Diamond

Just like to say thanks to Pantheory and Jackson 33 you've been a great help and I think I have enough to help me view this further with a much better view than I had when I started this thread, I'll be keeping an eye on your theory (Pantheory) and will give some thought to Jackson 33's idea also both I think are very interesting and worth seeing where those models could lead compared to current mainstream theories. Many thanks.

People keep championing the Bullet Cluster lensing as "undeniable proof" of dark matter are other phenomena like this a more probable answer (or ones like it). http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-universe-not-so-missing-mass.html Pantheory in extreme layman's terms are you suggesting in your model ..... A similar path of the BB except a lot older and the Universe is a lot bigger than BB theorists perceive? Unless I'm wrong you are saying matter is multiplying at a much slower rate than the inflation theory suggests? I would put this questions in your thread but I've been through it and it is not a debate for amateurs lol.

Yeah I checked out Pantheory's alternative model thread and I am way out of my depth on the discussions on that one, dark matter, CRB and inflation seem easy to comprehend compared to all that lol. Jackson 33 your idea's do interest me, I think that presents 2 major schools of thought no matter which model you believe, either A) The Universe developed from a singularity or B) Matter in abundance has always been there. Depending which you adhere to it would effect a model from start to finish, is there any evidence at all to suggest either or could be correct? I suppose for me who has to view these things in an abstract manor due to my lack of specialist understanding I would say that if you find the idea of all matter coming from a singularity a bit of a stretch at best then your idea seems more reliable. We know matter is here therefore your idea seems to be in the driving seat against a minimised start of existence from a common sense point of view, so has there been any evidence to suggest the universe was once at a condensed point? I know Pantheory has said there is no conclusive evidence, but if there is not then why such bias/focus towards an inflation/expansion theory surely there must be a reason?

Jackson 33, Pantheory and co, pro and anti BB, thanks a lot this is really helpful stuff. This is the first forum I've found to have such a good mixture of ideas at this level. One question I have is, is there any evidence to suggest where the proposed expansion is emanating from within the Universe? I'm assuming that as we are supposed to be observing expansion due to the BB model the reversing of time must show or give an indication of a starting point in space? If some time down the road we discover the Universe is much larger than anticipated and that it could be twice maybe more so as big would that not completely destroy the notion that we are in the vicinity of that starting BB point because surely we could not be the centre point of something that large? Sorry but I can easily match your response .... Go to the very bottom of the page listed Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened" http://bigbangneverhappened.org/index.htm I read Dr Wrights rebuttal and all I see are two scientists misinterpreting or misleading what the other is saying, more to the point ....... neither have solid evidence to prove the other wrong, yet the same BB underlying problems remain and remain ignored or adjusted to suit. Zapato's thanks, does anyone have a good rebuttal for these dark energy / dark matter existence claims? What conclusions should we take from this ...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html Are they valid enough to assume they exist or is it a smoking gun at best?

Ok well even though as I said the scientists in part 8/9 of that series can address it better than I they basically say that without dark matter / dark energy the BB theory does not hold up which is why they were put forward in the first place and yes I am questioning the theory based on qualified scientists claiming that the BB theory is ad hoc. 1) Does anyone here who are believers in the BB theory have any evidence this two phenomena actually exists ........ ? 2) The discovery in the last decade of Martín López-Corredoira and Carlos Gutierrez of the redshift issue between the two Quasars and the linked galaxies. What about this discovery, or has this been proven to be a load of rubbish as well? you ask me to provide evidence I could upload their paper but unless you wanted to go all through that I'm making these You tube links to get to save time.

Pantheory, thank you very much. You would not believe how hard it is to have this conversation, the amount of hostility it generates is quite amusing and draining (not necessarily here but on other forums) it's like walking into a baptist church and claiming there is no God. One interesting point that was put to me regarding whether dark matter/energy exists was ...... "So you lack belief in dark matter despite the rather large body of evidence that it does indeed exist? Please explain the gravitational lensing effect." "Great, now you have to account for the observed red-shifts of type 1-a supernovae, please present your math. As it stands, 'Dark energy', some anti-gravitational force leading to spatial expansion, is our best explanation - If you think you've got a better way to account for the observed phenomenon it's up to you to show that this explanation is more plausible." If you have a good rebuttal or explanation on this it would be most helpful lol. I got that far a while ago, I know why it's generally accepted ...... and that solves my questions how? I am only directly challenging the status quo based on their beliefs so once again it is not I who is guilty of questioning the BB theory, I am simply raising it because I share their doubts, hence still it is their observations which make up the body of argument and needs to be refuted not my own.

To Uncool. Yes sure, I believe that we will discover that the Universe is a a lot bigger than is observable at this time and the bigger it is the more it degrades the BB theory as this will effect the known age of the Universe if we discover stars older than 14 billion years old also the sheer amount of matter will be ever increasing showing the likelihood of a singular point of creation would be improbable. Uncool what has the Big Bang predicted that the alternative universe model in the video could not do? also can I make it clear this is not my theory, I am tending to lean towards it instead of the BB but it is the scientists in the video who are the proponents of this theory, I don't know why you are positioning questions at me like I have all the answers, if you watch the video (7mins) see what those scientists propose then refute their claims with your own evidence.

The thing I found strange is that why have so many top scientists who (you would think) would be smart enough to see some of the holes in the BB theory still allow it to go unchallenged? I thought it was the job of scientists to only document an answer once it's been proven beyond tested means, I understand that people like to present a best guess theory but if it does not add up why should it even be the most popular model? A lot of non science minded members of the public actually take the BB theory as gospel because they think these highly decorated scientists know better but as you dig deeper you find that there are numerous problems with the idea. I honestly think that the BB theory will turn out to be completely invalid the work those scientists are doing in the documentary seem to me to be more on the right track and maybe if the scientific community had continued to question the BB model this would have been completed much sooner? Pantheory I'd be interested in light of what those particular scientists (in the video) are claiming what theory you think is more probable and if you choose the BB model what is your personal reasoning behind that?

Thanks for the welcome jackson33 and for pantheory's helpful comments. Does anyone know since this video was released what theory of the two pro and anti BB is gaining ground or if there has been new evidence to support either theory? I know I'm translating my opinions in layman terms but surely if the Universe is indeed a lot larger than what we can detect does that not make a singular BB creation model all the more irrelevant? it appears to me the equations to justify the BB model are being sought to prove the theory rather than actually providing evidence to an answer which may lead elsewhere. My common sense led me to question it and the more I learn about it the more I wonder how more established minds have not questioned it also or more to the point how it's become so widely accepted as gospel when it clearly has inherit problems?

Yes my apologies I mean't 14 Billion not 140. I don't expect people to watch the whole series but the last two parts roughly 7mins each have most of the contradictions summarized. I'm using this as my source as I understand these guy's are fully qualified scientists, I'd like to know your rebuttals on their claims. This is part 8, there are only 9 parts.

^ Ok, the current guess is that the Universe is 80 Billion years old yet they have documented stars in excess of 140 billion years old, how can they claim a singular source created the entire universe in that timescale? We don't even know how big it is, it could go on for nigh infinity so the further it goes the worse this botched theory becomes, in the videos I've sighted they have even said how the current theory had to have the dark matter equation added just to make the maths relevant, there is no proof whatsoever that dark matter even exists. I had my doubts about the theory hence why I was researching it and the more I learned about why some scientists doubt the theory and why the more I discovered it's many faults.

Everything, I do not think the theory makes sense, it's to simplistic, it's a rush job bottled answer especially when I realised how little we actually can prove. Our actual proof or evidence for a lot of things in space is purely hypothetical, dark matter for example is complete hypothesis with no proof it even exists. According to the scientists in the video It's maths are even wrong. I will look at it but i'd like to ask the people in that video are top level scientists, the program they are in happens to have been posted on youtube I don't see how that makes the work of these scientists any less relevant?

Hi I'm new here, I've joined this forum as I want to explore cosmology with people who are educated in this field as I do not have any great educational knowledge in this area. This is a video I've been watching on youtube as part of some amateur research I am doing into the Big Bang theory .... I found it extremely interesting as I have doubts about the singular Big Bang theory. What are your views on this subject?