David Levy Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) I wonder why our scientists do whatever it takes to support the BBT. What is so Unique in the BBT? What makes it different from many other theories? Why our scientists always try to adapt the BBT to new discoveries, while they do not stop even for just one moment and ask themselves if this theory is incorrect? Just few obstacles of the BBT: 1. Size/Quantity - After the inflation (10-32) the size of the early Universe was about 10 cm (as grapefruit) and it includes particles which could fit info 375 billion trillion galaxies. Is it feasible? How can a natural force create this huge amount of particles in just a fraction of a second? 2. Speed - At the end of the inflation process, it is expected that the Universe will expand at lower speed. However, based on the data, at the end of the first second, the size of the universe was 4 LY which means an expansion speed of over 6 Million light speed. Is it feasible? 3. Density distribution - Due to the bang and the Ultra high momentum/speed it is expected that all the plasma will move out from the bang - in some sort of ball shell. So as the plasma is moving in all directions, In the middle - it is not expected to find any sort of plasma. Over time - it is expected that this aria should be clear from all mass/plasma. In all the experiments of bangs it was proved that there is no way to get a smooth density distribution. Hence, how could it be that the BBT set a nice density distribution in space (all over the Universe)? 4. Expansion reduction - At the age of 500,000 years, the size of the universe was 1,500,000 LY - which means a plasma speed of 1.5 Light speed. However, at the first second the speed was 6 Million the speed of light. Therefore we need to verify how could it be that there is so severe speed reduction - from 6 million to 1.5 light speed (reduction of 4 million times). Due to the momentum in space, it is not expected to see that kind of speed reduction. Please also remember that the inflation had ended long before the end of the first second. So, is it feasible? 5. Black body signature - when the age of the Universe was 380,000 years old, the plasma moves faster than the speed of light. At that speed, a photon can't meet the expanding early plasma edge. Therefore, from a photon point of view it is moving in an open space. An open space means no black body signature. 6. Why the science is not taking care about the moment before the Bang? What could be the natural process which leads to this magnificent bang? Why our scientists ignore this section? 7. Repeatable activities in the Nature - In our universe any natural activity is repeatable. Day, night, rain, snow, supernova… So, why the big bang is not repeatable? Why only one bang? So, how could it be that the whole science community protects it so strongly? The BBT is at the top, while Einstein is much lower and below. The science community is using Einstein equation as a mathematical proof for the BBT, but they reject all his messages which contradict the BBT. It seems to me that if you want to consider yourself as a scientist, your first mission is to believe in the BBT. Actually, if you do not believe in the BBT you won't be considered as a scientist among the science community. Why? Normally - belief goes with religion. If you are Christian - you should believe in Jesus. If you are Islamic - you should believe in Mohammad. If you are Jew - you should believe in God. If you are scientist - you should believe in BBT. Does it mean that the BBT is some sort of religion? Somehow, in a fraction of a second – after the Big bang, incredible quantity of practical -which can easily fit to 375,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (375 Billion trillion) galaxies - had been created. Just think about this Idea, what a huge power is need for that... Who can set this quantity? How could it be? It seems to me that only a divine power can set this kind of a bang. So, is it the reason why the Pop had adopted the BBT? In this case, our scientist can focus on the moment after the bang while the moment before is under the Pop control. I hope that Pop will forgive me, but I really can't understand why it is so important for the Christianity to show that divine power is needed for our life generation over generation. Somehow, in the past they didn't accept Darwin Theory, Galileo discoveries and many others. So does it mean that if you are Christian you should believe in the BBT? I would like to highlight that I have full appriciation to Christianity, but somehow we must distinguish between science and religion. Edited June 10, 2017 by David Levy
dimreepr Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) Why our scientists always try to adapt the BBT to new discoveries, while they do not stop even for just one moment and ask themselves if this theory is incorrect? I'm pretty sure they know it's incorrect, but it's a good guess; have you got a better idea? This is all I've read, the rest TLDR. Edited June 10, 2017 by dimreepr
Strange Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 I wonder why our scientists do whatever it takes to support the BBT. Please provide some evidence to support this. What is so Unique in the BBT? What makes it different from many other theories? It just happens to be the best fit to all the evidence. Why our scientists always try to adapt the BBT to new discoveries, while they do not stop even for just one moment and ask themselves if this theory is incorrect? 1. Science works by adapting theories when new evidence is found. And developing new theories when the old theories no longer work. That is how we got to the big bang model. 2. Scientists constantly ask if theories are correct. They constantly test the evidence and look for new evidence. I'm sure they all hope to find evidence that would either show the theory to be wrong or require major changes. After all, that is the road to a Nobel Prize. Just few obstacles of the BBT: As these straw man objections are all just based on ignorance or misunderstanding (and you have no interest in learning) we can skip this. The BBT is at the top, while Einstein is much lower and below. The big bang model is based on Einstein's theories. The science community is using Einstein equation as a mathematical proof for the BBT, but they reject all his messages which contradict the BBT. I don't know what "messages" you are talking about, but they are probably irrelevant. All that matters is the evidence. (And there is no such thing as "mathematical proof for the BBT".) It seems to me that if you want to consider yourself as a scientist, your first mission is to believe in the BBT. Actually, if you do not believe in the BBT you won't be considered as a scientist among the science community. Nonsense. However, if you reject evidence (as you do) then you are not being scientific. I have ignored your moronic, ignorant and totally irrelevant comments about religion.
swansont Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 I wonder why our scientists do whatever it takes to support the BBT. ! Moderator Note I wonder why you keep harping on this rather than learn the science, and do so after being told not top open threads on it.
Recommended Posts