Thank you for your input. Okay, I think I heard of this one, but it is true that the universe is expanding which is the primary thing. Right?
I see your point, when the universe expands, space itself expands. In a sense saying that space inflates may be more accurate, but it seems that explosion is a good word also because it was a violent expansion which released much energy (with that consideration.)
The BB began as a point of mass, which was unbelievably small and dense. These are not atoms, because they are so dense. They had no atomic structure until the BB and the universe expanded and space and time as we know it began to appear.
Energy does not “hold mass together” at all.
Look at atoms and molecules which give structure and form to the universe. The atom seems to be held together by electricity. It is composed basically of electrons (negative charge), positon (positive) and neutrons (neutral.) They are carefully balanced out. Also there is the strong force which holds these three charges together in the atom without these charges repelling each other. As best I can know we don’t understand how this works, but it does.
Instead mass equals energy content.
No. There is a relationship between mass and energy. They are not equal.
We know that matter can be converted to energy and energy can be converted into matter. Fission and fusion convert matter into energy by changing the energy bonds of the molecules. It takes energy to create this energy, but of course more is gained then spent.
The Big Bang is the process by which the universe begins as nothing: no matter, no energy, no space, and no time and ends up as the universe we recognize. This did not happen all at once, although mass, energy, space and time did come into being in quick succession as Einstein’s Theory predicted they would.
@T_aquaticus and @pevaquark want to say that science accepts the Big Bang without the beginning of the Big Bang, because they want to say that the universe did not emerge out of nothing, What do you think?