Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Problems with the Big Bang theory.

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 10:40:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I came across this site today.
http://metaresearch.org...

Apparently science needs to rethink their big bang theory.

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.
(2) The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
(6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
(7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
(8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
(9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.
(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

I find it extremely interesting that the big bang theory was invented by a Catholic Priest. Georges Lemaitre
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I wonder if his preconceived ideas about a God caused him to try to explain how God created the universe and so his theory is really based on his religious beliefs without mentioning God.
When you think about it, the big bang theory implies there was nothing before the universe was created. religion basically teaches the same thing,. "Once upon a time there was nothing" then God created.... ( thats the Religious version )..... or then Big Bang ( That's the scientific version of the same myth )

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period. Proposed scenarios differ radically."
psyduck
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 11:28:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 10:40:02 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I came across this site today.
http://metaresearch.org...

Apparently science needs to rethink their big bang theory.

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.
(2) The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
(6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
(7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
(8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
(9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.
(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

I find it extremely interesting that the big bang theory was invented by a Catholic Priest. Georges Lemaitre
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I wonder if his preconceived ideas about a God caused him to try to explain how God created the universe and so his theory is really based on his religious beliefs without mentioning God.
When you think about it, the big bang theory implies there was nothing before the universe was created. religion basically teaches the same thing,. "Once upon a time there was nothing" then God created.... ( thats the Religious version )..... or then Big Bang ( That's the scientific version of the same myth )

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period. Proposed scenarios differ radically."

1) Hubble's law disagrees. How can objects that are moving away at a speed proportional to their distance from us be considered static?
2) I don't see how. CMB is logistically explained by decoupling. Universe was dense enough that photons couldn't move around. Then they could and we're left with a fuzzy CAT-scan of the primordial universe.
3) dunno, not well-versed in this
4) What are you basing your calculations on?
5) Are you saying that all quasars have the same apparent magnitude? Cause that's simply not true.
6) see #4
7) not familiar with streaming motion, but nowhere in the big bang theory does it imply that the universe is finite/uniform. There is assumption that the universe is fairly homogeneous though.
8) Dark matter/WIMP's have nothing to do with the big bang theory. That's based off galaxy rotation and movement in a cluster.
9) In high redshift galaxies, there are more frequent irregular galaxies, which were caused by collisions. That implies that galaxies were closer together and that since then, galaxies have recovered to more regular shapes.
10) The universe already seems pretty dissipated to me
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 11:37:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 11:28:27 PM, psyduck wrote:

1) Hubble's law disagrees. How can objects that are moving away at a speed proportional to their distance from us be considered static?
2) I don't see how. CMB is logistically explained by decoupling. Universe was dense enough that photons couldn't move around. Then they could and we're left with a fuzzy CAT-scan of the primordial universe.
3) dunno, not well-versed in this
4) What are you basing your calculations on?
5) Are you saying that all quasars have the same apparent magnitude? Cause that's simply not true.
6) see #4
7) not familiar with streaming motion, but nowhere in the big bang theory does it imply that the universe is finite/uniform. There is assumption that the universe is fairly homogeneous though.
8) Dark matter/WIMP's have nothing to do with the big bang theory. That's based off galaxy rotation and movement in a cluster.
9) In high redshift galaxies, there are more frequent irregular galaxies, which were caused by collisions. That implies that galaxies were closer together and that since then, galaxies have recovered to more regular shapes.
10) The universe already seems pretty dissipated to me

Take a look at http://metaresearch.org...
That should answer your questions.
I just posted it because I thought it was interesting.

I think it is very amusing that both science and religion have a "story" about the universe coming from "nothing"
It is even more amusing that scientists have opposing opinions and theories within the realm of science itself.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 11:48:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 10:40:02 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I came across this site today.
http://metaresearch.org...

Apparently science needs to rethink their big bang theory.

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.
(2) The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
(6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
(7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
(8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
(9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.
(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

I find it extremely interesting that the big bang theory was invented by a Catholic Priest. Georges Lemaitre
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I wonder if his preconceived ideas about a God caused him to try to explain how God created the universe and so his theory is really based on his religious beliefs without mentioning God.
When you think about it, the big bang theory implies there was nothing before the universe was created. religion basically teaches the same thing,. "Once upon a time there was nothing" then God created.... ( thats the Religious version )..... or then Big Bang ( That's the scientific version of the same myth )

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period. Proposed scenarios differ radically."

I barely know anything compared to psyduck, but even I know the universe is not static.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
psyduck
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 11:54:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 11:37:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 2/16/2014 11:28:27 PM, psyduck wrote:

1) Hubble's law disagrees. How can objects that are moving away at a speed proportional to their distance from us be considered static?
2) I don't see how. CMB is logistically explained by decoupling. Universe was dense enough that photons couldn't move around. Then they could and we're left with a fuzzy CAT-scan of the primordial universe.
3) dunno, not well-versed in this
4) What are you basing your calculations on?
5) Are you saying that all quasars have the same apparent magnitude? Cause that's simply not true.
6) see #4
7) not familiar with streaming motion, but nowhere in the big bang theory does it imply that the universe is finite/uniform. There is assumption that the universe is fairly homogeneous though.
8) Dark matter/WIMP's have nothing to do with the big bang theory. That's based off galaxy rotation and movement in a cluster.
9) In high redshift galaxies, there are more frequent irregular galaxies, which were caused by collisions. That implies that galaxies were closer together and that since then, galaxies have recovered to more regular shapes.
10) The universe already seems pretty dissipated to me

Take a look at http://metaresearch.org...
That should answer your questions.
I just posted it because I thought it was interesting.

I think it is very amusing that both science and religion have a "story" about the universe coming from "nothing"
It is even more amusing that scientists have opposing opinions and theories within the realm of science itself.

Let's not bring religion into this please. And I'm not going to do your research for you. The site seems to use a lot of scientific sounding phrases and such, but doesn't really have any content to back anything up.

Also, "science" doesn't say anything about the universe coming from nothing. The big bang theory is simply that you go in time far enough and the universe was infinitely dense.

This is the way I think about the beginning of the universe. Before the big bang, time was meaningless. From general relativity, we know that time, gravity, and distance all define each other. A state of being in which time would be meaningless would be one in which distance has no meaning. There are two such states. One being nothingness. The other being everythingness. One permutation of all space and one permutation of nonspace. The big bang is the result of these two permutations combining. That's my reasoning, not real science.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 12:00:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 11:54:56 PM, psyduck wrote:
At 2/16/2014 11:37:01 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 2/16/2014 11:28:27 PM, psyduck wrote:

1) Hubble's law disagrees. How can objects that are moving away at a speed proportional to their distance from us be considered static?
2) I don't see how. CMB is logistically explained by decoupling. Universe was dense enough that photons couldn't move around. Then they could and we're left with a fuzzy CAT-scan of the primordial universe.
3) dunno, not well-versed in this
4) What are you basing your calculations on?
5) Are you saying that all quasars have the same apparent magnitude? Cause that's simply not true.
6) see #4
7) not familiar with streaming motion, but nowhere in the big bang theory does it imply that the universe is finite/uniform. There is assumption that the universe is fairly homogeneous though.
8) Dark matter/WIMP's have nothing to do with the big bang theory. That's based off galaxy rotation and movement in a cluster.
9) In high redshift galaxies, there are more frequent irregular galaxies, which were caused by collisions. That implies that galaxies were closer together and that since then, galaxies have recovered to more regular shapes.
10) The universe already seems pretty dissipated to me

Take a look at http://metaresearch.org...
That should answer your questions.
I just posted it because I thought it was interesting.

I think it is very amusing that both science and religion have a "story" about the universe coming from "nothing"
It is even more amusing that scientists have opposing opinions and theories within the realm of science itself.

Let's not bring religion into this please. And I'm not going to do your research for you. The site seems to use a lot of scientific sounding phrases and such, but doesn't really have any content to back anything up.

Also, "science" doesn't say anything about the universe coming from nothing. The big bang theory is simply that you go in time far enough and the universe was infinitely dense.

This is the way I think about the beginning of the universe. Before the big bang, time was meaningless. From general relativity, we know that time, gravity, and distance all define each other. A state of being in which time would be meaningless would be one in which distance has no meaning. There are two such states. One being nothingness. The other being everythingness. One permutation of all space and one permutation of nonspace. The big bang is the result of these two permutations combining. That's my reasoning, not real science.

Welcome to DDO, psyduck.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 12:02:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are a few rebuttals to this. Here is one:

http://scienceblogs.com...

Thoughts?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
psyduck
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 12:07:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 12:02:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
There are a few rebuttals to this. Here is one:

http://scienceblogs.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like my responses were pretty on point for not being a science guy.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 12:19:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 12:07:17 AM, psyduck wrote:
At 2/17/2014 12:02:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
There are a few rebuttals to this. Here is one:

http://scienceblogs.com...

Thoughts?

I feel like my responses were pretty on point for not being a science guy.

Agreed!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten