaître, who originally proposed the model...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Then, back in 1949 on a BBC radio program, British astronomer Fred
Hoyle, who believed in a steady state Universe that has no beginning
and no end, made fun of the priest's model by calling it a "Big Bang".
Other people liked the name Big Bang, and so unfortunately it stuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Remember that while it is called the "Big Bang model of the early
development of the Universe", it is still thought of by most
scientists *not* as an explosion or "bang", but as the expansion of
the Universe from a singularity into everything we see today.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Love almost everything; you can only learn to love by loving."

AND YOU GAVE A BIG BOOST TO THE ECONOMY!

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

Saul Levy


On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:43:47 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

Framed signed+ Pope's letter +Indian chief Grey Cloud all fo $20 sold
out locally Internet sold mostly unframed.for 3 bucks. Here is the
kicker I paid postage of $1.10 two color prints cost me $1.70 I'll
end it by saying I lost about 50 cents on each order. Total lose
about 40 bucks. I feel it was worth every penny I made real friends
out of vitual friends.all over the world.It was fun. It keeped Robbin
and I busy. TreBert

On Sep 30, 10:59*am, Painius wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:04:40 +1000, "Andrew W"

wrote:
What makes scientists think that there was a big bang and not just a big
expansion?

While the Big Bang model is widely accepted by scientists, it is not
the only model of the Cosmos that is compelling.

Those scientists who accept the Big Bang model actually think of it as
an "expansion" of the Universe, and not as a "bang" or an "explosion"
of any kind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

When scientists began to accept the Big Bang model, it had originally
been named the "hypothesis of the primeval atom" by the Catholic
priest Georges Lemaître, who originally proposed the model...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Then, back in 1949 on a BBC radio program, British astronomer Fred
Hoyle, who believed in a steady state Universe that has no beginning
and no end, made fun of the priest's model by calling it a "Big Bang".
Other people liked the name Big Bang, and so unfortunately it stuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Remember that while it is called the "Big Bang model of the early
development of the Universe", it is still thought of by most
scientists *not* as an explosion or "bang", but as the expansion of
the Universe from a singularity into everything we see today.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Love almost everything; you can only learn to love by loving."

The Big Bang theory is like a god-fart in a very enclosed elevator, in
that not a soul within that elevator is admitting to being the gassy
one, but using doublethink in order to avoid being singled out.

Meanwhile, the Big Ongoing of aether flow seems to be climbing the
ladder of theories.