Big Bang theory disputed (with evidence)

[Diamond]

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?

 

[iNow]

What are your doubts?

[DrRocket]

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?

 

 

YouTube posts are a poor source. That one is not an exception.

 

Start here

Then read real science books. Principles of Physical Cosmology by Peebles might be a good place to start.

[Diamond]

What are your doubts?

 

 

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.

 

YouTube posts are a poor source. That one is not an exception.

 

Start here

Then read real science books. Principles of Physical Cosmology by Peebles might be a good place to start.

 

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?

 

 

 

[Realitycheck]

Lots of study leading to lots of examination leading to lots of claims leading to lots of cross-examinations and corrections, adjustments, and progressive conclusions times a million, all culminating in the latest version of weak, baseless "theory". Open your mind.

 

Don't get me wrong. It's impossible to go back to the last scattering or before, but the big picture is pretty well established.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a few other scenarios occured before that, but there's no way of proving anything and all we can do is debate. The most likely one is the most popular.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Realitycheck

[csmyth3025]

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?

 

 

 

If you hope to have any sort of dialog in this forum you're going to have to be more specific than saying that you doubt "everything" about the big bang theory and that you don't think the theory "makes sense".

 

The series of YouTube videos that you cite start out discussing quasars. Perhaps you can start there and explain what it is about the currently accepted theories about quasars that don't make sense to you.

 

Alternately, you can pick some other astronomical observation that you feel has been misinterpreted by the scientific community at large.

 

Chris

[Diamond]

^ 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.

[uncool]

^ Ok, the current guess is that the Universe is 80 Billion years old

According to whom?

 

I believe the current estimate is 14 billion or so, not 80 billion.

yet they have documented stars in excess of 140 billion years old

Reference? I'm pretty sure cosmologists would have noted an obvious discrepancy like this.

, 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,

That is incorrect. Dark matter is theorized because there are observed discrepancies between orbiting matter and current statistical mechanics calculations of how it ought to be distributed. You may be thinking of dark energy, which is theorized because of evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

there is no proof whatsoever that dark matter even exists.

You are correct that there is no proof; however, that is true of anything in science. On the other hand, there is a large deal of evidence - both for dark matter and for dark energy,

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.

Would you mind providing citations for the above claims (80 billion and 140 billion) then? And additionally, if you have done research, then why are you mixing up three clearly separate theories (dark matter, dark energy, and the big bang)?

=Uncool-

[pantheory]

Diamond,

 

Aspects and segments of this video have been around for many decades. It was written by Eric Lerner who wrote the book The Big Bang Never Happened. I think his book was quite good. In my opinion there are many serious problems with the Big Bang model that are generally discussed in this video but there is also some sarcasm included and I think some wrongful characterizations of the model. It certainly is not just a scientific criticism. It seems to have been produced to sway the opinions of those who are unaware of the issues. By blanketly implying the Big Bang model has numerous problems, for most knowledgeable readers would be no revelation. So what are your particular concerns that might be discussed here?

 

Also your posting #7 contains inaccurate information. If you have your own opinion or alternative sources for this info you need to post them, otherwise no one could guess where these numbers came from. It might be better to ask questions. Maybe some astronomers or theorists think some stars are 80-140 billion years old but who are they? You may have simply misunderstood. You need to clarify this

Edited August 28, 2011 by pantheory

[StringJunky]

Diamond,

 

 

Also your posting #7 contains inaccurate information. If you have your own opinion or alternative sources for this info you need to post them, otherwise no one could guess where these numbers came from. It might be better to ask questions. Maybe some astronomers or theorists think some stars are 80-140 billion years old but who are they? You may have simply misunderstood. You need to clarify this

 

I suspect diamond confused the 80 billion-140 billion figure as the age of the universe when it is actually the the possible range of its size or concluded, wrongly, that because the universe is that big it must be that old...he/she is not aware of inflation.

 

Diamond

 

Here's some straightforward cosmo links from the sticky in the Astro/Cosmo section on this site that will put you on the right track:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33180-cosmo-basics/

[pantheory]

I suspect diamond confused the 80 billion-140 billion figure as the age of the universe when it is actually the the possible range of its size or concluded, wrongly, that because the universe is that big it must be that old...he/she is not aware of inflation.

 

Diamond

 

Here's some straightforward cosmo links from the sticky in the Astro/Cosmo section on this site that will put you on the right track:

 

http://www.sciencefo...0-cosmo-basics/

I wrote my posting last night. Now in retrospect I think Diamond was probably misquoting something that was discussed in the video, that supposedly to get the abundance of light elements to come closer to what is observed, the numbers supposedly would crunch better if the universe were 8 billion years old instead of the presently asserted 13.7 Billion, but there are some known stars in our galaxy that some astronomers believe are at least 14 billion years old. My guess is that he meant to say 8 and 14 billion years, not 80 and 140

..

Edited August 28, 2011 by pantheory

[Diamond]

I wrote my posting last night. Now in retrospect I think Diamond was probably misquoting something that was discussed in the video, that supposedly to get the abundance of light elements to come closer to what is observed, the numbers supposedly would crunch better if the universe were 8 billion years old instead of the presently asserted 13.7 Billion, but there are some known stars in our galaxy that some astronomers believe are at least 14 billion years old. My guess is that he meant to say 8 and 14 billion years, not 80 and 140

..

 

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.

 

[jackson33]

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.[/Quote]

 

Diamond; First thanks for bringing back that documentary, which according to the credits was produced in 2003 and since IMO, the arguments to explain BBT, have leaned toward Science Fiction. It almost makes me want to reengage in the discussion, which hooked me on these science forums years ago when SSU was not classified "Speculation".

 

As the documentary mentioned in no uncertain terms, any questioning of BBT, by the way named "The Big Bang", by Fred Hoyle (a contributor), can only draw evasive comments based on your UNDERSTANDING, questioning or at best a repeat of "said" facts that support an unsupportable theory.

 

Anyway, I'll be looking forward to seeing any qualified response, in particular from "Martin" whom is one that could answer without degrading the integrity of the poster. ALSO, welcome to the forum and good luck....

[pantheory]

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.

 

Yes, I watched the whole video and think that most of the criticisms are valid. It is nothing new however since some of the clips were filmed before the production date 2003, maybe decades ago. Since that time the Big Bang model has seemingly not improved with the additional epicycles such as the cosmological constant or dark energy, dark matter, the Power Spectrum of the microwave background, etc. One improvement of the model I believe involves no requirement for a beginning BB. The theory now begins with a hot dense expanding field. Before that is now considered as hypothesis by most theorists.

 

Some possible epicycles have so-far been avoided such as Multiverses, higher dimensions such as string theory, Brane theory, quantum field addendums, etc. You might realize that the production of this video is directed toward novices considering the hoaky crumbling Greek monuments, the 1950's patriotic inserts, some of the analogies, references discussing religion and the BB model, etc.

 

Many of those who commented are famous dissidents concerning the Big Bang model since its beginning. Some of these physicists, cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers, are/ were Nobel Prize caliber scientists, even though none actually won the Prize. The most noted would be Fred Hoyle. He and Jayant Narlikar, a famous mathematician and theorist , together wrote a number of alternative cosmological theories. Geoffrey Burbrige and his wife Margaret both were professors and astrophysicists, and both were founding members of the University of California at San Diego and long standing theorists who have written books and numerous papers concerning what some consider to be serious problems with of the Big Bang model. Also dissident astronomers such as Halton Arp who along with the Burbriges are well known concerning their opposition to the idea that all QUASARS must necessarily be at the distances as seemingly indicated by their redshifts.

 

Eric Lerner produced the video and is a known author, researcher, and theorist in the field of Plasma Cosmology, which is a proposed alternative to the BB model. He is known for his book The Big Bang Never Happened and his theories concerning Plasma Cosmology which were also discussed. With the exception of the one Spanish astronomer who grew up in the modern age of the Big Bang era, all the rest of the theorists featured in this video have stated either that they have always had doubts concerning the BB model, or that they never believed in the possibility of the Big Bang model based upon the evidence.

//

Edited August 29, 2011 by pantheory

[Diamond]

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?

[pantheory]

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?

Although anti Big Bangers may have some valid arguments, my guess is that they represent no more than 1% of the total theorists in cosmology. Part of the reason is based upon few jobs, funding, or grants available for alternative study or theorists. Probably most pursue alternative theory and hypothesis with their own funding. There is also is no consensus among alternative theorists other than some beliefs in common concerning problems with the BB model. As to which is gaining grounds, I think that the BB model has lost little grounds to other models in the last 40+ years or more. It would seemingly take a discovery that both is contrary to the BB model and which seems to add credence to another model, to change the tide if the BB is wrong. Such observations might be after the James Webb telescope goes up. If at that time as far as we can observe we still see old appearing large elliptical galaxies at the farthest distances as we now see with the Hubble, then I think the tide in favor of the BB model will begin to turn. And if another theory makes a prediction that is confirmed which contradicts the BB model, then there would be for the first time in nearly 50 years serious consideration given to another cosmological model. There are possible experiments that seemingly could accomplish this in the next decade. Providing strong evidence that some QUASARS are closer than their redshifts would indicate is just one possibility.

//

Edited August 29, 2011 by pantheory

[Diamond]

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?

[uncool]

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?

You have yet to demonstrate any of these so-called "holes". So far, you have claimed precisely one possible hole, and it has already been pointed out that 1) You have mistaken both ages by a factor of 10, and 2) you have mixed up the two ages (as the universe is theorized to be approximately 14 billion years old; no star is theorized to be older than that). As such, you have presented absolutely no holes.

I thought it was the job of scientists to only document an answer once it's been proven beyond tested means,

Which the big bang has - it made specific predictions, and those predictions were tested and confirmed by experiment.

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?

You're right, it doesn't add up - because you are making an assumption which is false. You are assuming that the Big Bang theory is no more than a best guess, when it has made confirmed predictions.

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.

As others have asked you, please explain some of these so-called problems. The most you have done is provide 1, and that one turned out to be wrong.

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?

I would choose the Big Bang model at the moment because it has made specific, testable, falsifiable predictions which have been borne out, whereas as far as I can tell, your pet "hypothesis" has not. Would you like to make a specific prediction, here and now?

=Uncool-

[pantheory]

Diamond,

 

......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?

In my opinion it's not that the scientists discussing that some quasars might have redshifts that are unrelated to their real distances from us; it's that theorists will not discuss it seriously because it would interfere with one of the pillars of the BB model. That pillar is that redshifts are directly related to distances. I agree with the scientists in the video that such fear in not warranted in that "some quasars" does not mean all quasars, nor does it necessarily mean that any galaxy's EM radiation could be influenced in such a way. The most common explanation for such a redshift is called a gravitational redshift, which is also called an Einstein redshift. This proposal if valid would weaken the BB model but I don't think by much. I agree that probably no BB theorists want to consider such a possibility, and believe as they have suggested, it's because of the possible destabilization of the BB model. This one possibility is not a big challenge to the BB model in my opinion. Halton Arp according to the video, on the other hand, believes that galaxies in general are created from proto-galaxies by an ejection process from a central black hole area of a parent galaxy. He believes this is the standard mechanism of galaxy formation via proto-galaxies. This idea/ model is totally contrary to the standard BB model and if valid might do away with the BB model. But to consider the possibility of some proto-galaxies might be at distances different from their observed redshift might open the door for the possibility of all, so such an idea will not even be considered unless the evidence is overwhelming which it presently is not.

 

I am a cosmologist and theoretical physicist of the second order (little recognized). I've been creating theories since the late 1950's. I have never believed in the BB model. There was a time in my early teens when I adhered to Hoyle's steady state model. Since that time I have developed my own theory which can be found by using any search engine looking for the Pan Theory. My own theory I believe is vastly simpler than the BB model or the steady state model. In my own model I allow for some quasars to be at distances different than their redshifts would indicate, similar to what the scientists in the video believe should be considered.

 

In the BB model, Hoyle's steady state models, and Plasma Cosmology, the universe is expanding based upon the observed redshift of galaxies. As Hubble first pointed out these redshifts correlate with a galaxy's brightness meaning that redshifts, at least concerning galaxies, appear to be related to their distances. The farther away a galaxy the greater its redshift. One further assumption must be made to conclude that the universe is expanding. The assumption is that these galaxies are moving away from us which is the reason for their apparent redshifts. In my own model I make a different assumption which explains galactic redshifts differently. In my model the universe therefore is not expanding. I consider it the simplest possible model consistent with observations but it remains generally unknown to most mainstream theorists and the public in general. My expectation is that the BB model will begin to lose ground to other models maybe 5 years after the James Webb goes up. This is because I believe they will continue to see old appearing galaxies as far as they can observe which will be contrary to the BB model but consistent with "older universe," or infinite universe models.

 

As the gents in the video have pointed out there are a number of ad hoc hypothesis that have necessarily been added to the BB model so that it can remain consistent with observed reality. The dominant hypotheses that had to be added were Inflation, dark matter, and some kind of dark energy.

 

For my own model I have developed observational experiment(s) that might exclude all models based upon General Relativity, which include the BB and all the other models mentioned. Such experiments or observations that point solely in the direction of another model of gravity or point to the prediction(s) of a particular model, could demand the attention and consideration of present day cosmologists.

//

Edited August 30, 2011 by pantheory

[Diamond]

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.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Diamond

[csmyth3025]

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...

Before you get too wrapped up in conspiracy theories about how the scientific establisment is trying to fool the public, it would be a good idea to learn why the big bang model is generally accepted. There's a lot of experimental evidence and observations that support this model. Taking the word of scientists in a YouTube video as gospel is even more senseless than taking the word of "highly decorated scientists" as gospel. Study all the evidence and decide for yourself what to believe.

 

A good place to start is Wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

Chris

[Diamond]

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.

 

Before you get too wrapped up in conspiracy theories about how the scientific establisment is trying to fool the public, it would be a good idea to learn why the big bang model is generally accepted. There's a lot of experimental evidence and observations that support this model. Taking the word of scientists in a YouTube video as gospel is even more senseless than taking the word of "highly decorated scientists" as gospel. Study all the evidence and decide for yourself what to believe.

 

A good place to start is Wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

Chris

 

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.

[Peron]

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.

 

.............

 

You're confusing hostility with rational thinking. just look at the evidence and you will see that it supports the big bang theory.

the theories of Halton Arp and Eric Lerner have been disproved. Here, Arp

and here Lerner

[uncool]

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

So you no longer think that we already have discovered such stars? Are you agreeing that your example earlier didn't work, and that we have not yet found stars that are older than the currently theorized age of the universe?

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?

I'm afraid that the video is a bad introduction to this theory; a good one would get to the point quickly, rather than starting after 5 minutes.

 

I'm not seeing even a single prediction in the other video, so I couldn't tell you that there are any predictions that the "alternate universe model in the video" does not make. You are the one providing a theory that is contrary to the consensus; what is a specific prediction that you think it does make?

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,

It is because you postured at the beginning as if you did have all of the answers to the questions that I asked - you were stating, as if it were a fact, that there are holes in BBT, and that such things as dark matter and dark energy had no proof. All of the questions that I asked are ones that, given what you have posted, you should be able to answer.

if you watch the video (7mins) see what those scientists propose then refute their claims with your own evidence.

The video is certainly a lot more than 7 minutes; the one linked to in your OP is at least an hour long. I am not going to watch the whole hour of it; you should be able to specifically state the claims that you think are relevant.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

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.

Sorry, but you don't get to pass the buck like this. The way you framed the question, you are definitely questioning the BB theory.