So what you are saying is that would be able to hear a star exploding a milisecond before the explosion hits you? Well... I suppose. But you won't be able to hear it if you are at any sort of safe distance, even if the sound would normally reach that far.

Put it differently, you can fire a cannon in space without hearing it, even if you are right next to it.

So, in essence, you're agreeing with MM?

Just to clarify, sound travels through the vibration of atoms and molecules in a medium. In space there is no medium for sound to travel through. I don't know whose side I'm on because I didn't read your arguments. I'm simply clarifying scientific fact for you.

STM, I'm arguing that the explosive debris of the Big Bang was not a vacuum i.e. it was "stuff" and was therefore capable of acting as a medium for soundwaves.

Havoc. This is hypothetical. I'm not actually going to stand in front of an exploding universe.

You can hear explosions that are around you. Vibrations don't form one infinitismally thin layer that passes by like a bubble, things keep vibrating for a while after the force passes. And considering the Big Bang was a superdense explosion, all stuff and no space, that would certainly be the case there.

Also, considering the explosive radius of the Big Bang occupied all space in the universe, so far as to say that the explosion was the rapidly expanding universe, I highly doubt there's any kind of "safe distance" to be had.

Ah I didn't realize you meant the big bang specifically. I thought big (star) explosions in general. Ok then I agree.

HAHAHA ISN'T THAT JUST FUKKIN' 'ILARIOUS AND ALSO SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE

The term "Horrendous Space Kablooie," is gaining some currency in the scientific community.

I wonder if we'll ever invent some crazy wormhole-making engine thingy.

Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey.

They may not be wrong but they could lie

How could hundreds of thousands of astronomers and astrophysicists working over the last century, not to mention the tens of thousands currently publishing research, all be held back from revealing the truth?

Especially when they're actually fighting over each other trying to be the one to make such a revolutionary discovery. And picking apart everyone else's work for flaws, so that they can still be the ones to make that discovery for real.

And also the spirit of discovery and all that.

Can't we just say that they are all right? :) Then there would be no more fighting and they could drink tea together instead.

They are all wrong, and we'll never know the right one

I am the best astronomer because I say so. And I owned a telescope at some point, but some emotionally unstable fuckwad probably bashed it against a tree or something while he was camping.

Was the big bang actually that big? I mean, at the time there was nothing else around, so it probably just seemed big because there was nothing else to compare it to, and no other noises to drown it out.
I'm probably the first person who's thought about that. Look, I'm questioning science!

The phrase 'big bang' originally started life as a pejorative quip by a scientist in favour of the Steady State theory.

Also, the BB contained all the universe. Therefore all of space. Therefore all of time.

In short, it contained everything.

So yeah, it was pretty big.

Yeah, but maybe it wasn't so much a "BOOM!" as it was more of a "WHOOSH", there's no way to know.

The noise of all creation coming into being from a singularity is probably beyond the scope of human hearing.

If you were to make onomatopoeia of it, I would suggest copious uses of punctuation, changing colour a few times, bold text, cryllic font and changing to pictograms halfway through.

The Big Bang was tiny compared to Inflation.

I know. Milk is so much more expensive these days.

Oh, and the Big Bang was also minuscule when compared to the current size of the Universe. Obviously. Unless you believe in blue shift over red shift I guess....that's a scary thought. The universe is getting smaller.

There's alot of different theories on how the human population was formed, who knows?

This sentence must make perfect sense in your head. And that's all right.

An inflated balloon is larger than an uninflated balloon, but is still a balloon.

But it always has the same mass.

Mass and size are not the same.

But the Big Bang was an event, and the current universe is a state. It's like saying burning a tree is nothing compared to a forest fire. The former contains an transferel of almost nothing to something, and the latter is just a continuous state of somethings.

There's probably better chemist language for this BUT I DROPPED CHEMISTRY WHEN I WAS SIXTEEN BITE ME

You can argue the current universe is also an event, but there was nothing in STM's post to hint at that.

Technically the state of the current universe is still the Big Bang in progress, sort of. If the Big Bang was a huge explosion that hurled everything outward, then the universe expanding is a direct result from that. Until gravity starts to overtake the explosive force, at which point it will shrink again until we are all crunched to death and the entire process begins again.

You haven't understood expansion. Gravity will never overtake the explosive force, because the universe's expansion is accelerating. Due to Dark Energy (translation: "We don't really know why, yet. But we're working on it."), the universe is spreading itself out faster and faster.