Problems with the Big Bang theory

[Fragilezim]

Alot of atheists prescribe to the Big Bang as the theory for our universe's creation. Whenever the subject of Creationism comes up, this is usually the counter argument. I personally believe in the Theist apporach to the universe, but that doesnt mean i dont believe in science.I do believe strongly in presenting both sides of a theory, there are alot of threads stating why the Big Bang theory is correct, but no contary threads on the matter.

The press release from the Crisis in Cosmology Conference in Moncao, Portugal, June 23-25 2005 ( http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p17.htm ) is a good paper to get a laymans view on the problems with the theory. Additionally i found the following inaccuracies with the current Big bang theory.


1) Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities

The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.


2)Large-scale Voids are too old

The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.


3) Surface brightness is constant

One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3.In the expanding universe, objects at large distance actually appear larger not smaller, and the surface brightness falls sharply with distance. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang.

4)Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation


Now this is the kicker for me.

The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

No Conservation of Energy

The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

Alignment of CBR ( Cosmic Background Radiation) with the Local Supercluster

The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)

Now im not pretending to understand all of the above, however it does illustrate that there are shocking "gaps" in the Big Bang theory. As Persecuted illustrated, the chances of the Big Bang occuring initially are astounding. Coupled with these findings, i find it difficult to believe that God didnt create our universe. Its either belief in a scientific theory or faith in God. Everyone here is entitled to choose their own belief, but its always a good idea to find out both sides of a theory before placing you beliefs onto it.

Feel free to discuss the above points, if anyone here is more knowledgeable ( or more skilled at googling ) than me about these findings post your views

[-Caucasian-]

Using science to disprove a scientific theory

[Ehyun55]

i don't understand any of this.

smart bodybuilders out there i guess

[Fragilezim]

Originally Posted by -Caucasian-

Using science to disprove a scientific theory

Using letters to write a sentence???

Moronic input is alot worse than no input, dont post if you cant add an intelligent argument to this thread. Thanks

P.S. not directed at Ehyun55.

[NormandyRoad]

Originally Posted by Fragilezim

Using letters to write a sentence???

Moronic input is alot worse than no input, dont post if you cant add an intelligent argument to this thread. Thanks

P.S. not directed at Ehyun55.

I think you missed the point.

[Fragilezim]

Basically there are galaxies older than the inital Big Bang event, Size in relation to distance is incorrect, and scientists are simply adding hypothetical things ( like Dark matter) to the theory when they encounter problems with the original theory.

[Fragilezim]

Originally Posted by NormandyRoad

I think you missed the point.

Scientists can be christians or visa versa....Anyway, hes digressing from the isue, there are massive gaps.

I think this leads to "eternal universe' view point and you know exactly how defending that possition will end.....

[LatissimusDorsi]

Eeeuuurrrggghhh copy/paste robot.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/index1.htm

[Fragilezim]

Originally Posted by LatissimusDorsi

Eeeuuurrrggghhh copy/paste robot.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/index1.htm

Sure sign that im preaching facts, you have no counter argument to post, so you attack my blatent past job. Where have i stated that thats my work?? I Wrote that i didnt understand all of it, HOW could i have possibly written it then?

Please try again.

As the legend Squanto says, bla bla bla No Argument.

[NormandyRoad]

Originally Posted by Fragilezim

Scientists can be christians or visa versa....Anyway, hes digressing from the isue, there are massive gaps.

Religious scientists are always only ever paying lip service to one side while genuinely believing the other.

[NormandyRoad]

Originally Posted by Fragilezim

Sure sign that im preaching facts, you have no counter argument to post, so you attack my blatent past job. Where have i stated that thats my work?? I Wrote that i didnt understand all of it, HOW could i have possibly written it then?

Please try again.

As the legend Squanto says, bla bla bla No Argument.

Why would you post arguments you don't understand?

[Fragilezim]

I said i didnt understand ALL of it, i understand why there are issues withe the redshift readings gathered from the hubble telescope, and the surface brightness constant.

I posted all of it so it would negate the calls for "links" and "what proof do you have", that would ultimately arise from the statement The Big Ban Is Wrongzor!!!111.

Back on point please.

[Vaper]

Originally Posted by NormandyRoad

Religious scientists are always only ever paying lip service to one side while genuinely believing the other.

Religious scientists have contributed revolutionary inventions and ideas to science, mathematics, astronomy, physics and mechanics. Infact the greatest scientist of the 19th century was Chrstian. Religious scientists have played a huge role in revolutionizing science to what it is today. If you deny religious scientists your denying science.

[NormandyRoad]

Originally Posted by Vaper

Religious scientists have contributed revolutionary inventions and ideas to science, mathematics, astronomy, physics and mechanics. Infact the greatest scientist of the 19th century was Chrstian. Religious scientists have played a huge role in revolutionizing science to what it is today. If you deny religious scientists your denying science.

Religious scientists are always only ever paying lip service to one side while genuinely believing the other. Theres no way around it.

[eurtune]

im skeptical of the big bang theory (really don't know why it's called a theory, should still be classed as a hypothesis) but that doesn't mean i'm going to default to the idea that a god created the universe. i've never really cared about how things came to be or the initial creation events of the universe. it's hard to bring a case when it's near impossible to collect observable data, from either position.

[Fragilezim]

Originally Posted by NormandyRoad

Religious scientists are always only ever paying lip service to one side while genuinely believing the other. Theres no way around it.

On this lip service issue, why do think scientists continue to push the Big Bang Theory. It sure isnt because they genuinely believe in it, higher budgets and grants are the ultimate motivation.....

Neways......BOP

[Fragilezim]

I could have been a complete pr!ck and initially posted something along the lines of....

WTF are you a moron to believe in the magical Big bang fairy, what if i started wearing a tinfoil cap and shouted out i believed in the almighty BIBBANG and pink unicorn's that deficate dark matter, you'd think i was crazy too!

Its not a mature method of posting in a debate. People on this forum need to relax with the "jesus iz a zombie" and "people who believe in evolution are ignorant chimp's" themes. Anyway...

What do the atheists on this board trust in if they dont believe

A) God created everything
B) The Big Bang Created everything
C) Possibly the Eternal Universe theory ( A real can of worms)

Come on all the smart atheists......please contribute

[Weightaholic]

Well done to the OP. That's the longest and most complicated argumentum ad ignorantiam I've ever seen....

[Renard]

The Bing Bang Theory is just that, a theory!

So it is in the nature of the beast that it doesnt explain everything. Its just so that it is one of the better explanations we have. And if it is completely wrong than it doesnt mean that religion wins and science loses. When a theory is wrong scientist come up with another model.. Its an endless cylce.
now the important part is that the creationistic theory is NOT based on science and therefore you cannot really chose between creationism and big bang theory from a scientific point of view.

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by Vaper

Religious scientists have contributed revolutionary inventions and ideas to science, mathematics, astronomy, physics and mechanics. Infact the greatest scientist of the 19th century was Chrstian. Religious scientists have played a huge role in revolutionizing science to what it is today. If you deny religious scientists your denying science.

one of them even created the Big Bang theory

[Fragilezim]

Originally Posted by Weightaholic

Well done to the OP. That's the longest and most complicated argumentum ad ignorantiam I've ever seen....

Nice personal attack, wouldnt expect less from you Weight. Maybe look up what that phrase means sometimes, you'll look like less of a fool because you could use it in the right context. Stop regurgiating your usual response to theists posts. The original post is correct in its assumptions, when you find a decent counter argument, feel free to post it.


To renard, i wasnt implying that science was a perfect process. Neither is religion if you consider that it "evolves" as time goes on. I was merely illustrating that both beliefs/theories require a measure of pure belief for them to work. Obviously my position requries a much larger leap of faith but im ultimately happy with that choice.

[geetar_joe]

The arguments in the original post are attributable to Eric Lerner, and his book "The Big Bang Never Happened".

This is a man at the fringes of the scientific community, writing a popular science book riddled with flaws and errors.

Let's not get started with the Alternative Cosmology Group and their incredibly detailed and observationally supported plasma cosmology theory.

Oh, and as a sign-off, where is the detailed further research from this 2005 alternative cosmology conference?

[Fragilezim]

See this is where i have a problem with the atheists on this board. As soon as they cant attack the science behind a argument , they attack the scientist himself. Sadly it just shows you lack a argument.

What about the article about the Crisis in Cosmology Conference, im sure all those physicists and astronomers were fringe lunatics and quaks as well.

Please note that article was in the New Scientist journal as well before you attack the validity of that link.....

On the 2005 sign off, so you are saying all scientific information before 2007 is invalid?

[Weightaholic]

Originally Posted by Fragilezim

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Your whole argument is based on some inconsistencies and unexplained portions within a theory.

Really, well done. I've never seen a theist do THAT before!

[-Caucasian-]

Originally Posted by Fragilezim

Using letters to write a sentence???

Moronic input is alot worse than no input, dont post if you cant add an intelligent argument to this thread. Thanks

Irony ?

Why try to disprove the big bang theory, when you have a long way to go to try to prove what you beleive in. Other then that, the big bang theory makes a hell of a lot more sense.

[Renard]

Originally Posted by Fragilezim

Nice personal attack, wouldnt expect less from you Weight. Maybe look up what that phrase means sometimes, you'll look like less of a fool because you could use it in the right context. Stop regurgiating your usual response to theists posts. The original post is correct in its assumptions, when you find a decent counter argument, feel free to post it.


To renard, i wasnt implying that science was a perfect process. Neither is religion if you consider that it "evolves" as time goes on. I was merely illustrating that both beliefs/theories require a measure of pure belief for them to work. Obviously my position requries a much larger leap of faith but im ultimately happy with that choice.

If youre happy believing in god and religion and all that stuff then iam happy for you :-) Its a great consolidation to be able to expain the big mysteries of the world. And its even a greater consolidation to believe in these explanations. I understand that.
But I think you're mistaken if you think that scientists belief in their therories much like religios people do. If a proper scientist has evidence that his theory is wrong he will search for another, better theory.. If not, hes not a proper scientist! Scientists know that they have not a complete model of the world, no world-formulae, no theory which explains everything. Theists on the other hand claim they have! If a scientists accepts a religious model of the world he has stopped being a scientist (in my opinion at least)

[Weightaholic]

Originally Posted by Renard

If youre happy believing in god and religion and all that stuff then iam happy for you :-) Its a great consolidation to be able to expain the big mysteries of the world. And its even a greater consolidation to believe in these explanations. I understand that.
But I think you're mistaken if you think that scientists belief in their therories much like religios people do. If a proper scientist has evidence that his theory is wrong he will search for another, better theory.. If not, hes not a proper scientist! Scientists know that they have not a complete model of the world, no world-formulae, no theory which explains everything. Theists on the other hand claim they have! If a scientists accepts a religious model of the world he has stopped being a scientist (in my opinion at least)

Or in short...

Scientist: That theory doesn't quite fit. So how does it happen?

Theist: Jebus did it. I love Jebus.

[NormandyRoad]

Originally Posted by Fragilezim

On this lip service issue, why do think scientists continue to push the Big Bang Theory. It sure isnt because they genuinely believe in it, higher budgets and grants are the ultimate motivation.....

Neways......BOP

so the conspiracy goes.

[Fragilezim]

Originally Posted by Weightaholic

Your whole argument is based on some inconsistencies and unexplained portions within a theory.

Really, well done. I've never seen a theist do THAT before!

Read my original post. Those inconsistencies such as field inflation and dark matter are simply coverups for glaring faults between what is now *observable* and what theory prescribes. Whithout these hypothetical issues, the whole theory fails.

Once again, no argument.

[geetar_joe]

Originally Posted by Fragilezim

See this is where i have a problem with the atheists on this board. As soon as they cant attack the science behind a argument , they attack the scientist himself. Sadly it just shows you lack a argument.

The quality of the science depends upon the quality of scientist. Mr Lerner has a BA in physics from Columbia and no postgraduate qualifications. You simply cannot accept something as fact without checking who wrote it, when they wrote it, and why they wrote it.

Originally Posted by Fragilezim

What about the article about the Crisis in Cosmology Conference, im sure all those physicists and astronomers were fringe lunatics and quaks as well.

Interesting that there are no leading scientists attending that conference, isn't it? They're not all quacks, but they're certainly not the best.

Originally Posted by Fragilezim

Please note that article was in the New Scientist journal as well before you attack the validity of that link.....

The "article" was an open letter to the science community, and published as such. It was not a peer reviewed article.

Originally Posted by Fragilezim

On the 2005 sign off, so you are saying all scientific information before 2007 is invalid?

Of course not, way to put words into my mouth there. The finer point, which you have obviously missed, is this:

If this conference was so groundbreaking, revolutionary, and threatening to the Big Bang theory, where are the fruits of said conference? As far as I can tell, there has been no quality research or ideas generated from the conference. No further investigation spurred in a larger audience.