Big Bang Origin?

Well, this is how I've come to understand it:In 8th grade, our science teacher showed us a map of the stars. He then overlaid that map with a map of the stars at a later date. Continuing this, a "spiral-like" image began to take shape. This showed us at most that the Universe is moving in an outwardly direction.I would assume the speed could be measured by simply measuring the change in a period of time, and then measuring the change in another period of equal time. If, for the same period of time, the later measurement showed a greater change, then we could take it to mean that the Universe is not only moving outward, but doing so at an increasing rate of speed.Now, onto what I think of the Big Bang. Really, I dislike it. It doesn't really offer up much of an explanation for why the bang occured. I can accept the outward motion of the Universe, but I cannot accept the Bing Bang, the occurance of which we have little proof. Suppose you were to say that if I saw a car moving north, I could believe it to have come from the south. In that manner, if I see the Universe moving out, I should believe it to have come from the centre? I think not! We can say the car came from the south, but not that it came from, for example, Texas. We can see that the Universe came from a central location, but not that it was all created there, nor that it was as compact as a scientist would like us to believe.I think of the Big Bang about what I think of Creationism: it STINKS!Trék

I hope we are talking about the same type of "why." By "why" I do not mean the "reason for", but rather the "cause of."From what I can observe in the world around me, I can see that all things happen in a cause-effect sort of manner. It is my thinking that if the Universe had a beginning, it must have had just such a beginning, i.e., cause-effect. However, then we must find the cause, and if the cause is found, then we must consider that the cause is actually part of the Universe itself, and that the cause (the Universe at that time) only added to its size by creating the effect. In this case, we must find the cause for the cause, which now becomes our new effect. This endless "tantrum" could go on forever!However, if the Universe were to have always existed, then it shouldn't be moving from a centre. Because if we do rewind the tape, the Universe can become only so compact in that small space. From this, we can conclude that the Universe (at least as we see it) had a beginning.Or, we can conclude that the Universe existed in that state for an infinate period of time, and only recently did it "bang" outward. Once again, we see that there ought be a cause to this "bang." Which leads us to searching for yet another cause, leading us back to the "tantrum."So, there must have been a beginning, and there must have been a cause.The Big Bang focuses on the cause of this beginning, and the explosion for which we have no proof, is really no more a valid argument than an intelligent creator for whom we have no proof. Science is supposed to base its conclusion on evidence, yet, it has come to the conclusion of the Big Bang, with little to none for its support.Trék

Well, I just took a look at the other threads here, and I can say that I don't understand any of them.What is general relativity? What does it have to do with the Big Bang?I somewhat understand your globe analogy, and the horn and what not, but I don't understand why scientists think that it is that way. Clearly it must have something to do with that relativity that you're talking about.Trék

This helps somewhat, but it still seems as though an assumption is being made that the Universe was once a tiny dense little ball.Are these little "dust particles" pushing on space-time in all directions so as to cause it to expand? Because that is about what I get from what you say...I'm no scientist, but I will have a look at that Wikipedia thing, as soon as I get back from my own New Year's celebtrating.Thanks,
Trék

From Wikipedia: Big Bang.

quote:

---

The Big Bang is a consequence of the observed Hubble's law velocities of distant galaxies that when taken together with the cosmological principle imply that space is expanding according to the Friedmann-Lematre model of general relativity. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the Universe has expanded from a primeval state, in which all the matter and energy in the Universe was at an immense temperature and density.

---

This seems to be what I was saying about how the existence of the Big Bang was thought to have happened based on the fact that the Universe is expanding. They say that it was "extrapolated into the past" to "show that the Universe has expanded from a primeval state..."I have to say, I am rather confused now.Trék

I am not sure if it as easy to explain as I will ask for, but I will ask nonetheless.Perhaps a "General Relativity tells us there should be a beginning singularity because GR says...... which tells us there should have been a singularity because...."If it is not that simple, perhaps a somewhat similar explanation would work. Either way, I need to see just how GR relates to the Big Bang.Also, does GR tell us anything of the shape of the Universe, or is that a different thing?Trék

Oops. That was a replay to cavediver. I'm still trying to get down this reply system :s.Sorry,
Trék