The Big Bang Theory is Unscientific

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by §outh§tar, Nov 25, 2004.

  1. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    Theories that require additional theories for support leave me empty. I've found that often the simplest answer to a problem is frequently the best.

    I question whether or not there even had to be a "begining" to be explained. The Big Bang even requires a "something" prior to the event. This parallels the question in the biblical creation senario of, "Where did god come from?" The simple answer is that he was always there.

    Why not apply the same reasoning to the question of the origin of the universe? Maybe, just maybe, the universe has always been here. Maybe space is infinite in dimension. Maybe matter has always been here and simply reorganizes itself throughout space as it does on Earth through the process of growth and decay. Maybe matter and space are only different sides of a single coin.

    To me, this is a simple approach with considerable appeal to logic. No exotic theories are required, only an investigation as to the duality of space/matter, and that can be investigated and directly observed.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    Michio Kaku? ...a joke of course.

    ...and then...

    The Ekpyrotic Universe:
    ...written for your congressman to read...the minds of government sponsored researchers must never settle on an agreed upon theory lest the research money dry up. The mental inventions must march on!

    As a retired Federal employee who has dealt with budget matters, I'm familiar with these games. A theory that can never be proved should never be acceptable; not from religious writings or from think-tanks or from the halls of our most prestigious schools.

    Sometimes, I think that we have lost 400 years of reasoning ability. Not the science, but the ability to apply logic and reason.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    >>>>A theory that can never be proved should never be acceptable.....

    that wont leave many theories then.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    We have no evidence for anything related to the beginning of the universe - if there is one.

    And, in fact, we are likely never have, because it is all a huge paradox...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. apolo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    172
    Thanks Blobrana (I hope I spelled that right) For giving me a condensed version Of the BBT. I have read that before in several books and many magezines, and I still dont beleive it, because it does'nt contain anything that I would call evidence. It is just a hypothesis. Some one looked in a telescope and said; the universe appears to be expanding ( I put emphasis on the word appears ) so if we run the movie backwards it must have been together in one spot (a singularity) about 15 billion years ago. So eureca we have a big bang theory. Some one could with equal logic say; maybe if we only run the movie halfway back, then we could postulate a pulsating universe that will soon reverse itself and go back to the halfway point again. This hypothesis of cource cannot be proven. But neither can the BBT. As a matter of fact the second "theory" have the advantage that it does'nt have to explain what caused a singularity to blow up and create all the stuff in the universe we see today out of virtually nothing. As a matter of fact Hoyle's modified theory allowes for a apulsating universe.(See "A Different Approach to Cosmology" by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar. Cambridge university press.

    I find the Steady State theory not only simpler, but also much more beautiful than the BBT. I beleive it was Brian Greene in his book "The Elegant universe" who said; a good theory must have beauty. He used that word at least 20 times. Compare that to the ugliness of the BBT with all it's amendments and add ons
    REGARDS APOLO
     
  10. apolo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    172
    I just scroled back and read Marv's post (today/04)
    "We have lost 400 years of reasonig ability. Not the science, but the ability to apply logic and reason".

    I could'nt have said it better if I tried.

    REGARDS APOLO
     
  11. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    how does the steady state theory explain the cmbr?
     
  12. eburacum45 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    The proper criterion would be "A theory which can never be falsified should never be acceptable."
     
  13. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Apolo
    Re: movie halfway back

    ?? When we look, observe, distant supernovas or quasars, we see them as they were in the past, not as they appear now…
    (Its a near enough linear case of distance = time in past)
    There is no evidence to prove that the Hubble constant somehow stops working at an arbitrary period in the past.
    We see different galaxies as they were to almost 13 billion years in the past; there isn’t a sudden threshold, where we see blue shifted galaxies, or galaxies that appear older than the observable universe.
    Therefore, if you still want to apply a pulsating theory (which is basically, what the colliding membrane theory is) to the universe, then it would have to occur before the surface of last scattering. (The point at which we can’t see past) …
    Then you would have to create explanations/mechanism for the contraction of a universe (one that we have evidence to show that it is expanding , and accelerating )
     
  14. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    The operative word in my statement was "never". There are many theories that, through investigation and test, will hold up. And there are some that won't.

    But some theories simply cannot be tested. The religious theory of a paradise in an afterlife, or the scientific theory of a Big Bang can never be tested. Nevertheless, a muslim will yearn for his seventy-two virgins, and a physicist will want his Federal research grant to continue. That's my 2¢.
     
  15. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Hum,
    Reminds me of the assumption that the neutrino would never be confirmed when it was first postulated.

    The large particle accelerators and observatories around the world are producing data that can be checked with the current models of the universe that we have. I’m sure that if they did find something (they might) that truly toppled the bb theory then it would make headline news.

    Proving?

    “Scientific research involves validating theoretical models and modifying theories. Further articulation of a theory results from the testing of research hypotheses against data and developing new explanations for observed results. The adjustment of a model occurs with a shift of theory resulting in a new theory replacing an old one, e.g., Darwinism replaced by the synthetic theory of evolution.”
    Extract from http://www.bibarch.com/concepts/index_home.html
     
  16. apolo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    172
    Reading back over all the previous posts, I realise that I owe an apology To Ophiolite that I spelled 'anually' with a double n. Well you see Ophiolite, I'm a retired engineer, not an enlish teacher. And engineers are notoriously bad spellers. (That's why we have secretaries and asistants to clean up the stuff we write, and ocationaly what we draw). My general rule is. that if I'm in doubt about single or double letter, I always go double. 80 % of the time I'm right. I love the english language. It is a beautiful language for explaining scientific thoughts as well as poetry. Of the 4 languages I speak, english is definitely my favorite, even though it is the most difficult one to spell. But I promise, no more double n in anually (even though Webster has it as annually)
    REGARDS APOLO

    P>S> to Boris. How does Hoyle explain the CMB? Scrol back a few of my posts, and you will find the answer.
     
  17. apolo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    172
    P>PS> to the above post.
    Sorry Ophiolite, I now realise the word was 'another' not annually.
    REGARS APOLO
     
  18. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    Apolo, Semtmeios it's eisear jsut to mix leretts up. It's siltl rebablae. Huh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    marv:

    Why is it expanding?
     
  20. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Maybe he meant it expands and retracts.

    There is as much evidence for that as there is for inflation probably.
     
  21. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    The BB is still just a theory. Why should it be the only theory?
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    So is the theory that everything is made of atoms. All useful scientific statements are "just theories".
     
  23. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    apollo, didn't hoyle add bits to his sst to accommodate the cmbr?
     

Share This Page