The Big Bang is Wrong!

[Edtharan]

In the big bang there is no accounting for 95% of matter and 75% of energy??? What does it take for someone to say "Maybe this theory isn"t right"??? Religion like the big bang relies on the belief in dark matter and dark energy. In religion they just rename them deities and miracles. So far I am the only person I know of who does not believe in dark matter or dark energy in any form. It's not that I'm trying to be different, to me it's just logical.

It explains the stuff we can see and says that there is stuff we can't see (even if we don't understand the properties of it - which is particle physics, not the theory of the big bang). In fact it is the theory of the big bang (along with observation) that gives us the values of 95% of matter is un seen and 75% of energy is unobserved.

 

Even though the changes to the big bang theory occured after the observations indicated that there was missing mass/energy, the theory was still able to accomodate the fact of this missing mass/energy. By re-examining some assumptions made when the Big Bang model was proposed they were able to correct the theory without significant change. The reasons that those assumptions were made was that there was no observed evidence against them untill the observations that indicated that tehre was missing mass/energy.

 

Actually, this is exactly what you were tryaing to say that science didn't do. You have been argueiong that science is dogmatic and esistant to change or anyone trying to say that a theory is wrong (even going so far as to say that they would crusify someone). But this is exactly proving your calims about that wrong. It is proof that science is willing to change if evidence is presented that contradicts theory and assumption.

[Phi for All]

The big bang has turned into a religion theory and if you dare go against it be prepared to be crucified questioned.

This is more accurate and has the distinct advantage of being closer to the truth. Don't you think the scientists working on BB had to be a lot more rigorous than you're being?

 

It's not that I'm trying to be different, to me it's just logical.

This is what people say when a concept isn't immediately intuitive to them. You're no different from a lot of people except you're saying that because it doesn't make sense to you, it must be wrong. This is not logical. In fact, it's a Burden of Proof fallacy. You are demanding that BB prove itself to you because you don't "get it". Since you are in the minority, the burden of proof is on *you*. BB theory has already proven itself to most.

[Klaynos]

Even if you ignore the big bang. You STILL require dark energy and dark matter to explain our observations. The universe expansion is still accelerating, and you still get larger gravitational lensing that the visible mass explains...

 

The 3 ideas can be completely unrelated... Now, I know you have a problem with evidence, but I would like to know why you do? If I throw a rock at you and it hits you, you say owe, I respond with "it can't of hurt it touched my skin and didn't hurt so it can't of hurt you" the very idea of my statement is flawed, and the evidence of you bleeding shows this, but if I was acting like you are I'd just continue to blindly shout about it not possibly hurting you and you just being a believer in this pain and that in fact you have no arms and legs.

[Martin]

I think the wannabe critics have things upside down and bass-ackwards.

 

They try to challenge what they call "Big Bang theory" but the big bang is not a theory, it is a projection derived from General Relativity, our current theory of gravity.

 

GR has been repeatedly tested by experiment and astronomical observation and it is incredibly accurate. That's the theory we apply to the universe and if you fit GR to the data that we observe you get a cosmological model called LCDM.

If you project back in time, using this GR based model you come to conditions of extremely high density and rates of expansion (and at that point GR breaks down and won't compute back any further.)

 

It is a mistake to call it "Big Bang theory", the theory is GR. The Big Bang is just a derived CONSEQUENCE.

 

It is a mistake to call GR a "religion". A lot of serious research has been and is being devoted to finding alternative descriptions of gravity----alternative equations----alternative equations describing spacetime geometry. Hundreds of people are involved in this effort, which goes back over 30 years.

Everybody would LOVE it if we could find even just a slight modification that would work even a little bit better at fitting the observational data.

 

It is not a "religion" it is something we'd all like to see improved on. But it has a lock on----precision out to 5 or 6 decimals accuracy. It is hard to improve. the best alternatives so far are ones which deviate from GR only in very special circumstances and aside from that have the same overall behavior. And they tend agree about there being a big bang from which expansion started.

[jackson33]

Martin. Light travels at light speed. If in a single second the distance light is going to travel expands by an atom's width due to expansion of the universe, light still travels at light speed and not light speed plus an atom's width. It would have to travel at FTL speeds to stretch so does not do so.

 

 

I am curious, as to why you think energy waves expand with space expansion. The normal ant-BBT would argue a shrinking, if anything.

 

I also question BBT, which is most certainly a theory and the one most accepted by the science community. GR, is/has/will be used to explain uncertainty, which itself is being tested to legitimacy, by doing so.

 

As suggested, by jeff M., your in for a trip if you argue with the folks on this forum. They would seem to have a version of BBT, which if agreed on by them is not that of the consensus. Unfortunately, they are not by any means, stupid, ignorant or with out substantial back up. They are however arrogant to any opposition. I might also add, they know exactly where your coming from and have fought off hundreds, who have and will continue to question BBT.

 

Martin; Are you saying that its impossible the religious consciousness has never been a factor n the formation and evolving of BBT. Didn't the creator of relativity, admit later in life that he altered a formula to conform with his conviction.

 

thedarkshade; The Big Bang didn't happen. If anything an expansion of some imaginary conception of a singularity did. Think thats what its called here. If there is a solid problem with BB, it is the base.

[swansont]

Didn't the creator of relativity, admit later in life that he altered a formula to conform with his conviction.

 

He admitted to fudging by adding the cosmological constant, in order to agree with the view of the time. The observation of an expanding universe happened later; Einstein could have predicted it but chose instead to add the constant to make for a static universe.

 

 

Nothing to do with religion.

[jackson33]

He admitted to fudging by adding the cosmological constant, in order to agree with the view of the time. The observation of an expanding universe happened later; Einstein could have predicted it but chose instead to add the constant to make for a static universe.

 

Nothing to do with religion.

 

1916, GR, Einstein knew his formula indicated an expanding Universe, which in turn meant from a starting point. Yes, the BELIEFS/CONVICTIONS of the day, where in a eternal Universe and yes George LeMaitre and Ed Hubble came into the picture in the late 20's...

 

Einstein, born Jewish and indications are died believing in that religion. However he was a self professed Agnostic. He was also very active in his research and/or correspondence/visits with Catholic Clergy, who were involved in mathematics and science. His many quotes referencing social-religious-ethical idea's infer a sense of obligation to these groups. You can take this to his later days when expressing he wished he had not become involved in the Atom Bomb Program or his advise to FDR, to build one...

 

Religion and or social needs, influenced this man no less than many who preceded him or that have followed. Whether in Science, Politics or any other field, it should be accepted as a natural human response, with the added need to be accepted by those you work or live with. However its just as important to note its influance...

[Klaynos]

Oh Dear.

[swansont]

The validity of the big bang/general relativity rests on whether or not it fits with empirical data and makes valid predictions. Those are the boundary conditions for this discussion.

[Sayonara]

The validity of the big bang/general relativity rests on whether or not it fits with empirical data and makes valid predictions. Those are the boundary conditions for this discussion.

And GR does fit, massively and impressively so.

 

So let's confine this thread to the OP's topic, which means anti-BB participants present evidence.

[jackson33]

And GR does fit, massively and impressively so.

 

So let's confine this thread to the OP's topic, which means anti-BB participants present evidence.

 

IMO;

The topic, BB is wrong, really cannot be address in the way your requesting.

Any one can google a number of issues and find reputable authors of suggested opposition, but to many of us, who where educated during the times of Sagan, Hoyle or even Einstein (influence) hold open minds to BBT or SSU. We have lived through the times ideas, which made little to no sense, where placed ahead of those that would seem more accurate. Michael Goodspeed (Thunderbolts.com) 12/2007 and Adrian Bjornson- Mythology of MODERN Astronomy, are a couple examples.

 

Your forum and many other science/physics oriented forums, are visited by would be future people in those fields. Generally they are searching for answers or possibly just throwing an opinion out there, which they want to explore. GR, Einstein's "physical reality" singularity and many things being stated as the BBT, are not usually given in the explanations for the current theory, at least that I have seen. Even more rarely mentioned is the "Steady State Universe" which still has a following, with back up arguments. The pending 2013, James Webb Satellite Observatory, alone could validate SSU, to a degree, possibly even making BBT obsolete, by finding clear examples of galaxy similar to ours or Andromeda, much further out there than should be.

[YT2095]

IMO;

James Webb Satellite Observatory, alone could validate SSU, to a degree, possibly even making BBT obsolete, by finding clear examples of galaxy similar to ours or Andromeda, much further out there than should be.

 

I`ll bet they`re NOT all that similar in Reality though, they only Look that way to us, but if you could magically teleport there in an instant you`d find that they`r Nothing like ours, and only similar to what ours will WILL BE like.

 

we`re seeing the light from some stars that don`t even exist anymore, how much more true would this be for a whole Galaxy of them!?

[jackson33]

I`ll bet they`re NOT all that similar in Reality though, they only Look that way to us, but if you could magically teleport there in an instant you`d find that they`r Nothing like ours, and only similar to what ours will WILL BE like.

 

we`re seeing the light from some stars that don`t even exist anymore, how much more true would this be for a whole Galaxy of them!?

 

Actually, that is the point. If we see as clearly as is hoped, galaxy should be more defined in much greater distance. If we can see a galaxy 13 billion years out there, that existed those 13 billion years ago and is close to what ours should look like, how could the universe have formed and settled down in 2billion years. If the unexpected is seen and light is observed from an estimated20 or 30 billion years ago, as we now see it from 10-13 BY, that would make BB much older, or that we may indeed be a very old SSU.

 

My personal expectations; We will see very clear to further distance, but little to no additional distance will be observed in the 'light range' energy, probably do to distortion or limited waves. JW, will have a variety of energy detectors which could reveal some interesting data. They also hope to link the other existing telescopes (Including Hubble).

[jeff Mitchel]

Unfortunately the big bang boys beat the "Where's your proof, Where's your evidence drums" while in fact all they have is cosmic background and red-shift. What proof do they have that there weren't two, three, or a thousand big bangs. None. A lot of people put bread on their table because they beat the big bang drums. They don't want someone to take the drums away. Truth and logic has nothing to do with it.

[iNow]

Unfortunately the big bang boys beat the "Where's your proof, Where's your evidence drums" while in fact all they have is cosmic background and red-shift. What proof do they have that there weren't two, three, or a thousand big bangs. None. A lot of people put bread on their table because they beat the big bang drums. They don't want someone to take the drums away. Truth and logic has nothing to do with it.

 

You're funny. You talk of proof, yet offer nothing more than appeal to conspiracy and strawman to support your own postion. You're very funny, indeed... and, by funny, I mean hypocritical.

[thedarkshade]

Unfortunately the big bang boys beat the "Where's your proof, Where's your evidence drums" while in fact all they have is cosmic background and red-shift. What proof do they have that there weren't two, three, or a thousand big bangs. None. A lot of people put bread on their table because they beat the big bang drums. They don't want someone to take the drums away. Truth and logic has nothing to do with it.

It is exactly by proof that you confirm or deny a hypothesis, about anything. I have posted in your previous thread which dealt with this issue and back there too you didn't provide an strong argument and logical enough that would eventually back up what you think and deny Big Bang.

 

We have Martin and Swansont here that are physics experts, and indeed expert in the field and I am sure that they had to deal many times with the Big Bang issue during their career, and if they saw that something was wrong with Big Bang they would notice that and probably let us know too. But not only that they see nothing wrong with it, but they (and all serious physicists) support it.

 

If it is your own opinion that Big Bang didn't happen, then OK, we can't really do anything about it since you strongly support it, but this doesn't give you the right to try to impose your personal beliefs too us.

 

BTW iNow, I really don't think there is need for such offending irony like in your last post.

[Edtharan]

Unfortunately the big bang boys beat the "Where's your proof, Where's your evidence drums" while in fact all they have is cosmic background and red-shift. What proof do they have that there weren't two, three, or a thousand big bangs. None. A lot of people put bread on their table because they beat the big bang drums. They don't want someone to take the drums away. Truth and logic has nothing to do with it.

Ok, here is another proof: Entropy.

 

Unless repeated BB wipes out all information from the universe, then we have an entropy problem. As far as we know (that is there have never been any evidence against it), in a closed system entropy must reamain the same or increase.

 

So if any infomaration can be passed from one cycle of big bang to another, this means that entropy will also be transferred. As the Universe is increaseing in entropy (because it is a closed system), then repeated BB will keep this entropy increasing. However, when we look back at the state of the Universe 14 or so billion years ago, the entropy was quite low.

 

So even if we assume a life time of a Universe of 14 billion years and only 1 BB before ours, then we should be seeing a lot more eveidence of entropy around the time that we think the BB occurred. But we don't.

 

So a prediction according to the theory of repeated Big Bangs says that after the latest BB we should see more entropy than we do. This means that evidence disproves that theory and therefore that theory must either be dropped, or modified to account for the observations that contradict it.

 

However, once you adjust the theory to account for the contradicting observations, you end up with the same as current BB theory .

 

Modern BB theory developed because there were people that though this way. They proposed repeated BB cycles and they used the scientific method (hypothosis -> test by observations -> adjust the hypothisis to fit with the observations -> repeat) and this line of inquery strengthened what we now know as the Big Bang Theory because peopl looked at alternitives.

 

Many aspects of modern technology either directly or indirectly rely on the theories that the Big Bang is based on. If Scientists had got the theories that requier the Universe to have had a Big Bang wrong, then the knock on effects would have prevented us from developing much of modern technology.

 

If Relitivty was wrong, then GPS systems would rapidly go out of allignmnet (iirc about 1km of error per hour of operation - I think we would notice an error that big don't you). Reletivity tells us how matter moves on the large scales, forming into clumps (galaxies, etc) and describes the behaviours of matter and energy.

 

Police Radar guns use shift in frequencies of light to determine how fast a vehical is moving, or allows astronomers to determin if a galaxy is moving towards us or away from us and how fast.

 

If the theories underpinning these were wrong, then the inventions would not work. But they do work, so this is evidence that the theories are correct.

 

When you apply these theories to the Universe as a whole, then you end up with the Big Bang.

 

So, to deny the big bang, you have to deny radar guns and GPS systems work.

[swansont]

We have Martin and Swansont here that are physics experts, and indeed expert in the field and I am sure that they had to deal many times with the Big Bang issue during their career, and if they saw that something was wrong with Big Bang they would notice that and probably let us know too. But not only that they see nothing wrong with it, but they (and all serious physicists) support it.

 

Unfortunately that's a (weak) appeal to authority (and in my case, very weak). But the counterclaim of "there's no (or little) evidence for it" is crap. The CMB is not the only evidence. There is the expansion (Hubble's law) and the relative abundances of the light elements, to name two major lines of evidence.