The Big Bang | 5 Alternative Theories You Might Not Know

The Big Bang | 5 Alternative Theories You Might Not Know

We’ve all heard about the Big Bang theory. It’s taught in schools, it’s considered the main theory of the creation of the universe. And although this theory hasn't been fully proven, there’s quite a bit of evidence to back it up. Thus, it’s the most common scientific explanation for the creation of ‘us’. It’s been considered an undeniable fact that the universe is expanding due to the discovery of cosmic background radiation. And, empirical observations do indicate there was a boom that has created and inflated time and space. The best telescopes from around the globe now have space observatory counterparts that are commissioned to look back in time by measuring light to fully confirm the Big Bang. And now the consensus holds it as the most viable explanation for the origin of everything. But there’s many holes and unknowns in the theory. This has brought about many compelling rival theories. And it’s about time that you delve into the major theoretical alternatives that contend with the Big Bang Theory, and understand why these theories are on the verge of trumping the theory taught in our curriculums. Here’s the 5 most prolific alternatives to the Big Bang.

Which of these theories do you think hold more evidence? And what other theories would you like to add to this list? Comment down below. After hitting that like and subscribe button, be sure to ring the notification bell, and check out these other videos from Space Infinity.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🚀 Subscribe to Space Infinity to stay updated on the latest Space News!

Space Infinity brings you the latest in space exploration, technology, and innovation. New videos are uploaded every week. If you love all things tech as much as we do, be sure to subscribe to this channel!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

🎬Other Videos To Watch:

Scientists Say We Were Wrong About the Big Bang and the Universe:

5 Alternative Theories to The Big Bang:

10 Alternatives To The Big Bang Theory:

Brian Greene - What Was There Before The Big Bang?:

What’s Wrong With the Big Bang Theory? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios:
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

#NASA #Universe #BigBang

[yns]

What makes me thinking is: if everything in the universe tends to be curved or roubd, why is the fabric of the universe considered to be flat??

[KGP]

Every hypothesis and theory is based on the area of the universe which we are capable of observing from our limited perspective. But we have no way of quantifying that observable portion because we don't know how large the universe is. We don't know whether it's infinite or finite. Nobody has ever gone into the universe and discovered it's Truman wall. We don't even know if such a barrier exists. The first satellite with telescopes launched into orbit was the Ariel 1 in 1962. That's a meager 62 years to claim we have confidently mastered space exploration. For all we know, there could have been as many big bangs as there are galaxies.

[mrjimjimjimmyjim]

idk using the math that exists within a world that may be a simulation, sounds like a flawed way about going about proving the theory wrong?!

[Jgr]

I've had a revelation I'd like to share, which is different from the big bang theory, I'm just a curious person who likes to know how things work, and to me the big bang theory doesn't' make any sense, I'm not saying I don't understand what the big bang theory is, it's just how can everything in the universe be created from a single point, that to me is not possible, but from a viewers perspective that's what it looks like most definitely happened, but if you imagine that at the point of creation that it was actually the beginning of time, which is plausible If the temperature was at absolute zero everything would freeze even light particles, so warming a few degrees would be like pressing play on the TV after it's been paused, making creation happen everywhere across an infinite universe all at once, expansion would just be the passage through time, from where we are in our point in space, but from an outside perspective what we experience from earth, would be observed across an infinite universe, that means the calculations proving the big bang would be the same no matter where you are whether it's inside our observable universe or beyond you would still get back to a single point. Anyway that's what I think

[astrogoodwin]

We have a lot more to learn about our universe. A strong Spiritual component is involved. The big bang never happened. The universe is eternal

[michaelogrady]

You are wrong about the predictive power of the EU theory. It also has the best explanatory power. For instance, Alfen's prediction of Birkeland currents connecting the galaxies has been verified. See also, The Lightening Scarred Planet from the Thunderbolts Project.

[bsmith]

The universe is actually contracting, like a galaxy falling into a black hole the universe is also falling into a black hole. When the black hole becomes equal to the gravity of space the black hole will expand into the flat universe with the help of centrifugal force. The cause of this is the gravity of space due to the curvature of space and space within matter being curved creating electrical charges and vibration. It is like two apposite forces.

[chrisgwynne]

None of the theories proposed in the above video sound convincing. The Universe is not expanding, but eternal in time and space. Fortunately further deep field observation by the JWST will strenghen the eternal universe hypothesis.

[smlankau]

The Cosmic Background Radiation is many light years big. And it showed a slow expansion rate, slower than the current expansion rate. As mentioned in the Buddhist text, the universe undergoes a cyclic process after a rain of liquid energy that destroys the world. The universe made the first expansion before the formation of the world. So, Buddhism rejects the so-called high-speed expansion of the universe. Perhaps, gravity would bring energy back to the island universe, destroying the world. Also, the universe could make matter after a collision between high-energy liquid beams that made matter and antimatter. So the extra energy that didn't collide during the contraction could pass through the center of the island universe (Sakwala). The current standard model of cosmology is based on the pseudoscience of creationists. According to scientists, CMB radiation comes after 37000 years after the Big Bang. But matter and antimatter could start to collide and annihilate making photons a few seconds after the Big Bang. So seemingly, matter and antimatter collisions started to happen gradually before 37000 years with the collisions of high-energy beams. Also, those collisions could start before that period without making a lot of collisions. According to scientists, the universe is only 13.8 billion years old. But astronomers discovered a start older than 14 billion years (but some scientists say that it can be a part of an error in the results). So likely, there were a few more collisions before 13.8 billion years. Particle accelerators don't make new energy. So scientists can't use the condition after the energy collisions to make a theory to create energy. Seemingly, creationists used scientists to make a wrong standard model of cosmology to explain the Big Bang, mixing a lot of unrelated observations, theories and hypotheses carelessly. It is a fraudulent religious invasion that they do by manipulating science instead of using weapons to spread Abrahamic religions. Modern science started to destroy Abrahamic religions, but the mainstream western scientific community protected Abrahamic religions by making a fake model to explain Big Bang. There are a lot of things that the mainstream western scientific community is hiding. Perhaps, they hide the requirement of gravitons (according to quantum physics) and mostly talk about the curvature of space to ignore the speed of gravity that is likely limited to the speed of light.

[incognito-yjgu]

And JWST proves "it ain't true". LMFAO !!!

[deepcosmiclove]

Alternative theory: In the Beginning God Craeted the Heavens and the Earth.

[damiencaen]

La nécessité de pouvoir établir des limites est intrinsèque, dès l'enfance, de toute forme de vie intelligente. un univers illimité donne des vertiges....mais cela importe peu, en fait. Pour mettre fin à l' anthropo-centrisme biaisant l'interprétation de certaines données. Se pourrait il que ce soit bien plus simple, plus naturel....que ce ne soit que l'explosion LOCALISÉE de plusieurs trous noirs qui, en fusionnant, ont dépassé une limite de la physique, répartissant les "débris" dans un nuage appelé univers observable, dans un univers bien plus vaste?
Et non, on ne peut pas vivre dans un trou noir, qui n'est finalement rien de plus qu'une grosse étoile à neutron dont la gravité dépasse
J'adore la.science fiction, mais la nature est bien plus simple à interpréter qu'on ne le pense

[primalmudcat]

I like your channel and your opening statement. Good luck.and thanks for your insight.

[ronaldkemp]

It doesn't really matter how the universe began or who is right and who is wrong. The fact that the universe and life exists is all we need to know.

[alfonsocantu]

These theories all will work with an open mind just don't open it so wide your brain falls out...yours very truly Alfonso Cantu USMC