I don't really understand why OP keeps equating the Big Bang as fact. No scientist in the history of the world has ever said "The big bang theory is fact". They have said more akin to "Based on our current level of knowledge of how the early universe looked, the best hypothesis we have been able to come up with that doesn't contradict any of the facts as we know it is called the big bang theory".
That's why it's called The Big Bang THEORY, not the Big Bang FACT. It's still a theory, still actively being changed as new evidence presents itself. Scientists KNOW it's not perfect, and it's probably got a lot of things wrong, but it's the best theory we have AT THIS TIME. As more data becomes available and our understanding of the ancient universe improves, a new theory may become the defacto theory, or the current theory could just need to be modified. That's how science works. Hypothesize, test, experiment, confirm when possible.

If we read until the end of that article
What annoys me is the condescending attitude of the 'Big Bang' partisans.

Well shucks I wouldn't want to be accused of dismissing the Astrophyics expertise on Slashdot, but here's the current info from NASA

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysic...d-the-big-bang

When you're stuck on just one planet, in one solar system of an apparently-ordinary star, in which now appears to be a backwater portion of a more-or-less routine galaxy ... and when, like it or not, you'll be "come and gone" in less than 110 orbits ... "it's kinda hard to know for sure."

Well guys if you expect 100% certainty that takes time, effort and technology, and even then who knows which will never get nailed down to 100% certainty or even if that will always remain so... BUT if 70%-99% (or better, 5 Sigma) is sufficient to at least be good enough for cautious conclusion, then Science, instead of Bob, is "your uncle". True we as humans only have extremely limited lifespans, but 1) Written language means we can carry information for multiple lifespans and even improve upon it or find it faulty, and 2) in the case of astronomical information, thanks to the finite speed of light, we literally see back in time up to about ~13.6 Billion years ago and that is exactly what is clearer now due to JWST and pushing that time back to the very first light free to travel about and reach us.

Consider if you stood on Mars and we had a telescope powerful enough to see you we could have a photo of how you looked 20 minutes ago. Had you "given us the raspberry" or died just 10 minutes ago, we wouldn't know that yet. The greater distance away you were, the greater the difference in Time. There are many stars in the sky that can be seen with the naked eye that are most likely vastly different from what you see now. Some will have been reduced to red giants, others to brown dwarfs, some to white dwarfs, and still others gone supernova. Depending on how far away they are is how long before anyone can see how they were in 2022. Some will be many millions of years from now.

Because of this hard fact, we can see and take photos of the progression of Our Universe's evolution. In fact, this is what upheavals are possible because of JWST since our models apparently need refinement and adjustment, because larger, more structured (less primitive) galaxies have now been observed by JWST than our previous models allowed for. Big Bang isn't in question yet, but it is at least somewhat possible it could be.

Just as Inflation Theory was proposed and tested to explain discrepancies realized through Hubble Space Telescope and others, a refinement on progression is required now. Most of the photos from JWST are currently not much more that testing... albeit shockingly better than expected but also we have a good 20 years of data collection ahead of us that will in all likelihood cause considerable "back to the blackboard" efforts to try to explain best what we observe. Small steps, fellows!

Big Bang or something either very much like it or massively weirder did take place. We have photos of it as it was, or at least as it was just a few fractions of an Earth second after the progression began. It is not at all certain it was the birth of everything but it was the birth of Our Universe as we know it. That much is at least 90% certain. We currently, and possibly forever, cannot know what may have come before, or after, or even if there IS a Before or After.

Science doesn't aspire to be Religion and surely isn't God and doesn't imagine it will ever reveal All Knowledge. It's just the best tools we have and it has done pretty damned well all things considered. By "all things considered" I mean considering that just one Galactic year ago there weren't even dinosaurs on Earth yet. Roughly 4 Galactic "Months" ago our ancestors were tiny rodents scurrying to find food after the Chicxulub Extinction Event*.

* Yes, I know there may have been coinciding other factors, but without the asteroid or comet, the results would have been VERY different and we might not be here now.

@enorbet: I continue to maintain that "religion and science have no proper quarrel with one another."

But also: "science should not pretend to be religion." If we are staring out over "endless reaches of space" which also correlate to "endless reaches of time," how do we pretend to know what 'tomorrow' may bring?

In both cases, "it all comes down to a human quest for the certainty that is actually denied us." Every one of us encounters "the elephant," each in our own way, but none of us can ever know what it actually is. And so, I'd simply like to see a little more realization of that fact.

I don't think religion and science NEED to quarrel, but they nevertheless do... usually because of modern religion trying to maintain ancient tradition of trying to explain the world instead of The Hereafter. There is little quarrel in that arena because scientists don't pretend to know there even is a Hereafter.

I absolutely agree that not only should Science not pretend to be Religion, it shouldn't aspire to, and normally doesn't. I surely don't.

I don't require much certainty. Good odds are just fine with me. I don't understand the last sentence if you meant to apply that to me. I seriously doubt I have ever pretended to know what tomorrow will bring. That said, that is very different from grasping a whiff of the nature of SpaceTime. That is actually attainable.

Since this is on the heels of doubts regarding Big Bang, I have to point out that there are only 3 posibile candidates - 1) The Universe is static. 2) The Universe is shrinking, or 3) The universe is expanding (Big Bang). So I have to ask the doubters, since you apparently doubt expansion, which of the first 2 do you folks imagine is the most likely?

In answer to the question: I think the Universe is expanding. I have no information and the Bible doesn't mention it. It may be fairly static. But all the planets staying still would let gravity take control sooner or later. I think it unlikely to be contracting, but have never checked any information on the subject except the refutation of Hoyle's 'steady state' theory. I never went for that either.

I do have a slightly different view on the religion/science thing. Religion can't explain the Hereafter. The Bible speaks only in vague terms about the hereafter. Most religions have men in robes lightening pockets and repeating the same rituals endlessly, which doesn't help. JWs have none of that, Matt 6:7,8 and accept science except where it contradicts the Bible. That sounds bad, until you look at some of the implications. Without the rebellion in Eden, there would have been no need for Jesus Christ's sacrifice, and we would be living in a perfect world. In fact the rebellion explains why our existence on earth is (for a time) so miserable. The Flood account introduces us to the other rebel angels. It allows an insight into matters unseen, and explains many things along the way. So creation & the rebellion are fundamental to understanding the world we live in. So you either reject the Bible, the flood and Creation, and conclude there is no intellectually plausible religion, as enorbet seems to have. Or else you accept them, and find a whole complicated jigsaw fitting together which makes sense of history and the world.

I can respect enorbet's (opposite) views as intellectually honest.I can understand people being mixed up by today's confusing situation. But there is a need to try to resolve these matters, as Paul explained in Acts 17:29-31

This is why I am so interested in mankind ruining the earth, because it is a firm sign of the end of this system. And throughout scripture, mankind has often had to take definite action to be saved from unfortunate events.

We still know zilch about 'our' other half (the anti matter), I said that nothing could be sure - but I vote for #1.

I find this a bit confusing in several ways, business_kid., I sincerely hope you can enlighten me as to your views and methods. 1) Which is it in your view, Expanding? or Static? You seem to have hedged your bet by stating both. 2) Why would you consult a 2000 year old compilation on any subject at the Universe level? From my view it should be painfully obvious that the Earth is not flat, the sky isn't firmament with stars pasted on it, and Space isn't an endless sea of water.

Again, I don't have any problem whatsoever in anyone gleaning historical and especially social recommendations and example from the Christian Bible. It is a masterful tome in many ways but it is not an authority on Nature. Science is as good as we've got. Frankly even if I assume there is a Creator and he did actually reveal deep knowledge to humans, I still have to conclude humans of the time either couldn't understand or couldn't resist writing in ways that made sense to them, or both.

If you accept that the Universe is expanding then the conclusion that the Universe was smaller and more dense 1n 1922 than it is in 2022 is inescapable. Turning back the clock further we have an obvious regression that at some point (rather literally a point) must be extremely dense and miniscule which further requires that it also be unimaginable energetic/hot. This has been verified at both the Macro level (WMAP) and the Micro level (colliders). Bingo! Big Bang!

As for Gravity vs/ Expansion these are actions at a distance so Locality is important... if only for a time. The Local Group of Galaxies, just like our Solar System are close enough that the bodies are gravitationally bound strongly enough to oppose Expansion which was apparently caused initially by Big Bang and accelerated by Dark Energy.

It appears that in very Deep Time, it will all fly apart and gravity will lose the standoff. There are of course exceptions and provisions that could change this outcome, but this is the best, tested conclusion at the current time. Locally, the Sun will expand and probably consume The Earth and disrupt all planetary orbits. Some may draw closer and ultimately be consumed while others may be moved out to more distant orbits and possibly some catapulted into interstellar Space.

* Aside - I snipped a well written, well thought out paragraph here and wanted to write this to recognize it's quality.


Curious and a bit humorous the backhand compliment here Honest but confused Allrighty then! heheh.

Whatever your views, business_kid, be well and good fortune.

Replying to enorbet on PM.

Ahhh. Now I see... Plasma Cosmology, eh? Would you care to cite any observation of ambiplasma?... and by all means, please do list these 16 contradictions and 1 right one right here for all to see and while you're at it comment on CMB. Without valid citation in evidence at fundamental levels it's just speculation or Hipster Pseudoscience.

So you think 'Big Bang' is real,better science ? The whole other half is missing, even 95% of our own is unaccounted for.
I admit defeat, Enorbet, you and your Big Gang.

Before the Big Bang.

Yes, leclerc78, I do think Big Bang is real and better Science in the tradition of all proper Science. You can pick any area of Physics and see that Hypothesis is tested and falsification is attempted at the then current levels of observation and measurement and after LOTS of that may become a Scientific Theory. Just because for a very long time the best possible (at the time) Science saw models for atoms as utterly fundamental, consisting of just 3 particles, with Electrons in neat orderly orbits around a nucleus of Protons and Neutrons (sort of like a micro Solar System) didn't cause Atomic Theory to be utterly discarded when new fundamental particles were discovered..

It merely needed to be better observed with progressively better technology and points of view and expanded and refined, in short, continuing the process of testing and falsification, verifying very small steps to "make a more detailed map". Big Bang is currently in a similar state to Atomic Theory in the time of Marie Curie. It is extremely unlikely that it will be discarded in toto. It is far more likely it will be expanded and refined.

By contrast, Plasma Cosmology, is extremely unlikely to be Big Bang's undoing. At it's most basic hypothesis which is an attempt to explain the asymmetry between "normal" (baryonic) matter and anti-matter by asking the question "What if there is no asymmetry? What if they are in a state of symmetry but just not in the same place in SpaceTime and the borders between them create a self-sustaining plasma?" which is actually a brilliant and valid question to pose. However the answer depends entirely on one thing, ambiplasma, a plasma possibly formed when matter and antimatter meet at ultra grand scale borders. This has never even once been observed, let alone measured and tested. Until ambiplasma is observed the entire hypothesis is a "house of cards" which is perfectly fine if it is viewed that way, as a possible contender IF observation ever occurs or if it can predict CMB, which as of 2022, it can't.

That would be commendable if it stopped there at brilliant hypothesis, but since it's inception in the 1960s, some advocates have resorted to deception and extremely non-scientific means in an attempt to "bring up by it's bootstraps" by any means imaginable from hypothesis to theory, from question to answer. That numerous woo woo efforts have KNOWINGLY jumped the gun and characterized JWST as causing a panic in scientists because of data that is blown up to imply Big Bang has been knocked off the table, is a lie and absolutely egregious. I don't know if it is due to mere money-grubbbing or fanatacism, but I do know it is wrong and on so many levels not the least of which is both intellectually and morally.

Can Big Bang ever be proven absolutely wrong as opposed to merely in need of refinement? It is vaguely possible but if it is it will be by something vastly more weird and harder for humans to grasp. It would take a lot more than one astute question. Merely pointing out where Big Bang still has gaps is not enough. Gaps are inherent parts of growing understanding. "Not A" defines "A" just as much as defining "A" does. Essentially both efforts achieve the same goal. It just takes time and continued, progressive effort with more than a dash of technology.