The Big Bang Theory is the biggest lie in the western world

From waht I've seen electric universe model is based on real-world evidences and known facts they do not try to explain what is abstract cannot be explained the do not abstract concepts that do not exist like dark matter, dak energy, inflation these are all irrational mathematical consturcts, it is not based on abstract mathematical non-sense-the hypotheses that you create should be created after they are proven by real-world evidences which is common sense, while Big Bang hypothesis is based mathematical nonsense and irationality and faith in matehmatics, and yet it is truly unprovable, this is why Electric Universe model should be current and leading hypothesis, because there are no abstract nonsenses and irrationality that Big Bang hypothesis has in tons.

And regarding models-if such a model demands that non-existence creates existence, that universe that has dimensions cannot exist and expand in nothing which is dimensionless-the model is wrong-it shouldm be abandoned in the first place-because everyone know such things are simply impossible, sure it's good for creating and using new technologies, but if you actually truly want to explain how was everything created and evolved, everyone/every single scientists should abandon models like these, you should model only those concepts that can actually be proven with real-world evidences not with mathametical beautiful equations.

Better not to create scientific theory/model that is unprovable than to create one if mathematics deals with infinities and zeros than it's wrong, like it has been proven every single time in the history, common sense and rationality based on real-world evidences, not on mathematical abstractions, so far this has not been the case with Big bang hypothesis, while it was so far with Electric universe model.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again you ignore like all Big Bangers what I'm saying, read this:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...sguised-as-science.139203/page-3#post-3424020


If the Big Bang model says this than it's 100% wrong, and there cannot be any evidences of the inflation, dark matter and dark energy, black holes-this is somethi your ego and your faith does not want to admit.

Instead of admitting that Big bang model does not work and it cannot be true because of the facts I posted above and in the link I posted here, you and similar people rather say we are all just crackpots.

Mathematics is not the language of physics it is the belief system, and mathematics does actually become a belief system if you cannot prove anything, the problem with all the experiments in quantum physics and relativity they are either misinterpreted or like quantum mechanics you cannot directly observe anything that you research, if you cannot see an subatomic particle how exactly do you know particle exists in the first place?
You are studying physical properties but how do you know that you are detecting true physical properties if you cannot ever directly see the object that you want to studiy, I mean you cannot even prove that this object exists.


In indian true story it shows all the limitations what scientists and all other people face today:
Basically in that story describes 3 blind people, who have never known the existence of elephant, when elephant leader brought them and when they first touched elephant's ear they thought it was a rough leaf, while they actually thought elephant's trunk was somehting like rough snake-so what is my point here?

The point here is that we cannot know anything about anything at all, because even what we can see and prove that it exists it is always 100% misinterpreted on what we think it is, that because we cannot directly observe the entire reality/universe, this is why all of our hypotheses are actually 100% wrong since we can barely scratch the surface of entire reality/universe/inifnity, because the real truth is that this limited part of the objsrtive reality/universe/infinity cannot give us true answers unless we are able to directly entire objetive reality/infinity/universe-but that will never be possible and this is why even though those things that are proven to exist with our limited direct observation and reasearch are wrong because they are misinterpreted, since we can never actually directly observe the entire reality/universe/infinity, but only infinitely small part of it.

The example would be can you imagine that blind scientist goes for the frog even though he doesn't know about the existence of the frog, let alone its anatomy-how exactly blind scientists is going to prove anything at all?
This example is the same fro all the scientists who try to investigate quantum mechanics.

He/she cannot prove anything since he cannot directly observe frog and its anatomy/particles in quantum mechanics-he/she has to rely on some other scientists who can actually directly see the frog and its anatomy.

The only thing all the hypotheses are good for are for creating and using new technologies and that's about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Once and for all, inflation, dark matter and dark energy are all forever 100% unprovable, you cannot progress in anything unless you first have real-world evidences and than after, again only after you already have real-world evidences you can create hypotheses-this is the only way to stay objective. If you consider inflation something that ius proven-than forget it, this is not science we are talking about, it's religion because you make hypotheses BEFORE YOU have real-world evidences, in true and 100% objective science it should be like this: first find all the evidence you can than create hypotheses, but if you cannot find evidences for inflation, dark matter and dark energy, you should abandon this ssame scientific hypothesis, otherwise, it would become religion because you can never prove those parts of the hypothesis (like inflation, dark matter and dark energy).

And this is why Electric universe/Plasma cosmology models are so much better, because it uses all the known real-world evidences and facts and does not use or presume hypotheses (like in mathematics) than cannot ever be proven (like inflation, dark matter and dark energy).
On the other hand, Big Bangers refuse to include electricity/plasma science the way it should be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You forgot to mention two Popes who now have confirmed evolution, from a chaotic inflationary beginning.
Thus you are left with a Causality. You want to call it God, that's fine by me, just don't call it intentional or consciously motivated.
IMO , it was a mathematical imperative of unlimited energy, expressing itself in a mega quantum event.

 

My thoughts elsewhere in the Sciforum is that outside our expanding Universe is a Total Infinite Void.

As per my naming of this Void it lies outside of our Universe at the very tip of the light beam which set out when the Universe became transparent.

As the Universe expands into this Void the section the Universe expands into becomes part of our Universe and subject to its laws.

Trying to explain Big Bang and nothing with language becomes a conundrum or just a question of definitions.

I call a concept of nothing in existence Total Infinite Void. So can you give NOTHING a name and make it something?

Well giving a concept a name does not give it substance but it does allow you to relate it to other ideas.

On another thread it was put to me that there is nothing outside our Universe, not even a Total Infinite Void.

At the same time it is speculated within in this unnamed nothingness quantum fluctuations were occurring and one of those turned into the Big Bang.

Hence what I call the Total Infinite Void gives birth to the Universe hence it is not expanding into the Total Infinite Void.

It has, and always will have, the Total Infinite Void as part of its fabric.

Humpty Dumpty who might be getting closer to understanding and Poe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

who never understands.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wow! Such certainty!, such authority! such as usual, unsupported, imagined nonsense, driven by the fact that the Electric/Plasma universe hypothesis, has faded into well deserved oblivion.
Actually your posts as usual, still reflect that "god of the gaps" mentality with your continued use of the "prove it" nonsense.
You have done nothing except give this forum, more of the rather lengthy unsupported rhetoric for which you have become known.
And as applies to all cranks, if you believe you have anything to invalidate the BB, or anything that supports Arp and the few cronies that are left, that cling to his defunct pseudoscience, then spit it out son!
Or better still write up a scientific paper for proper peer review.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let me repeat it as it most certainly applies to you.........
Forums such as this, are open to any Tom, Dick, and Harry, and a wide range of nuts, cranks and quacks, to claim whatever fairy tale suits their agenda.
And of course the many claims re errors in GR and the BB and cosmology in general, that our many nuts, quacks and cranks make on forums such as this, are really impressing no one except to stroke their own little egos, and obviously will only ever occupy a tiny sliver of cyber space, to in time, die in the oblivion that such claims deserve.

Of course there is a conspiracy! And you are conducting your old crusade trying to gain support for that conspiracy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And again your tiresome application of "prove it" is real evidence supporting the fact of your conspiracy mongering.
You mentioned that since the BB was first proposed by a priest is "proof" it is based on faith rather then scientific rational.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That alone shows the depth of ignorance in your posts in general.
The BB is not a theory about the creation of the universe: It is a theory about how the universe evolved from a hotter, denser state: In fact we actually know nothing about the instant of the BB, and are only able to apply our laws of physics and GR at t+10-43 seconds.
Therefor common sense would tell you that the possible ID creation event by some deity is still there...Perhaps our priest Father George LaMaitre had that in mind, and perhaps that is also what the Catholic church had in mind when it recognised the BB along with the evolution of life.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

http://galacticinteractions.sciento...t-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/

One of Astronomy's pet crackpot theories: non-cosmological quasar redshifts
Jan 14 2011 Published by galacticinteractions under Astronomy & Physics, Cranks & Crackpots, Science & Culture

In the standard Big Bang theory of cosmology— a theory that explains a wide range of observations— distant objects show a shift in the observed wavelengths of features in their spectrum as a result of the expansion of the Universe. In between the time when the light is emitted by a distant object, and the time that we see that light, the Universe expands. The wavelength of the light goes up by a relative factor that has the same value as the relative expansion in the size of the Universe. This effect is called cosmological redshift. Because the Universe has always been expanding, we can use this to measure distance to an object, and to measure how far back in time we're looking (i.e. how much time it took the light to reach us). The more redshift we see, the more the Universe expanded, so thus the more time the Universe was expanding while the light was on its way to us, and thus the longer the trip to us was.

Astronomy has long had a handful of fringe scientists who argue that at least some of the redshifts we see are non-cosmological in origin. In particular, Halton Arp, most famous for a catalog of galaxies with disturbed morphologies (as a result of interactions), argues that quasars aren't really cosmologically distant objects at all, but are rather objects ejected from nearby galaxies, showing their redshifts as the result of an extreme Doppler shift due to their high ejection velocities. He based this originally on anecdotal observations of quasars with much higher redshifts seemingly correlated with much more nearby galaxies on the sky. For a long time, it was hard to test this correlation quantatively, for the selection effects were huge. By and large, we targeted interesting objects, but there were other interesting objects in the field. So, of all the quasars known, there was an observational bias that there would be more known near other objects that were observed for other reasons.

Various other things are claimed together with quasars supposedly being ejected from galaxies. In particular, there are claims of periodic redshifts— that is, that quasars are preferentially observed at certain redshifts, or at certain redshifts relative to the redshift of the galaxy that supposedly ejected them.

With the advent of large-scale sky surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), it has become possible to statistically test these predictions. Of course, the vast majority of astronomers haven't bothered, because we have extremely good models of quasars as cosmological objects that explain a wide range of observations about them, meaning that there's really no need to pay attention to the crank fringe asserting that there must be something wrong with the mainstream model. However, this (rational) response does feed into the natural tendency of many people to be attracted to conspiracy theories, who then assert that the "dogma" of mainstream science is "ignoring the evidence" for these decidedly non-conventional models of quasars. So, a few people have used the data in the SDSS to look for correlations of quasars and foreground galaxies, or to look for evidence of periodic redshifts in quasars. The result, of course, is that there is no evidence to support these theory, and indeed that the large statistics afforded by these surveys support the cosmological model.

In other words, if you want it summed up in fewer words: Arp is wrong. The evidence does not back up his arguments.

(He will disagree, and if you go to his website you can see the paranoia on the nicely designed, sparse front page. However, even if he is right about being ignored by the mainstream of science, that is because the mainstream of science has good reason to ignore him.)

Su Min Tang and Shuang Nan Zhang did a careful statistical analysis of SDSS data to look for the effects of periodic redshifts in quasars, and for correlations between quasars and galaxies. In other words, they took the predictions of Arp and his followers seriously, at least for purposes of performing the analysis. I've already stated the result above: no effects observed. Here is one of their "money" plots, Figure 7 from that paper:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The circles here are the data from the sky survey. The various lines are the results of simulations, with the error bars on the lines showing the scatter in the simulations. The solid line is the only one that's consistent with the data throughout the whole range. The various dashed lines are simulations that would result of quasars were ejected from galaxies at various different velocities.

Reference to Arp's work is also part of the larger net-crank alternate astronomy theory, "plasma cosmology" (and the even more cranky, if that were possible, "electric universe" notion, as well as modern day followers of Velikovsky). That this lynchpin has been completely debunked should hopefully help you conclude that plasma cosmology isn't anything that should be taken seriously. I hope to address more of that in later posts.

 

https://briankoberlein.com/2014/05/30/seeing-red/

SEEING RED
In History by Brian Koberlein30 May 20140 Comments

Ever since Henrietta Leavitt discovered the period-luminosity relation for Cepheid variable stars, and Edwin Hubble used her work to demonstrate the relation between the redshifts of galaxies and their distances, we’ve had a pretty good idea that the universe was expanding. Since then we’ve gathered much more evidence on the connection between redshift and cosmic expansion, including redshift observations of distant supernovae that show the universe is undergoing cosmic inflation due to dark energy. While cosmic expansion is now well established, there have been some interesting mysteries along the way. One of these involves some seemingly strange behavior of quasars.

Quasars were originally discovered as bright radio sources that appeared almost starlike. In fact the term quasar is derived from quasi-stellar radio source. We now know that quasars are powered by supermassive black holes, and are known as active galactic nuclei (AGNs). Because of their small apparent size, their distances can only be determined by their redshifts. This can be difficult to do, because the light they generate is produced near the black hole where things like gravitational lensing and gravitational redshift can occur. The spectral lines used to measure redshift can be swamped by the overall intensity of the quasar, making them difficult to analyze.

SPECTRA FROM DIFFERENT QUASARS COMPARED. THE SPECTRA REDSHIFTS, BUT THE PATTERN REMAINS THE SAME. CREDIT: NOAO

Then there are strange cases like AO 0235+164, which is a quasar with a faint emission line with redshift z = 0.94, but an absorption redshift of z=0.524. It was results such as these that led some to wonder if perhaps the whole cosmic expansion idea might be wrong, or at least not quite as clear as we might think. In the late 1960s, Halton Arp made a survey of irregular galaxies and noticed that for about a hundred of them there appeared to be an associated quasar. In each case the quasar had a redshift that was much larger than the associated galaxy. This led Arp to propose that perhaps quasars are objects ejected from galaxies at very high speeds. Then in the late 1970s William G. Tifft observed that redshifts of galaxies appeared to have a periodicity to them, as if redshifts were somehow quantized. Based upon these results, Arp and others argued that redshift cannot be due to cosmic inflation, but must be due to some intrinsic process.

IF REDSHIFTS WERE QUANTIZED, WE’D SEE CONCENTRIC CIRCLES HERE.
CREDIT: SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY.

At the time when these ideas were proposed they were worth considering. The evidence for ejected quasars was plausible, and even quantized redshift (though controversial even then) appeared to have some evidence to support it. But over the next 40 years we gathered more observational evidence. A lot more. Arp’s original quasar-galaxy connection was based upon about 100 galaxies. We now have large all sky surveys where we’ve measured the positions and spectra of a lot of galaxies and quasars. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey, for example, now has a database of more than 930,000 galaxies, and 120,000 quasars. We’ve also greatly increased our ability to analyze correlations and periodicities. What used to take months to analyze can now be done in an hour on a laptop computer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

DISTRIBUTION OF GALAXIES. THE SOLID LINE OF RANDOM DISTRIBUTION MATCHES OBSERVATION. THE DOTTED LINES OF EJECTED QUASARS DOES NOT. CREDIT: TANG AND ZHANG

What we found was that the ideas of Arp and Tifft don’t agree with observation. What once hinted at redshift quantization is now seen to be due to a clustering of galaxies. When large number of galaxies or quasars are analyzed, the quantization pattern fades. We’ve also found the scale at which galaxies cluster matches the clustering prediction of cold dark matter. The idea that quasars are ejected from galaxies also doesn’t match the distribution of quasar redshifts. A recent study published in the Astrophysical Journal looked at both quasar periodicity (redshift quantization) and ejected quasar using the SDSS database, and found that neither matched observation.

And AO 0235+164? Turns out that it’s a quasar behind a closer galaxy. The emission line with a higher redshift is from the quasar, and the absorption line with a lower redshift is from the closer (foreground) galaxy. There are several similar examples, and many of them also show gravitational lensing of the quasar’s light around the galaxy.

So both of these models have been largely rejected. With nearly a million measured galaxies and quasars, it has become clear that the one model that best matches the data is an inflating universe with dark energy and cold dark matter. There are still a few researchers who strongly disagree. Their work sometimes get published in a peer reviewed journal, and that’s fine. It’s always good to have a few dissenters pushing to keep the rest of us honest.

Of course there is another pattern that has arisen, and that is the one where every time somebody writes about how quantized redshift and Arp’s non-inflationary universe model doesn’t match the data, a flood of amateur commenters hit your page to declare how wrong you are. They troll your comments and send you angry personal messages. They’ll post link after link to other papers, and demand you go through each one in detail. When you don’t accept their view they accuse you of bias and closed mindedness.

Which is why every time the topic comes up, it has astrophysicists seeing red.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506366v1.pdf

Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data:

ABSTRACT :
We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic non-cosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1 + z) model and Bell’s decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests respectively. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1 + z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find the distribution of projected distance between high redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell’s previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.

 

Well if you feel that way may I suggest you develop your own model.

Look I don't particularly like the big bang model so if you can come up with a better model I will buy it.

But it will have to be better than the current model, it will have to explain the observations better than the current model, it will have to make predictions that we can test and such predictions tell us things that the current model can not tell us....and all the while use mathematics that can be used as well to plot the course of space craft within and outside of the solar system.

And here we can see the problem.

Both you and I can complain about the current model like we could complain about the car we drive but, well at least for myself, I can not build a better car, I could probably assemble old car parts to make something that may even run, but to end up with a better car I would have to wait for the professionals to supply one.

And a similar approach works with cosmology, you think you can make a better model but when you really try it becomes clear that the people who work in these areas actually do know their stuff.

The electric universe sounds great when you read the introduction but it really does not developed past an introduction it stays in the handwaving stage.
If it has merit it needs to be elevated to the high status of scientific theory and unfortunately it can not achieve that status.
That's not the fault of big bangers and it just means if you want it to be taken seriously it has to pass the demands put upon a scientific theory or model.

Take dark energy or dark matter.
The term dark is used because the scientists admit they don't yet know what it is they deal with, they know its there but little else... So dark is a placeholder used until they can insert better knowledge.

Again say we are building a car, we know we need something between the motor and the rear wheels to transfer the energy, we call this thing a "dark energy transfer unit" until the day we invent a "transmission" which consists of a now determined gear box, and differential.
We no longer need call it the dark energy transfer unit because we have worked out a unit that does what we worked out needed doing but had no idea of a mechanism.

My advice is keep interested in cosmology, learn about the different models but avoid critism unless you can actually improve upon where we are and trust the professionals.
If a professional can present a better model he will and all of the scientific world will bow down and declare his work that of a genius ... And it will take a genius so if you feel you can do it go for it...
Keep up your passion but guide it correctly.
Alex

 

One thing is clear; the potential energy for the BB (expansion) must have existed *prior to the event itself".

The question is how this potential energy could have existed before it became expressed as a purely energetic event?.
There has to be a mathematical explanation, how potential energy can be generated before it is expressed as a force..

 

Actually that does not seem to be clear at all. Some cosmologists seem to think the -ve gravitational potential (potential set to zero at infinite separation) and the energy in matter etc may be equal. In which case the net energy in the cosmos is and always was zero! So there was no prior net energy at all, potential or otherwise. More here: http://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html

 

The Big Bang could have resulted from a collision and such an event need not have been limited in energy by the constraints of local gravitational potential. Black holes have been discovered with trillions of solar masses. What if two of those collided at LHC speeds? If you can imagine it, it can happen. In a void. Even better; no pesky deities around to stop a science thought experiment before it has a chance to play out.

I agree with the author that there is something annoyingly Ptolemaic about the current conception of the Big Bang, paddoboy's protestations notwithstanding. I believe I have said or written as much hundreds of times. Religion that does not have a place to park G-d's car, or place his/her throne, or make him/her a personal deity right in the center of our lives and universe is no religion or deity at all. G-d would then have no place he/she could steady a semi automatic ordained by divine commandment or second amendment or something like that. Where do you suppose the Big Bang came from? Not from a pistol. And Santa would have no place for a workshop. Where would his elf slaves work? This is all why we need for there to have been a Big Bang. Happy Holidays, incidentally.

No wonder the paper mentioned in "footnote" received a failing academic grade. Academics is all about tracing where ideas came from, not hatching genuinely original ones. Chapter and verse are important to academics. Where do you think the whole idea of academics derived? At least, Holy scriptures taught us all to read, if not to reason. If you can quote chapter and verse, there is no need ever to reason, or to read anything else. Wikipedia is based on the same idea. Welcome to the new dark ages.

And the Big Bang certainly was not an original idea. If G-d had wished us to have original ideas, he/she would have gifted us functional brains to reason with. Thank G-dness, he/she did not. That would have been original, and G-d knows, evolution doesn't work that way either. If having a brain and reasoning with it had a survival advantage, evolution would be all over it. Guess what?

 

Got no idea what the post means so it would go in the Jibber Jabbar bin except it's overflowing.

Looks around where to dump it.
Light bulb goes on overhead.
Goes outside to the little brick house at bottom of garden.
Ties to the hanging string inside.

Humpty has done his dump
You ready to go Poo? Oops Poe. Sorry bout that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Read the title of the thread. Read the article it points to. It's about that.

Ptolemists gonna hate. Sorry to interrupt your counting of epicycles.

 

I see the problem but does a zero state have to be static, or evenly distributed?
example; we have a scale @ zero state. Now we place equal weights on both sides, but one side decays faster than the other side. After a period the scale will no longer read zero and symmetry has been broken in that specific local area, resulting in a force..
Another question, can a zero state inflate, while maintaining symmetry? Was inflation an orderly and symmetric expansion of spacetime? Or a chaotic pouring out of suddenly released potential energy.
And lastly, was there any matter at all before expansion, or did matter appear after expansion and cooling.? If matter did not exist , then the zero state must be found without consideration of matter. Pre-inflation was pure latent energy (potential), but because it was latent, there existed a zero state, until one potential was released and symmetry breaking occurred and dynamic evolution happened from that point on in an orderly manner, but still have pockets of chaos, in process of settling in patterns.

 

Don't understand the post.

Doubtful if will understand the article.

If "The Big Bang - Religion disguised as science?" is the question my answer is no.

If I thought the original person who started the thread was Machiavellian my answer would still be no.

But I would take closer look at following post (I have)

Seems the turn of the thread tries to quote the science of Big Bang and shoehorn in religion 'thought of it first'.

Hey may be we do have a Machiavellian practitioner in our mist.

Should the thread be renamed 'The Big Bang - Religion trying to steal it from Science?' ?

My answer then would be yes.

Humpty just saying.
Poe just saw another Duckaphant walk by.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think if you read the article it will give you an idea of how to answer such questions. I don't pretend to be a cosmologist, but the big thing I take from this is that there is apparently no need to posit any "something before" the Big Bang.

 

Or you could put all of the mass/energy of the universe into one super heavy non rotating black hole and say that the universe has zero net energy because the force at its North Pole is in the diametrically opposite direction from that at the South Pole, so the whole thing just cancels itself out. Zero net force, in gravitation or otherwise, is not the same thing as zero net energy. Removed to infinity or all smashed together in a black hole, mass/energy is conserved. Time dilation will change as a function of energy density, but physical configuration in terms of mass distribution is of no other physical consequence that affects conservation of energy.

 

Not quite: From memory the largest SMBH found is around 15 billion solar masses.

Totally speculative material, not that there's anything wrong with that, except we are talking re evidence for the BB.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you prefer to label the evidence of professionals that validate the BB and accepted redshift, as opposed to unsupported rhetoric and "feel good, get it off my chest" type ramblings, then you have a problem I suggest.

As yet the how and the why remain unknown: that's common knowledge.

The biggest mistake of laypeople/amateurs is to imagine the BB as some sort of explosion. Remember of course that the term BB itself was a derisive terminology applied by Fred Hoyle who was championing the Steady State hypothetical.

Before the expansion of the universe was discovered and the idea of the BB by LaMaitre, the universe/spacetime was taken to be static.
That little error even had Einstein fumbling with the predicitive power of his own theory to maintain that myth.