The big bang busted?

Last night I was browsing around at a book store and a came across a magazine that had an interesting front cover. It said "The BIG BANG BUSTED!" on it. The magazine is called "Infinite Energey". Its website is www.infinite-energy.com.
This article was in Volume 8, issue 46.

Okay, so anyways, I found this to be very interesting so I bought it. Inside were several articles with some interesting material. Now I am kind of a beginner at understanding all this so I am not sure if this is bs or not. However, I did manage to find a link to the article on the web. here it is.

The purpose of this post isnt to say look the big bang is wrong, but rather I am wondering what everyones response to it is. Do you think they are making this up, using flawed science, are they right, are there really this many problems with the big bang?

Let me know what you think, thanks.

If something like this has been posted before and already been talked about before, my apologies, just direct me to the thread...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i just had a quick look ...Hum... I find i would disagree with most of it...

No3 Element abundance has only really two variables temperature and density in big bang theory.

no4 Voids are the remnants of quantum fluctuations...

no6 globular clusters ages have now been revised and adjusted.

Just a few i remember but , a good read that certainly put forward a case for the steady state theory...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Big Bang Theory should always be questioned because of its extreme importance to all sciences, and if the theory were somehow proven wrong then I don't doubt an astronomic renaissance would take place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you wasted your hard-earned greenbacks. Buyer beware.

- Warren

 

Re: Re: The big bang busted?

Would you mind giving us then a few selection of books we should read?

some with science
some with less science

thanks

 

Start with Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday and Resnick: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/te...userid=2T8EZDMZTQ&isbn=047122863X&TXT=Y&itm=4

Next get a copy of the Feynman Lectures on Physics by Feynman: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/te...userid=2T8EZDMZTQ&isbn=0201500647&TXT=Y&itm=1

Then read either Introductory Quantum Mechanics by Liboff: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/te...userid=2T8EZDMZTQ&isbn=0201878798&TXT=Y&itm=1

or Introduction to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/te...serid=2T8EZDMZTQ&isbn=0131244051&TXT=Y&itm=11

Also read An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/te...userid=2T8EZDMZTQ&isbn=0201547309&TXT=Y&itm=1

Then read Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/te...userid=2T8EZDMZTQ&isbn=0716703440&TXT=Y&itm=1

Then read Quantum Field Theory by Peskin and Schroeder: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/te...userid=2T8EZDMZTQ&isbn=0201503972&TXT=Y&itm=1

The choices then become less clear. You might want to try Quantum Field Theory and String Theory by BWDK: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/te...serid=2T8EZDMZTQ&isbn=0306448866&TXT=Y&itm=18

or simply proceed to reading the primary material: www.arxiv.org.

- Warren

 

Thanks, that will keep my busy in the trains alot

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

chroot,

ya i kind of figured it was a waste of money, but for 5 bucks its not so bad. It gives me a bunch of sources to look up so I can learn more

On another note, I am right on track according to your list of books. Fundamentals of Physics is my college text book that i have. I was already planning on buying the feynman lectures on physics soon. So ya....

But about this whole article being a waste. Is it inaccurate, too vague or what? Why are the objections it raises against the big bang inmaterial?

thanks

 

Reply to cephas 1012
You did't waste your money. many scientists disagree with the B.B. theory. They are in the minority of course, and they are treated by the majority like the church treated Copernicus and Galileo in the 17th century, and it took a hundred years before the majority was proven wrong. I expect history is repeating itself today.
I recomend the following books, they are available on amazon.com
THE CULT OF THE BIG BANG by W.C. Mitchel
ASTRONOMY ON TRIAL by Roy C. Martin,Jr
SEEING RED by Halton Arp
A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO ASTRONOMY by F.Hoyle,G.Burbidge and V.Narlikar
The last 2 books uses a lot of math, so if that's not your bag you can skim throug them. But they do a devastating job of demolishing the
BIG BANG theory

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's my Physics book right now!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll have to look at getting those other ones as I continue my studies...

 

Apolo gets 20 points. I just knew the Galileo reference was coming.

 

I don't think so - while there is still scope for argument, there are good reasons (e.g cosmic background radiation) why the steady state camp is in the minority.

But everyone likes to think of themselves as the voice in the wilderness.

Ron.

 

Thanks Ron for your rely.

You seem to assume that the cosmic backgroud radiation is a proof of the BB theory. Actualy it dos'nt prove a thing.
The 2,7 degree K was predicted by other people long before Penzias and Wilson as beeing the background temperature of a steady state universe in eqiulibrium.
Arthur Edington estimated in 1926 that it should be 3.1 K. but 30 years before Guillaume had already proposed it should be between 4K and 6K.
McKellar and Herzberg, based on observations by McKellar in 1941 predicted a temperature of 2.3 K. Finaly in 1953 Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born refined the estimate to 2.7 K.
Now remember that all these people did their estimates based on what the natural backgrond temperature should be in a steady state universe.
Then Penzias and Wilson comes along in 1965 with their primitive radio telescope and ovserved that the temperature was actually 2.7 K and they said Eureka! we have found it. This must be left over from the Big Bang. And many astronomers jumped in the air and said huray! this finaly proves the B B theory.
You must remember, back in those days there was still a tug of war between the two theories. Of course it was not a proof of the BB exept
that Penzias and Wilson said so. If anything it proved the genius of those early peop
le who did their research without the benefit of a radio telescope.
Regards M.J.

 

Not at all - theories are never proven, only disproven. What I dispute is that BB was 'devastatingly...demolished'. I simply quote CoBRa as evidence in support of BB - it's still the best contender.

reply? background?

I don't think anyone would argue about a difference of a few Kelvins and I'm not belittling any of the pioneers - I'm a big fan of Fred Hoyle, whose major contribution was in stellar dynamics - not to mention 'A for Andromeda'. However even he was coming round to the BB. But that doesn't mean it's proven.

actually? doesn't? not 'degree Kelvin' - just 'Kelvin'. being? equilibrium? observed? hurray? background? except? finally? Am I being picky? Of course - but if you want to get published....

Cheers,

Ron.

 

Thanks for your reply Ron.

I was looking at the last two and a half lines in you post trying to figure out what the heck you meant? Oh! spelling mistakes.
Well it is my turn to get picky. I checked out; Actually, Equilibrium,
observed, background, Exept and finally in my Webster and they all checked out. Hurray gives 3 different spellings including Hurrah.
(It is the canadian english edition). But Ron, is'nt it rather silly to be wasting time on the forum on this sort of thing?
I have noticed that if correct spelling is a criteria for getting published on this forum, 80% of the posts would be eliminated before they got past the first 2 lines.

OK back to science. You are right when you say that some theories cannot be proven, only disproved. And it is obvious that you have not read any of the 4 books I recomended in a half dozen posts earlier or you would see that the BB theory is extremely easy to disprove. But if you have only read literature published by the BB people (I shall refrain from using the derogatory name for those people) it is easy to get tunnelvision.
I'm glad you are a fan of Fred Hoyle, so am I. But I must tell you that you are misinformed on one point. Hoyle never accepted the BB theory. I have read the first book he published in 46 or 47 and his last one that was published a year before he died in Aug.2001. "A Different Aproach to Cosmology" In this book he is collaborating with 2 other astronomers, Burbidge and Narlikar to explain what he calls the Modified Steady State theory.It is a large heavy book, 360 pages and I doubt the average person would have the patience or understanding to read it. If you want a quick primer on some of the arguments that disprove the BB, get The Cult of the Big Bang by W.C.Mitchell. Or quicker still get on to Yahoo and click on science then astronomy/cosmology/universal origins and scoll down to the bottom of the page where you will see "Why the BB is wrong".
I beleive I have an open mind, and have read all the BB books I can get a hold of (or borrow) as well as the SS books. And my sense of logic tells me there is really no difference between the BB theory (creation out of nothing) and the creation story in Genesis (which is also creation out of nothing)
Regards Michael

PS. since you use your first name I think it is reasonable you shoul be able to adress me by my first name also.

 

So how is a theory that predicts the Universe has existed for an infinite time any better? If this was true our light horizon would be vastly larger than it is know. Belief in something that has always existed, will always exist and simply 'just is' is, to me, no better than a belief in a supernatural deity.

We might not, yet, be able to explain what cam before the BB but at least we know the Universe had an origin. This origin should be explainable using physical laws. We might not know the laws yet but we can at least attempt to discover them. You can't do that in a steady state/eternal universe.

 

Just a quirk of mine - but I agree with your sentence below - that's why I've taken on the mantle of the 'punctuation police'.

Criterion?

There are a hell of a lot of people who would disagree - even with the flaws that BB obviously contains.

Agreed - point taken.

There are texts that come down heavily on both sides, and being a big name doesn't guarantee infallibility, but I still think the balance of opinion is in favour of the BB. Wheeler, Hawking, etc (I'm not a great fan of Hawking - though I have had lunch with him. Reflected glory indeed!).

I wouldn't presume otherwise and I also feel that SS is the more satisfying of the two, but none of these ideas are exactly intuitive.

No problem - it's much more civilised, especially when you read some of the handles that people have chosen.

Cheers,

Ron.

 

Hi Ron

Thanks for your latest post.
Do you know, I actually debated with myself for about a minute whether I should use criteria or criterion. Both words are used in the press.
It is a latin word and i beleive criteria is the plural which is what I wanted. I could be wrong though.
I agree with your point that a big name is no guaranty (of any theory) There are big names on both sides. And I also concede that there is a heck of a lot of people who disagree (with the SST) My explanation for this is; that most people, including scientists, have a hard time getting rid of the idea, that everything has to have a beginning.
A child is born, the beginning of a human. An acorn is planted in the soil, the beginning of an oak tree etc. etc. and it is difficult to visualize something that is infinite, no beginning, no end.
So you are not a fan of Steven Hawking. I used to be, but I am not any more. I once presented proof at the local astronomy club, that "Hawking
Radiation, ( the evaporation of black holes) simply do not work, and no one disagreed. The public treat him like a god, but most scientists are quietly ignoring him.

I'm going to give you a small example of what's going on in the science comunity. Remember scientists are humans, and human Traits like envy,
petty jealousi and guarding one's turf is alive and well.
In the early nineties, a well known and respected astronomer; Halton Arp (author of Seeing Red) was using the 500" telescope on Mt Palomar
to study -among other things- if the alignment of quasars along the minor axes of ejecting galaxies coincided with the alignment and distances of companion galaxies. He worked on this for a couple of years and kept publishing his data as he accumulated it. But when the hierarchy of the astronomical world realized, that his findings actually showed that the universe was not expanding at all, and that the distances commonly ascribed to quasars was way out of line, they had him barred from using the telescope any more.
You see, many of these astronomers had published books and papers that would become invalid if Mr. Arp's findings became well known and accepted, and any hope they had of future Nobel prieces was gone. So they supressed publication of his research in the US.
Halton Arp quit his job and went to Europe, whe he was promtly offered a job at the prestigious university of Muenick,Germany. They were happy to have landed a scientist of his stature and agreed to publish his research.
Well, that's it for now. Let me know Ron if you have read the web site I gave you, and what you think of it. (I assume YAHOO is available on any coputer).

Regards Michael

 

Shut up, fuckwit. You're not in this industry, and you're only parroting what you've heard someone else say. You're trying to ascribe Arp's fall as a massive conspiracy against him. It wasn't. His research was crap, and he did nothing to better the science of astrophysics with his kook research. He was wasting telescope time. He was ejected from mainstream science precisely because his research sucked. You have no idea what you're talking about.

- Warren

 

And you expected anything less than conspiracy theories?