The Big Bang (Origins)

by David Turell , Friday, April 30, 2010, 15:15 (5319 days ago) @ dhw

This thread appears to be more of a fizzle than a bang, which surprises me since it's so central to our discussion.-It is not a fizzle. I've been away for several days. 
> 
> What strikes me quite forcibly is that there is absolutely no consensus on anything except the fact that the universe is expanding. "Big Bang" itself could be a complete misnomer, as there may have been no bang, and the argument that the universe sprang from nothing is no less speculative than any other theory.-Current theory, which fits ovservations very well, is that the BB was a very hot BB. Expansion theory fits observations to a "t".
> 
> As physics is a foreign country for me, perhaps someone can tell me why the expansion cannot be caused by an unknown source that continues to produce new energy and matter, which in turn forces old matter further and further apart. Why would this be less feasible than, for instance, a single violent event creating something out of nothing, or an endless process of expansion and contraction?-This proposal does not fit the observations of cosmologists. Sir Fred Hoyle poopooed the BB for years, and in fact named it derisively, yet as most every observation fit it, he came on board.