02-05-12, 02:25 PM #1
Big bang flaws:
BIG BANG FLAWS: Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding, moving further away, but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies. That's contrary to Big Bang. If Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses. This uniform distribution of the gasses would have made sure that the gasses would not have coalesced, due to gravitational attraction, into planets and stars. The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been recently discredited. “The (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation” (Dr. Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses”). Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in thousands of billions of galaxies.
Any comment ?
02-05-12, 02:35 PM #2
Any comment ?
Yes . . . my comment is that there are alternate hypotheses that better explain the universe . . . but the BB Standard Model seems to be in vogue right now . . . . it's tough to 'break in to' an established market sometimes!
02-05-12, 02:47 PM #3
Galaxies that have different relative movements to us are more localized, as in the ones that we share in the Local Group and Virgo Supercluster. The average movement in the Virgo cluster is 100-400 km/s towards the center of the cluster. Only when you look outwards to much further groups does Hubble expansion overtake any galactic movements.
Space expansion is actually very small. It takes huge additive distances to be greater than the movement of matter through space.
02-05-12, 03:08 PM #4
, moving further away, but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies. That's contrary to Big Bang.
If Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses. This uniform distribution of the gasses would have made sure that the gasses would not have coalesced, due to gravitational attraction, into planets and stars.
The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been recently discredited. “The (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation” (Dr. Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses”).
Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in thousands of billions of galaxies.
You can't effectively discredit a theory by using bull crap instead of evidence.
02-05-12, 04:43 PM #5
When the universe was very small and young, less than a proton in size, quantum fluctuations were very important. Tiny variations then expanded into huge disturbances in the otherwise utterly uniform universe. The distribution of quantum fluctuations imprinted itself on the last scattering surface and thus the CMB. These models lead to accurate predictions.
If you're getting your information from him then you really need to re-evaluate your attitude to science.
02-05-12, 05:24 PM #6
02-05-12, 05:37 PM #7
I only printed some thing Y found in. http://english.pravda.ru/science/mys...bang_theory-0/
for a second opinion.
PS It is crap, you know.
02-05-12, 05:38 PM #8
02-05-12, 06:01 PM #9
Duane Gish, who has no credentials worthy of the name, wrote that crap about the Big Bang and dark matter back in 1991. It is wrong, fundamentally wrong-headed, and sadly antique.
First of all, Duane Gish is perfectly clear about his methodology not being scientific and trying to find what the evidence shows. He has monomaniacal focus on just one of the various creation stories advocated by religious nutters.Originally Posted by Eminently Dishonest Creationist
Second, uses a straw model of the Big Bang model and instead of describing the action of natural law identical to that seen here on Earth today, he describes the big bang as if it was a play written in acts. Because he doesn't understand the work of cosmologists and physicists, he bypasses the quantitative agreement of primordial nucleosynthesis with observation.
He nakedly asserts, based on no references that no part of the Big Bang model has been explained. This would astonish any astrophysicist who as an undergraduate has had detailed coursework requiring one to calculate various associated quantities.
He uses a straw man of the cosmological principle to talk about the universe being unexpectedly clumpy at a certain scale. But this does not actually contradict the model. He talks about the space of time, but seems clueless about the nature of general relativity to confound his so-called proof of impossibility. Creationists have long had a problem asserting that structures could not have formed, but without substantiation or reasonable argument. Yes the Big Bang model says the universe is less than 20 billion years old, and yes there are structures larger than 20 billion light-years. That's because the universe has expanded -- space itself is bigger than at the earliest times we know. Furthermore, Gish demonstrates the lack of critical thinking he exposes his own ideas to. If he takes as credible that the structures are larger than 600 billion light-years and that these same cosmologists are saying that the visible universe is less than 20 billion years old, then how has light had time to inform us of the size of these objects. Measuring and dating objects when the space itself is expanding is tricky at cosmological scales, but Gish has to assume all astronomers are actually mentally retarded if he thinks he's the first to notice that these objects seem large compared to the time scale of the universe. Gish never considers the more likely explanation that there is something wrong with his assumption that he knows enough to parse scientific papers for their factual content.
Gish out and out mistakes the results of Saunders, et. al. "The density field of the local Universe" (1991) -- who states that visible matter is clumpier than expected from the then-standard CDM approximation, not "a far-greater number of massive superclusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by Big Bang cosmologies." In Saunders, nothing casts doubt on the factual nature of the Big Bang, but they are expressing that the model does not match precisely. Part of this problem is approximation methods then used and part of this is because for aesthetic reasons unrelated to evidence, the then standard scale-invariant CDM cosmology neglected the cosmological constant. More data was needed.
Originally Posted by Liddle and Lyth, 1993
Saunders only ruled out one model with various assumptions for the Hubble constant that we don't believe today. Today, we think we have a better handle on the Hubble constant, the percentage of CDM and the effects of a cosmological constant term in general relativity -- which is sometimes modeled as a change in the law of gravity and sometime modeled as a quantum field of dark energy. I'm not blaming Gish for not seeing that science would make these specific discoveries -- I'm blaming Gish for assuming that the problems were large enough to overturn the factual nature of the Big Bang and were never going to be answered.
Because Gish is not interested in the methods of science, he attempts to read too much into a contextless quote of Paul J. Steinhardt in a news article. But much like Gish's repeated crowing about the eminent death of Darwin's theory of evolution, CDM is still with us 20 years later, stronger than ever. Based on Dr. Steinhardt's publication record prior to and after 1991, I can't see that he ever meant something other than a death knell for the standard CDM model, not the concept of CDM itself or the Big Bang.
To say that COBE data contradicts the Big Bang model is ridiculous today. In 1991, it seems ridiculous that Gish would express this opinion. But thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect, it is those that have the least expertise that feel most comfortable with their half-grasped understanding. Gish was a forerunner to the present-day Internet where every half-baked idea is pushed as if it was the equivalent of the work of experts. The background radiation was not perfectly smooth as Gish claims.
4 of the citations Gish uses are of Eric J. Lerner (not E.G. Lerner) -- who is woefuller inadaquate to address cosmology. The article is part of Lerner's PR campaign for his book, not a valid scientific paper. In any case Lerner's cosmology is in no way compatible with Gish's cosmology and for Gish to cite Lerner is evidence of Gish's intellectually dishonest position which literally starts and ends with bible quotes.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9303019 (antique review of cosmological models)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9906463 ( Dr. Steinhardt reviews progress in cosmology)
02-05-12, 08:07 PM #10
"It isn't 'in vogue' like a fashion, it is currently the mainstream model because it is the most accurate and general description of the many relevant observed phenomena."
AN: . . . . the operative modifier in your post is "currently" . . . . 'once upon a time' . . . . a flat earth was the current model . . . 'once upon a time' . . . . . the earth is the center of the universe was the current model . . . . etc.
Last edited by wlminex; 02-05-12 at 08:11 PM. Reason: Add
02-05-12, 08:46 PM #11
Besides, the Dr Gish mentioned in the original post is, as I said, a creationist moron who believes the Earth is 6000 years old and all the other horrifically thick delusions of creationists. There's no room for development, evidence, reason or even rationality with him, he's certain the Bible is literally true and thus anything which goes against it is wrong.
If you want to whine about out of the box thinking and people being entrenched in their views you should be looking there, not at the mainstream. Your entire view of the mainstream is, quite frankly, utterly flawed. I don't know whether its because you have a chip on your shoulder about your own claims being rejected or because you just don't care to find out but you really need to get up to date with things in the mainstream rather than just forming...... half sentences all ...... the time. It would...... make you seem a ..... bit less....... like a ...... 10 year old......
Seriously, is proper sentence construction and the use of punctuation too much to ask?
02-05-12, 09:01 PM #12
AN: Quit TROLLING for argumentative responses!! BTW: Your post was 'reported'.
02-05-12, 10:01 PM #13
That seems like abuse of the reporting facility if true and complete inability to engage in civil discussion without recourse to threats of coercive force if not true.
02-05-12, 10:43 PM #14
02-05-12, 11:22 PM #15
The reporting facility is only "to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts." Telling you that you misunderstand the scientific method, community and state of knowledge when you barge into various science threads and demonstrate those misunderstandings repeatedly does not seem to be a problematic post. Nor have you begun to argue otherwise.
Last edited by rpenner; 02-06-12 at 01:50 AM.
02-06-12, 12:22 AM #16
02-06-12, 03:05 AM #17
02-06-12, 03:07 AM #18
Furthermore you've had comments from myself and others about sentence construction too. It might seem a little thing but if you time and again don't make the effort to write properly then people think less and less of you. If you can't be bothered to write coherently why should anyone bother to give you the time of day? It gives an immediate bad impression, just as someone who speaks in like, really crappy grammar, cos its like a sorta sign you no good at talkin.
It's a piece of advice. I'm sure you're capable of forming coherent cogent sentences and I'm suggesting it'll do no harm to the way people interact with you if you start writing properly.
I'm sorry you don't want to listen to advice about how to improve your understanding of science and also how you appear to other people. If you're so unwilling to listen to such things perhaps discussion sites aren't for you. Certainly if you don't want to listen to someone explaining why you've got a misconception about how science works then I'd suggest you stay out of the science sections of the forum lest someone else offend you so much by explaining a misconception you have that you again feel the need to report them.
02-06-12, 08:28 AM #19
couple things here
1. Alot of people DO NOT believe in life outside our planet. yet they do believe in the BBT.
IF there was a big bag then every thing in the universe is made up of the same materials. SO IF that was true there must be a high chance life was created elsewhere to
2. we dont even know whats on the sea floor yet we know that starts 12 billion lightyears away are moving 8/
02-06-12, 09:24 AM #20
Life requires water which is the second most abundant molecule in the universe, behind only hydrogen gas. In terms of the energy of life, the chemical potential between H2 and H2O just so happens to define the energy limits for life. There are only a few bacteria that can make H2 and take fully advantage of the entire potential inherent within the two dominant chemicals of the universe. The rest use carbon compounds with less energy than H2. All and all, we have the universal solvent H2O as the second most abundant molecule of the universe, and the chemical potential between H2 and H2O, needed for the engine of life, all over the universe.
In terms of the most abundant atoms of the universe, hydrogen, helium, oxygen and carbon are the top four. Life uses three of the top four H, O, C. Life also needs nitrogen to form proteins, which is in the top 10. This relative abundance suggests animo acids and proteins are more common than genetic material. The genetic material needs phosphorus atoms, which is in the top 20. This lower abundance of P throughout the universe, would be a limiting element. The genetic aspect of life will do better in P enriched pockets like on the earth.
By Reiku in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 07-28-11, 02:32 PMReplies: 23
By Paul W. Dixon in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & CosmologyLast Post: 12-30-10, 11:07 AMReplies: 1953
By jsaldea12 in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 07-06-09, 10:46 AMReplies: 7
By jerrygg38 in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 01-29-09, 09:49 PMReplies: 13
By Reiku in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 06-25-08, 10:36 PMReplies: 37