now you are going to tell me i dont understand that either,
peace.
peace.
big bang "pillars" of proof
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
- Status
The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,a was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.
Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a Doppler effect;b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself supposedly expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.c Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all scientific laws.
Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If there was a big bang, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us, they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating from us. [See sidebar titled “Dark Thoughts.”]
Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with other objects of low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and remain connected for long. [See “Connected Galaxies” and “Galaxy Clusters” on page 37.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.d Sometimes, quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.e Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.f
Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.g Much remains to be learned about redshifts.
CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.h
Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.i Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not generate the CMB.j [See pages 320–322.]
Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.k Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)l and the presence of boron and beryllium in “older” starsm contradicts the big bang theory.
A big bang, for all practical purposes, would produce only hydrogen and helium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist of only hydrogen and helium. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found.n
Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies” on page 317.] A big bang should not produce highly concentratedo or rotating bodies.p Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce galaxies with the spacings among them that are actually observed.q Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.r
If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.s (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.t
Dark Thoughts
For decades, big bang theorists said that the amount of mass in a rapidly expanding universe must be enough to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter could not come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass always fell far short of that minimum amount. This “missing mass” is often called dark matter, because no one could see it or even detect it. Actually, “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory. [See “Missing Mass” on page 28.] The media’s frequent reference to “dark matter” enshrined it in the public’s consciousness, much like the supposed “missing link” between apes and man.
The big bang has struck again. The big bang theory also predicts that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown up must slow as it moves away from the Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. The shocking result is now in—and the answer has been rechecked in many ways. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating!v To preserve the theory, something must again be invented. Some energy source that overcomes gravity must continuously accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. This energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy.
Neither “dark matter” (created to hold the universe together) nor “dark energy” (created to push the universe apart) can be seen, measured, or tested.w We are told that “most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy.”x Few realize that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory.
Rather than cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with statements about things for which no objective evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang is faulty? Of course. But big bang theorists want to preserve their reputations, careers, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists. (Pages 320–322 give an explanation for the expansion, or “stretching out,” of the universe.)
If a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg” that existed before a big bang?u
If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect.y All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.z
Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a Doppler effect;b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself supposedly expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.c Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all scientific laws.
Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If there was a big bang, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us, they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating from us. [See sidebar titled “Dark Thoughts.”]
Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with other objects of low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and remain connected for long. [See “Connected Galaxies” and “Galaxy Clusters” on page 37.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.d Sometimes, quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.e Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.f
Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.g Much remains to be learned about redshifts.
CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.h
Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.i Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not generate the CMB.j [See pages 320–322.]
Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.k Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)l and the presence of boron and beryllium in “older” starsm contradicts the big bang theory.
A big bang, for all practical purposes, would produce only hydrogen and helium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist of only hydrogen and helium. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found.n
Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies” on page 317.] A big bang should not produce highly concentratedo or rotating bodies.p Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce galaxies with the spacings among them that are actually observed.q Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.r
If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.s (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.t
Dark Thoughts
For decades, big bang theorists said that the amount of mass in a rapidly expanding universe must be enough to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter could not come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass always fell far short of that minimum amount. This “missing mass” is often called dark matter, because no one could see it or even detect it. Actually, “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory. [See “Missing Mass” on page 28.] The media’s frequent reference to “dark matter” enshrined it in the public’s consciousness, much like the supposed “missing link” between apes and man.
The big bang has struck again. The big bang theory also predicts that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown up must slow as it moves away from the Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. The shocking result is now in—and the answer has been rechecked in many ways. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating!v To preserve the theory, something must again be invented. Some energy source that overcomes gravity must continuously accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. This energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy.
Neither “dark matter” (created to hold the universe together) nor “dark energy” (created to push the universe apart) can be seen, measured, or tested.w We are told that “most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy.”x Few realize that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory.
Rather than cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with statements about things for which no objective evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang is faulty? Of course. But big bang theorists want to preserve their reputations, careers, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists. (Pages 320–322 give an explanation for the expansion, or “stretching out,” of the universe.)
If a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg” that existed before a big bang?u
If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect.y All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.z
how about you guys actualy take each paragraph of what i just posted and prove otherwise, or is that to much of a daunting task wich obviously any real scientist wouldent waste his time with.
peace.
peace.
if you guys think you know it all, then prove it actualy show some hard evidence to back up your claims otherwise its not proof.
i have posted a very elaborate article (2 actualy) showing flaws int he current premise and theory, now do the honor to your theory by actualy defending it each step of the way, otherwise your theory lacks true substance under the barrage of questions,
peace.
i have posted a very elaborate article (2 actualy) showing flaws int he current premise and theory, now do the honor to your theory by actualy defending it each step of the way, otherwise your theory lacks true substance under the barrage of questions,
peace.
next week is fine take aslong as you like,
cya later i have to run myself, have a good day .
peace.
U r on fire, Keep it up EFOC, i am with you.
Together we can rock their boat that not even god can sink , just like titanic.
Actually problem with these PsychoScientists is that they blindly follow the theories without questioning their basis and then start boasting that what they know is correct.
Chi, a cut and paste deluge doesn't change the facts; that you clearly do not understand enough.
Read this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
and try and take it in.
Oh,and please, some of the shit you are posting is from 'Creation Science' web sites, ie, Christian Propaganda. Stop that if you wish to be taken seriously.
Read this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
and try and take it in.
Oh,and please, some of the shit you are posting is from 'Creation Science' web sites, ie, Christian Propaganda. Stop that if you wish to be taken seriously.
..and suddenly Chi's flawed sources are exposed, and it all goes quiet.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
That's not the point. Please let me back up to your basic premises and explain something about what science says, how it works, and how that relates to items of religious faith.
No, it is not illogical.EFOC said:
Proof is nice, but evidence and indications can be quite compelling. Scientists believe in the Big Bang Theory not out of blind faith, but because of the evidence. Their belief is not like religious belief, since if contrary evidence emerges, they will abandon old theories and take up with better ones. The evidence to support the Big Bang Theory describes an expanding universe. It is deduced that in the past, the universe must have been smaller, denser, and therefore hotter. These facts are almost irrefutable. In this sense, the theory isn't even very controversial, and has gone beyond the colloquial definition of "theory" to be accepted as scientific fact, like evolution. Note that the Big Bang Theory is not and never has been an explanation for the proposed singularity from which everything expanded. It starts at around a nanosecond after the beginning of the expansion.
But this theory doesn't have to be right in order to prove the existence of a supreme being illogical. What is the proof for a supreme being? It mostly takes the form of personal experiences which can't be verified. If you want to say that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of God, you have no more proof of that than if scientists say (as of this date), that it came from a collision between two multiverses. When carefully considered (under the venerable Occam's Razor protocols), the idea that a magic man did it is on the least likely end of the scale.
Scientists actually do take multidimensional theories of the universe quite seriously, to the point of trying to craft models of them.
You can.
Then the evolutionary theories to explain certain cosmic structures was wrong.
I know what u r doing, u r taking EFOC on a ride to nowhere.
BB theory should have been scraped years ago but the faith of people like u clinging on to it and not letting it go is really amusing.
When it was discovered that there is acceleration in expansion, all hell should have been broken loose, but alas, your primitive genetic instinct said dont let it go , ignore, dont think, be ORTHODOX.
Its obvious now that there is a need to find out whats the repulsive force fueling the expansion of our universe but ...
EmptyForceOfChi:
Explain why it is "totally illogical". A bald assertion is useless.
Actually, you are wrong. The big bang theory doesn't even deal with what the universe "came from". Nor does it deal with anything that occurred prior to about 10^-43 seconds after the universe's beginning.
Nowhere does it say that anything "defies physics". Read it again.
And if God created the universe, what then? Is that hypothesis flawed, too?
This is incorrect. The concept of potential energy applies differently in general relativity than in Newtonian gravitation. The author clearly doesn't know what he is talking about here.
This problem is solved by "dark energy".
What have you read about proposed solutions to these difficulties?
No, they correctly believe that, since that is in fact what the theory predicts.
The author is obviously not aware of the fluctuations in the CMB observed over recent years, which perfectly explain the observed "clumping". This guy really needs to do his homework.
No explanation here. How convenient. I must assume the author is simply mistaken, as usual.
And yet, certain findings in the standard model of particle physics show that asymmetries of this kind do exist in particle physics. Probably the author is uninformed on particle physics.
The author is a Creationist as well as a Bang-denier?
It is incorrect that dark matter cannot be measured. The distribution of dark matter in galaxies can be and has been mapped. It is observable by its gravitational effects.
What alternate theory does the author propose that works better?
Ah yes. Here we go. The author is indeed a Creationist.
Of course, ruling out the Big Bang doesn't in any way rule in God. There are hundreds of alternatives. If the Big Bang theory is proved false tomorrow, that does not mean that there is "only one credible explanation" remaining. Perhaps the big bang is false, and the universe was really sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. So much for the Christian God.
Again, a basic familiarity with the theory would be nice.
So, the author believes the big bang when it agrees with his Bible, but disbelieves it when it contradicts.
How convenient (but unscientific) for him.
How about you, EFOC?
Explain why it is "totally illogical". A bald assertion is useless.
Actually, you are wrong. The big bang theory doesn't even deal with what the universe "came from". Nor does it deal with anything that occurred prior to about 10^-43 seconds after the universe's beginning.
Nowhere does it say that anything "defies physics". Read it again.
And if God created the universe, what then? Is that hypothesis flawed, too?
This is incorrect. The concept of potential energy applies differently in general relativity than in Newtonian gravitation. The author clearly doesn't know what he is talking about here.
This problem is solved by "dark energy".
What have you read about proposed solutions to these difficulties?
No, they correctly believe that, since that is in fact what the theory predicts.
The author is obviously not aware of the fluctuations in the CMB observed over recent years, which perfectly explain the observed "clumping". This guy really needs to do his homework.
No explanation here. How convenient. I must assume the author is simply mistaken, as usual.
And yet, certain findings in the standard model of particle physics show that asymmetries of this kind do exist in particle physics. Probably the author is uninformed on particle physics.
The author is a Creationist as well as a Bang-denier?
It is incorrect that dark matter cannot be measured. The distribution of dark matter in galaxies can be and has been mapped. It is observable by its gravitational effects.
What alternate theory does the author propose that works better?
Ah yes. Here we go. The author is indeed a Creationist.
Of course, ruling out the Big Bang doesn't in any way rule in God. There are hundreds of alternatives. If the Big Bang theory is proved false tomorrow, that does not mean that there is "only one credible explanation" remaining. Perhaps the big bang is false, and the universe was really sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. So much for the Christian God.
Again, a basic familiarity with the theory would be nice.
So, the author believes the big bang when it agrees with his Bible, but disbelieves it when it contradicts.
How convenient (but unscientific) for him.
How about you, EFOC?
the expansion of the universe was invented to explain the redshift.
and the bang was invented to explain the nonexistent expansion.
when the bb was first invented, they said that the universe came from absolute nothing, a singularity, but later they changed that because they couldn't explain it. just like they changed the "explosion in space" to "explosion of space" because the universe was expanding too fast for their brains. space can't expand because it doesn't consist of anything. and even if it could expand it couldn't expand because, according to big bang scientists, there is no space outside to expand to.
and the bang was invented to explain the nonexistent expansion.
when the bb was first invented, they said that the universe came from absolute nothing, a singularity, but later they changed that because they couldn't explain it. just like they changed the "explosion in space" to "explosion of space" because the universe was expanding too fast for their brains. space can't expand because it doesn't consist of anything. and even if it could expand it couldn't expand because, according to big bang scientists, there is no space outside to expand to.
Last edited:
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Um, actually, the accelleration in expansion has been carefully considered. Although the cause is debated, it doesn't alter the fact that the universe is expanding. Good theories aren't just scrapped, but updated in light of new information.
The truth is, of course, that there are umpteen Big Bang theories, with certain common factors. I think it is worth bearing in mind that because you find evidence which may be interpreted as showing that the universe used to be smaller, more dense, and perhaps hotter, it does not follow that you can extrapolate the process indefinitely. So called "logical conclusions" from indefinite extrapolation have often been shown to be fallacious.
As an example, consider the global human population. It is greater now than a century ago, and it was greater a century ago than a century earlier. Indeed, we may make the same statement in terms of millenia rather than centuries. It follows that there were originally just one man and one woman. The Bereshit/Genesis story of Adam and Eve is the Big Bang version of Human Origins. Most of us, these days, think we can do better in terms of explanation.
I feel pretty sure that in due course physicists will find a more satisfactory version of the early history of the universe that does not involve an act of creation that lies outside the bounds of the "normal".
As an example, consider the global human population. It is greater now than a century ago, and it was greater a century ago than a century earlier. Indeed, we may make the same statement in terms of millenia rather than centuries. It follows that there were originally just one man and one woman. The Bereshit/Genesis story of Adam and Eve is the Big Bang version of Human Origins. Most of us, these days, think we can do better in terms of explanation.
I feel pretty sure that in due course physicists will find a more satisfactory version of the early history of the universe that does not involve an act of creation that lies outside the bounds of the "normal".
wanna show me some dark energy. or 'matter' /
peace.
peace.
Er... no.
Do you know what a "singularity" actually is? Look it up.
The big bang theory was ]i]never[/i] about an explosion in space.
Brilliant! I think you've noticed something that no scientist has thought of in the last 100 years. You ought to publish. You're like Einstein.
- Status