> Hasn't the big bang basically been disproven as a theory?
No. That isn't to say that there aren't issues with it. Notably that it explains many of the observable qualities of the universe today with high accuracy, with our current instruments.
Due to some inconsistencies with what is observed across great distance (and time) and the need to violate a number of principles (thermodynamics and speed of light) during the inflation, there are other theories[1]. It is recognized that the BB theory has serious problems that cannot be empirically tested.
Therefore, the theory holds as long as it continues to be useful in describing our local space.
[1] I prefer the idea of a localized small bang as opposed to a universal big bang
The speed of light is not violated with inflation. Space can expand faster than the speed of light without matter needing to travel faster than speed of light.
Do you information on localized small bang theory? I thought that the way the Big Bang avoids being a black hole is by having gravity pull in all directions (isotropy). Wouldn’t a local bang just be a black hole?
The original Big Bang theory is considered incorrect. The addition of "inflation" makes it compatible with current evidence, and we still colloquially call that theory the "Big Bang" theory, so... no, it's not been disproven.
No. That isn't to say that there aren't issues with it. Notably that it explains many of the observable qualities of the universe today with high accuracy, with our current instruments.
Due to some inconsistencies with what is observed across great distance (and time) and the need to violate a number of principles (thermodynamics and speed of light) during the inflation, there are other theories[1]. It is recognized that the BB theory has serious problems that cannot be empirically tested.
Therefore, the theory holds as long as it continues to be useful in describing our local space.
[1] I prefer the idea of a localized small bang as opposed to a universal big bang