Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52

Thread: Big bang flaws:

  1. #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 ?

  2. #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!

  3. #3
    Valued Senior Member Rhaedas's Avatar
    Posts
    1,516
    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.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by arauca View Post
    BIG BANG FLAWS: Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding
    Really? What galaxies are expanding - please site a source. An expanding galaxy would have nothing to do with the big bang.

    , 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.
    Galaxies that are close to us are interacting gravitationally. Galaxys that are beyond the point are receding at higher rates the farther the distance from us. This is all in perfect agreement with the Big Bang. Please site your source for galaxies that are not in accordance with this.

    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.
    Inflation adequately describes the nonuniform distribution of matter.

    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”).
    GISH, are you serious! This is the creationist psycho who will do or say any inane thing to cling to his believe in a 10,000 year old earth - this guy actually believes in the arc and a world wide flood.

    Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in thousands of billions of galaxies.
    Sure it does - what is your evidence that it does not?

    You can't effectively discredit a theory by using bull crap instead of evidence.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by arauca View Post
    BIG BANG FLAWS: Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts.
    And you extrapolate a bunch of ignorant strawmen because you haven't bothered to check what the model actually says and what things are relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by arauca View Post
    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.
    All those galaxies are nearby to us, where there is insufficient distance between us and them for the expansion to become the dominating effect. Our local supercluster is gravitationally bound together and acts accordingly. Expansion is a global, large distance effect, not a local one. The big bang is completely consistent with gravitationally bound local clusters having blue shifted galaxies.

    Quote Originally Posted by arauca View Post
    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.
    This is really very basic stuff, it's covered in undergrad cosmology courses. I did maths at undergrad and even I learnt about it!

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by arauca View Post
    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.
    Dr. Duane T. Gish is a creationist nut job. He isn't a reputable physicist and he's a hardcore bat shit crazy dishonest Bible thumper. He even has a 'style' of debating named after him, the Gish Gallop, where someone throws out so many wrong or dishonest claims in a short space of time that it's impossible to refute them all in a reasonable time frame and thus he then claims the majority of his assertions are irrefutable.

    If you're getting your information from him then you really need to re-evaluate your attitude to science.

    Quote Originally Posted by arauca View Post
    Any comment ?
    Resit your high school physics class. And stop listening to religious nuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by wlminex View Post
    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!
    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.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by origin View Post
    Really? What galaxies are expanding - please site a source. An expanding galaxy would have nothing to do with the big bang.



    Galaxies that are close to us are interacting gravitationally. Galaxys that are beyond the point are receding at higher rates the farther the distance from us. This is all in perfect agreement with the Big Bang. Please site your source for galaxies that are not in accordance with this.



    Inflation adequately describes the nonuniform distribution of matter.



    GISH, are you serious! This is the creationist psycho who will do or say any inane thing to cling to his believe in a 10,000 year old earth - this guy actually believes in the arc and a world wide flood.



    Sure it does - what is your evidence that it does not?

    You can't effectively discredit a theory by using bull crap instead of evidence.
    I only printed some thing Y found in. http://english.pravda.ru/science/mys...bang_theory-0/
    for a second opinion.

  7. #7
    Curmudgeon of Lucidity Grumpy's Avatar
    Posts
    1,875
    arauca

    I only printed some thing Y found in. http://english.pravda.ru/science/mys...bang_theory-0/
    for a second opinion.
    If you cite crap from Pravda as your own, you are responsible for it.

    Grumpy

    PS It is crap, you know.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by arauca View Post
    I only printed some thing Y found in. http://english.pravda.ru/science/mys...bang_theory-0/
    for a second opinion.
    Oh, OK, a second and third opinion were supplied.

  9. #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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eminently Dishonest Creationist
    We know that the universe did not begin with a big bang -- it will end with a big bang, for "but the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (II Peter 3:10)
    And he would use this to try to discredit the opinion of scientists who look at data!

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Liddle and Lyth, 1993
    Faced with troubling observations but a generally successful model, the impulse of the community is to re-examine, and if necessary relax, the underlying assumptions of the standard CDM model.
    Not only does the practice of science go over Gish's head, he is exactly incorrect when he states that this data prompted science to try the CDM (Cold Dark Matter) model. Cold (meaning clumpy and slow-moving) Dark (meaning invisible and non-interacting) Matter (meaning it has gravity) is everywhere when we know to look for it. That Gish doesn't understand it and doesn't like it is meaningless as his opinion on the existences of neutrons or any other phenomenon known to science.

    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://www.icr.org/article/big-bang-theory-collapses/

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html
    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)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...sotropy_of_CMB
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990AeAm...28...38L
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

  10. #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 07:11 PM. Reason: Add

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by wlminex View Post
    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.
    The fact I used 'currently' shows I am more than aware models develop and move on. My point was that your use of the phrase 'in vogue' implies it's a matter of preference and opinion, just like green is in fashion one year, then it goes out of fashion. The BB is centre stage in cosmology because it is the best model we have.

    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?

  12. #12
    AN: Quit TROLLING for argumentative responses!! BTW: Your post was 'reported'.

  13. #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.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by rpenner View Post
    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.
    . . . . OK Rpenner . . . what IS the purpose of the Report flag??

  15. #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 12:50 AM.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by arauca View Post
    Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in thousands of billions of galaxies.

    Any comment ?
    yes.
    define the phrase "precise orbit".
    not all "orbits" are closed, some objects never return.
    some orbits precess, mercury for example.

    if you are referring to bodes law then it must be pointed out that the solar system is the only set of data we have to choose from.

  17. #17
    F-in' *meow* baby!!!
    Posts
    8,427
    Quote Originally Posted by arauca View Post
    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 ?
    Yes, why do you try to discredit scientific knowledge when you clearly don't value truth? It's rather retarded.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by wlminex View Post
    AN: Quit TROLLING for argumentative responses!! BTW: Your post was 'reported'.
    I'm not trolling, I'm attempting to get you to understand that your choice of phrasing is a poor one, it indicated you have a serious misunderstanding of how science works. Given this isn't the first time you've implied such a misunderstanding I'm getting a little exasperated by it.

    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.

  19. #19
    Valued Senior Member sifreak21's Avatar
    Posts
    1,662
    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/

  20. #20
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    3,260
    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.


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By Reiku in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 07-28-11, 01:32 PM
    Replies: 23
  2. By Paul W. Dixon in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
    Last Post: 12-30-10, 10:07 AM
    Replies: 1953
  3. By jsaldea12 in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 07-06-09, 09:46 AM
    Replies: 7
  4. By jerrygg38 in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 01-29-09, 08:49 PM
    Replies: 13
  5. By Reiku in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 06-25-08, 09:36 PM
    Replies: 37

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •