Bergen

my problem wasnt with the THEORY of big bang itself but with the certainty that my professor spoke of it as the alfa of the universe. reading the wiki page you provided made it clear to me that i cant really discuss further on this as the answers seem to be at a high level in astronomy that i have yet to learn. One thing tho, does this theory assume there is only vacuum ? becouse if there is indeed some matter in the "vastness" then this would surely impact the shape and physics of the galaxy itself, no ?

(ps. im norwegian so my spelling might be a bit off ) i started the university (computer science) last year. Outside the classes i have to take we have some optional classes we can take and beeing a hobby science nut i took a basic astronomy class. First i have a problem with how the professor speaks of the big bang theory as undisputed fact. I get how we can speak of certain aspects of astronomy as solved but the origin of the universe ? really ? i havent heard anything about that ( that we solved the mystery ). I mean, i get how we can speak with certainty of how the aurora works, what the athmosphere on the different planets are like, how the sun works etc, becouse these things can be observed closely and even physicaly be interacted with. Obviously i get that we use many different tools to help us but imo we know waaay to little about the universe to speak of big bang as absolute truth. I think a good way to describe astronomy is by the tale about the blind men and the elephant: The poem begins: It was six men of Hindustan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind They conclude that the elephant is like a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan or rope, depending upon where they touch. They have a heated debate that does not come to physical violence. But in this version, the conflict is never resolved. All in all it just seems like a hard profession to be in, in the way that if you have opposing views on a theory then your "no good" so to speak. When asking my professor about the bing bang not beeing an absolute certainty he dismisses it like mumbo jumbo and that they are "getting there" when it comes to the fact that much of the theory is not yet explained. To me that seems like a horrible way to do science, having the solution before you have the "equation" cant be good. anyways, my second question is more of a spesific one. There is alot of talk about there beeing matter in the universe and not just vacuum. That got me thinking of the shape of galaxies. They seem to swirl with all "arms" bent in the same direction as if they are encountering matter much as if you envision spinning a starfish in water. Is the shape of the galaxies due to some physics in the galaxy itself or does indeed matter interact with vacuum in this way ? and if there was indeed matter bending the galaxies wouldnt they halt and eventually stop as their momentum stopped ? Also IF the galaxy is swirling becouse of matter wouldnt that create immense pressure at the core of the galaxy and could that have anything to do with black holes ? ps. im only taking a basic astronomy class so i obviously have "no idea" what im talking about lol , but if there are answers to this than please tell me about it. thank you

thanks for all the good answers !

( my first language isnt english so im sorry if theres alot of spelling errors ) first off im not a religious man and i DO " belive " in evolution theory, just to ease everone's mind My knowledge admittedly on this topic is limited to what ive read in a few books/magazines and seen in documentaries so i am well aware that these questions may have been answered without me knowing it. My question is about forknowledge, or what to me seems like forknowledge. First i have hard time getting my head around how the first watercreatures could make the jump to land. How did they succesfully "aquire" the biology to survive in an enviroment it had not yet experienced ? i mean, how did they evolve a new system to aquire oxygen even tho they had no "idea" what they needed ? My other question is similar but also evolves around time. We know that certain animals etc evolved longer limbs, bigger teeth, smaller body's etc to better survive in their enviroment but from my understanding ( and i repeat that i may be way off ) most of these attributes takes 1000s of years to evolve. My question is that how did these creatures survive while they evolved their much needed "longer necks" ? And i would guess that in a couple of 1000years the enviroment around them would have changed so their evolution was to no avail, to me that seems to have an unbearable failrate , so is it pure "luck" when they evolve in the right direction ? i hope these questions wasnt to nOOb for you guys as im a major in computer science and this really isnt my field at all. And again im no creationist i just got stuck on these questions when i pondered it. thx