Is Big Bang wrong?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering (now getting back to the OP) how many re-adjustable parameters are allowed for the BB to make it a viable theory alone makes it non-viable. The problems of big bang in other words have been ignored by processes of nip and tuck.

Some of the biggest problems came from when it was first created. We began the universe at the size of about a blood cell, but as small as that was did not leave enough room required for cosmic expansion or the age-requirements of certain galaxies. Starting it smaller, infinitesimally-smaller, much smaller than a proton we were able to start time off correctly as far as we have fudged the general view, (with superclusters with serious error margins which have been ignored) but we required a new modification to account for background temperatures.

As was suggested by the OP link, Eddington first concluded a background temperature of 2.7k but was created from a gradual fog of radiation expelled from galaxies and supergalaxies filling the space inbetween. Of course, you'd expect it could not be completely homogeneous if this was the case and it turns out, as a little bit of info the link does not give, is that the background temperatures is accurate to a 10,000th degree of error in each direction of spacetime.

To account for the background radiation, instead of adopting Eddingtons model we were left with, strangely enough an entirely new phenomenon called rapid inflationary expansion which may have even required itself a field mediated by ''inflatons''.

What was science thinking I wonder in taking this path? Einstein once said that physics should be kept simple but no simpler, but it seems physics decided to account for the background radiation simply for the remnant of the BB smoothed out by cosmic inflation.

If this was the case, then cosmologists are aware that after inflation, parts of the universe would remain expanding at different rates. It's left us a very complicated theory to deal with. It would have been much simpler to conclude that everything has an eternal feature to it instead of believing that there necesserily needed to be a beginning to the universe. It would have been much simpler to think that the universe always had some kind of energy density inside of it in the form of virtual particles and that nature would allow under certain conditions longer lived fluctuations which makes the observable universe as we see it today.

A beginning of time is a very poetic, very logical (and some might even consider a deterministic) view of reality. Needless to say, a universe which has been around forever could be just as deterministic.
And yet the big bang gives us the right ratios of primordial elements, something that steady state theories can not do. Also, the same equations that predict that the big bang occured, and model the growth of the universe as it has happened since then, also correctly predict the occurence of the first quasars.
 
And yet the big bang gives us the right ratios of primordial elements, something that steady state theories can not do. Also, the same equations that predict that the big bang occured, and model the growth of the universe as it has happened since then, also correctly predict the occurence of the first quasars.

So many of this big bang are half ass theory , So why are they sold to the public as it is a gospel truth ?
 
So many of this big bang are half ass theory , So why are they sold to the public as it is a gospel truth ?

It's not a half assed theory, the only thing that's half assed about big bang cosmology (as it is most correctly called) is certain groups of peoples understanding of it.

Big bang cosmology, as it stands, is the single, most self consistent model that is able to account for the greatest number of observations.
 
So many of this big bang are half ass theory , So why are they sold to the public as it is a gospel truth ?

what parts are half-arsed? please put some substance to your posts instead of these ignorant bites.
 
And yet the big bang gives us the right ratios of primordial elements, something that steady state theories can not do. Also, the same equations that predict that the big bang occured, and model the growth of the universe as it has happened since then, also correctly predict the occurence of the first quasars.

It also predicted the black body spectrum of the CMB so closely that the error bars were dots.
 
“ Originally Posted by arauca
So many of this big bang are half ass theory , So why are they sold to the public as it is a gospel truth ?

because the public , for the most part , don't know any better

It's not a half assed theory, the only thing that's half assed about big bang cosmology (as it is most correctly called) is certain groups of peoples understanding of it.

true , esoteric knowledge rains

Big bang cosmology, as it stands, is the single, most self consistent model that is able to account for the greatest number of observations.

but not all
 
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

What us your comment , sorry if you posted your comment before marke tour post number.

My comment is that there is a lot of hooey in that link.

For example, Milgrom himself stated that MOND can not get rid of dark matter in its entirety (as is often attributed to him), only that it reduces the amount required.

I know some of those points have been proven false with refined measurements, and thereing lies the problem with discussions such as this.

Some times absence of proof is just that, absence of proof, it's not neccessarily proof of absence. Spometimes technology has to catch up so that we can make the neccessary measurements.
 
river:

The big bang theory and the steady state theory are cosmological theories. A cosmological theory explains the large-scale structure of the universe. Cosmological theories won't help you build a toaster or tell you what a sunspot is or tell you the distance from Copenhagen to New York.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top