Big Bang Theory is WRONG - 33 Top Scientists Object

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pincho - no matter how many warnings you get about posting your garbage in science threads, the second you see something stupid in a science thread you take that as a green light to spout your drivel!

It is clear you cannot comprehend science but you cannot even follow simple rules.:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is incorrect in the context of Big Bang theory specifically and may be incorrect in terms of the word "evolution". In BB, there there was no dense object of mass residing in space that "evolved" into a less dense object containing stuff. There was a moment where all of what we perceive as space, time, energy, matter, etc. was maximally compressed and then it inflated like a baloon of space and time. As space-time got larger, stuff cooled down and began clumping and interacting courtesy the laws of physics. Eventually this led to the formation of our solar system.

I can't say that Evolution is the best word to describe change since cosmic inflation. Evolution is typically used to denote adaptation to changing environmental pressures. I am not sure how this would apply but perhaps fraggle has some linguistic insight into this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That belongs in pseudoscience.

 

Sorry, I thought I was in "Big Bang Flaws", and I would have been on topic, I was not in the thread I thought I was in.

 

I do not recall every seeing anything that you have written that could possible be construed as on topic in a science thread.

 

I'm always on topic, I feel it is essential to a forum, and hate responding to these sorts of posts.

 

Except the topic is always Pincho Paxton, and how the rest of the world is wrong and you're right.

 

Only when I am replying to a slur on myself like now. I call it the negative science energy v's me, and I have to equal out the energy. Unfortunately 10 slurs per post is a lot of energy to counteract.

 

Motor Daddy: Please post a few examples.

That's funny stuff right there. The record of science is that wild stories are made up, held to be true, and then later found to be just that, wild stories that are false. Should I name a few?​

The basics of Big Bang seem to fit the observable evidence: Mainly that the observable universe has been expanding for billions of years. Steady State (Continuous Creation) was shot down when observation indicated that the universe was different in the distant past than it is today. One obvious difference: Quasars (spelling?) have not existed for circa 4-6 billion (or more) years.

BTW: Steady State also claimed that the universe was expanding.

Questionable aspects of the big bang.

Extrapolation back to a singularity or an approximation to same (Id est: To when the universe was less than a second old). I do not think there is any evidence for the nature/expansion of the universe when it was hundreds/thousands of years old.

This extreme extrapolation only seems justified because it is very difficult to come up with an explanation for expansion starting in a region as large as a solar system volume or a volume a few light years in radius.

Inflation seems a bit ad hoc.​

Some of the arguments among cosmologists were interesting as well as amusing. The following are the only examples I can remember.

Big Bang was a derogatory term coined by opponents of the theory.

Question: Where do you Continuous Creation Creaturesd get all the matter you think is being continuously created? Note that a lot had to be created. Answer: The same place you Big Bang Boys got it all at once.​

BTW: Emotionally, I was in favor of Steady State in the era when it was a serious competitor. I was disappointed when it lost the dispute. Fred Hoyle (main advocate) continued the argument when he no longer had valid intellectual ammunition: I sympathized with him due to my emotional bias in favor of Continuous Creation.

 

Dinosaur: Continuous 'creation' is a viable alternative if one evokes a continuous, thermodynamic, equilibrium mechanism by which matter is a 'conversion product' (via ~ E=mc^2) of a pre-existing energy-only "pre-universe". The 'observable' (i.e., mass-containng) universe 'creates' at the expense of the energetic pre-universe . . . . BTW#1 . . . giving the illusion of an expansion phenomenon . . . BTW#2 . . . . CMB is also a continuous thermal product of this ongoing process. Since the process is operative everywhere, all the time, we see a nearly isotropic CMB with only minor anisotropies. Of Course . . . all of this is IMPO only (re: James R) . . . see other threads in Alternative Theories.

 

Word salad.

With tasteless, low-cal dressing.

 

OFF-TOPIC . . . . Alex, "You've evidently confused me with someone who gives a damn" (<--humor here) about your opinion. Let's get back ON-TOPIC, now.

 

http://kencroswell.com/errata.html

 

There aren't enough Z's and X'es and lightning bolts in that picture. Now add some Z's, X'es and lightning bolts and have some guys sign a petition and you might have something.

 

The flaw in Big bang is that it sits our universe in no medium. If you can see that the medium outside our universe decayed into it at the same time as our universe grew the picture of the distribution of matter in our universe makes more sense. If it was a big explosion from the center, after 14 billion years there would be a big hole in the center which there isn't. To identify the medium all you have to do is identify what would produce both empty space and matter energy. hint: look at GR's end.

 

peters: Excellent points!!

 

I've heard there's a void that's a billion light years across. Sounds like a big hole to me. Sense our universe extends farther than than we can see in every direction, it might be difficult to detremine where the center is. Just maybe that void for all I know.

 

This simply shows that peters has no understanding of the BB. There was no big explosion at the center.

All of space, at every point, expands from every other point. There is no center, and there was no 'explosion'.

 

And I would add that the demand for a medium - made by peters, by the OP, and by almost daily commentary here or on similar sites - is an arcane idea obsoleted by Michelson-Morley and all the other rehashing of that proof that ensued afterwards.

Having said that, any drive-by commentator who would address the fabric of spacetime in the way it actually behaves, relativistically, preserving lightspeed, twisting the observed frame in a 3D rotation, conserving mass, energy and momentum, etc., would be sight for sore eyes.

And as AlexG has frequently remarked, the expansion is everywhere, not an explosion from a center with a hole.