There are only a few major unanswered questions that I can think of involving the Big Bang. Naturally the first is "What caused it?" The second is what you're addressing now: "How did the inflationary period happen when it seems to violate relativity?" The last one is "Why is the universe made of Matter instead of Anti-matter? If both are created in equal quantities, then why did one win out over the other?"

As for the last question, one theory has been proposed recently, though I don't think that theory has been subject to experimentation yet. To read the theory about it, see general_patton's thread: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=52397560&f=90

ok you asked for it!

the idea that the universe is expanding is derived from red shift (like dopplar effect in light). red shift has been all but proven to be a product of the compton effect.

the cycles needed to create the elements that made up our solar system (assuming earth is 5 billion years old) could not have existed in such a short time since big bang. for instance heavy elements are created by multiple generations of star deaths.

our galaxy could not have achieved its shape in the amount of time since the bang, let alone ancient spiral galaxies we observe through hubble at great distances away (younger).

background radiation temperature in the past is no where near where the model predicts. cosmic rays do not seem to interact with this radiation as much as it would if the radiation was as dense as big bang theory predicts.

i have this one at home but havent had time to peruse:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0964318814/qid1029672641/sr11-1/refsr111/104-8543258-3148738

This post was edited by juliusjuice on Mar 2 2011 05:05pm

if redshift is not really a result of galaxies moving away, would that mean we really have no idea the rate that galaxies are moving? or even what direction theyre moving?


e: i just realized something idk why i didnt wonder about this before...according to the big bang/expanding universe, all galaxies are moving away from 1 another. why is it predicted that we will collide with andromeda in a few billion years?

This post was edited by dothe on Mar 2 2011 06:13pm

exactly, we wouldnt know if we were moving toward or away from them unless we could use stellar parallax or gauge the distance by type 1a supernova in the area of space in question.

*assuming cosmic inflation is true: gravity's strength between us and andromeda is still sronger than cosmic inflation. btw when they say collision, there will, in all likelyhood, be no actual stars colliding with other stars because of the vast open space between stars. the gas from both galaxies will collide causing some heat, and possibly impressive coloration from a distance.

This post was edited by juliusjuice on Mar 2 2011 06:48pm

Another thing to add is the work of Halton Arp where he found that many quasars are actually attached to their parent galaxies and have a radically different redshift than the parent galaxy.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Mar 3 2011 11:54am

nice havent heard of this.

lol'd good one

Literally (in the world of science) Light
Philosophically - a Thought, because u can not interpret a thought, until it has already arrived.

Enjoy thinking that one over

you could say the same about light. if we had a way to see thoughts, we still wouldnt know which was faster, there is a delay between when something happens and when we observe it.

light travels over 600 million miles per hour.

work it.