It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Zaknafein
Alright then, we'll start from the beginning. . .
Based on our current evidence, the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe is the big bang.
There are a couple of key evidences for this:
1. Cosmic Background Radiation: everywhere we have observed within the universe has an underlying temperature of about 3 degrees K. This is the reason why in even the deepest darkest corner of space, absolute zero does not exist. The big bang is certainly a plausible explanation for how the universe came to be filled with this omnipresent energy.
2. Hubble's Law: all known galactic bodies are moving through space away from a central point.
3. In the universe as a whole, the majority of atoms tend to be the lightest elements; for whatever reason, there's lots of Hydrogen and very little Uranium. It seems to me that based on E=MC^2, if the universe started out purely as energy -- not matter -- then it would be easier for that energy to become simpler matter (light elements) than for it to become the heavier elements.
So what problem do you have with the concept of the Big Bang?
1. Cosmic Background Radiation: everywhere we have observed within the universe has an underlying temperature of about 3 degrees K. This is the reason why in even the deepest darkest corner of space, absolute zero does not exist. The big bang is certainly a plausible explanation for how the universe came to be filled with this omnipresent energy.