10 Flaws with the Big Bang

[michabo]

Since our resident astronomy expert, John 16 feels that all questions are to be found at metaresearch.org, I thought we could have a separate thread to look at its claims in more detail. I was not expecting much, but even still it let me down. Far from having the long string of lies that I expected, it had ten points which, as far as I can see, aren't even related to the Big Bang.

Let's take a look. This is from http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

Assertion. Why does he think this? What data fits better? What does he mean by "static"? The universe is obviously not static in the conventional sense as the redshift shows clearly.

2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

This temperature was predicted and then observed. The observed temp closely matches predictions. How is this a problem? Compare that to "space heated by starlight" which doesn't make any sense. Space itself doesn't have a temperature. Starlight doesn't radiate at 2.7 Kelvin. The CBR doesn't follow distributions of galaxies or stars so there is no way to twist this assertion to be close to accurate.

3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

Such as? What is "too many"? Is this an appeal to aesthetics or a comment about reality? Whatever it is, I don't see the flaw.

4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

Inflation.

5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

No they mustn't.

6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

No they don't.

7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

The universe isn't supposed to be uniform. And just what does "local streaming motion" mean, anyway?

8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

Maybe. Again, how is this a problem with the big bang?

9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

What does this mean? All of the astronomers interviewed about the early galaxies comment on how different they are from today's galaxies. Exactly what is the problem? Are you claiming that quasars should have formed before the galaxies?

10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Anthropic principle?

What is this point saying? That if the universe was different, then it would be different? Well, duh. Where's the problem?


Anyhoo. If anyone wants to get a pulse on the kook nation, the rest of the site may be worth looking into. Men on mars, the whole 9 yards. Perhaps "meta research" is more appropriate than I thought - their research certainly operates on a different level.

 

[John16:2]

Since our resident astronomy expert, John 16 feels that all questions are to be found at metaresearch.org, I thought we could have a separate thread to look at its claims in more detail. I was not expecting much, but even still it let me down. Far from having the long string of lies that I expected, it had ten points which, as far as I can see, aren't even related to the Big Bang.

Let's take a look. This is from http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp


Assertion. Why does he think this? What data fits better? What does he mean by "static"? The universe is obviously not static in the conventional sense as the redshift shows clearly.

This temperature was predicted and then observed. The observed temp closely matches predictions. How is this a problem? Compare that to "space heated by starlight" which doesn't make any sense. Space itself doesn't have a temperature. Starlight doesn't radiate at 2.7 Kelvin. The CBR doesn't follow distributions of galaxies or stars so there is no way to twist this assertion to be close to accurate.

Such as? What is "too many"? Is this an appeal to aesthetics or a comment about reality? Whatever it is, I don't see the flaw.

Inflation.

No they mustn't.

No they don't.

The universe isn't supposed to be uniform. And just what does "local streaming motion" mean, anyway?

Maybe. Again, how is this a problem with the big bang?

What does this mean? All of the astronomers interviewed about the early galaxies comment on how different they are from today's galaxies. Exactly what is the problem? Are you claiming that quasars should have formed before the galaxies?

Anthropic principle?

What is this point saying? That if the universe was different, then it would be different? Well, duh. Where's the problem?


Anyhoo. If anyone wants to get a pulse on the kook nation, the rest of the site may be worth looking into. Men on mars, the whole 9 yards. Perhaps "meta research" is more appropriate than I thought - their research certainly operates on a different level.

Your rebuttal #1 is based on distortion of facts by taking a statement out of context and giving it another meaning than intended. BY STATIC, Dr Van Flandern was referring to the static electrical field of the visible universe, NOT a "static universe". That's not an answer! That's acting like you have an answer to it. I'll be back, it'll take time to rebut your lame rebuttals in a scientific manner, one by one.

 

[John16:2]

Since our resident astronomy expert, John 16 feels that all questions are to be found at metaresearch.org, I thought we could have a separate thread to look at its claims in more detail. I was not expecting much, but even still it let me down. Far from having the long string of lies that I expected, it had ten points which, as far as I can see, aren't even related to the Big Bang.

Let's take a look. This is from http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp


Assertion. Why does he think this? What data fits better? What does he mean by "static"? The universe is obviously not static in the conventional sense as the redshift shows clearly.

This temperature was predicted and then observed. The observed temp closely matches predictions. How is this a problem? Compare that to "space heated by starlight" which doesn't make any sense. Space itself doesn't have a temperature. Starlight doesn't radiate at 2.7 Kelvin. The CBR doesn't follow distributions of galaxies or stars so there is no way to twist this assertion to be close to accurate.

Such as? What is "too many"? Is this an appeal to aesthetics or a comment about reality? Whatever it is, I don't see the flaw.

Inflation.

No they mustn't.

No they don't.

The universe isn't supposed to be uniform. And just what does "local streaming motion" mean, anyway?

Maybe. Again, how is this a problem with the big bang?

What does this mean? All of the astronomers interviewed about the early galaxies comment on how different they are from today's galaxies. Exactly what is the problem? Are you claiming that quasars should have formed before the galaxies?

Anthropic principle?

What is this point saying? That if the universe was different, then it would be different? Well, duh. Where's the problem?


Anyhoo. If anyone wants to get a pulse on the kook nation, the rest of the site may be worth looking into. Men on mars, the whole 9 yards. Perhaps "meta research" is more appropriate than I thought - their research certainly operates on a different level.

Please, address your (deep) questions to Dr Van Flandern at his message board at metaresearch.org. That's what it's there for, so as not to miss any VALID points of any scientists opposing him with a perfect understanding of the concepts involved. That leaves you all out.

 

[John16:2]

Since our resident astronomy expert, John 16 feels that all questions are to be found at metaresearch.org, I thought we could have a separate thread to look at its claims in more detail. I was not expecting much, but even still it let me down. Far from having the long string of lies that I expected, it had ten points which, as far as I can see, aren't even related to the Big Bang.

Let's take a look. This is from http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp


Assertion. Why does he think this? What data fits better? What does he mean by "static"? The universe is obviously not static in the conventional sense as the redshift shows clearly.

This temperature was predicted and then observed. The observed temp closely matches predictions. How is this a problem? Compare that to "space heated by starlight" which doesn't make any sense. Space itself doesn't have a temperature. Starlight doesn't radiate at 2.7 Kelvin. The CBR doesn't follow distributions of galaxies or stars so there is no way to twist this assertion to be close to accurate.

Such as? What is "too many"? Is this an appeal to aesthetics or a comment about reality? Whatever it is, I don't see the flaw.

Inflation.

No they mustn't.

No they don't.

The universe isn't supposed to be uniform. And just what does "local streaming motion" mean, anyway?

Maybe. Again, how is this a problem with the big bang?

What does this mean? All of the astronomers interviewed about the early galaxies comment on how different they are from today's galaxies. Exactly what is the problem? Are you claiming that quasars should have formed before the galaxies?

Anthropic principle?

What is this point saying? That if the universe was different, then it would be different? Well, duh. Where's the problem?


Anyhoo. If anyone wants to get a pulse on the kook nation, the rest of the site may be worth looking into. Men on mars, the whole 9 yards. Perhaps "meta research" is more appropriate than I thought - their research certainly operates on a different level.

Please, address your (deep) questions to Dr Van Flandern at his message board at metaresearch.org. That's what it's there for, so as not to miss any VALID points of any scientists opposing him with a perfect understanding of the concepts involved. That leaves you all out. Doctor Van Flandern spent 20 years with the US Naval Observatory, and became Chief of Celestial Mechanics department. Don't be too quick to call him kook.

 

[raphael_aa]

Let's play this game the other way around:

From this site

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q401.html

comes the following list

Can you list 10 or more observational facts supporting Big Bang Theory?



Sure!

1.... The universe is expanding.

2.... There exists a cosmic background radiation field detectable at microwave frequencies.

3.... The cosmic microwave background field is measurably isotropic to better than a few parts in 100,000 after compensation is made for the relativistic Doppler effect caused by Earth/Sun/Milky Way motion.

4.... The cosmic microwave background radiation field is precisely that of a black body.

5.... The cosmic microwave background radiation field has a temperature of 2.7 K.

6.... There does exist a universal abundance ratio of helium to hydrogen consistent with the current expansion rate and cosmic background temperature.

7.... The cosmological abundance of deuterium relative to hydrogen and helium is consistent with the levels expected given the current expansion rate and density.

8.... There are only three families of neutrinos.

9.... The night sky is not as bright as the surface of the Sun.

10... The cosmic background radiation field is slightly lumpy at a level of one part in 100,000 to 1,000,000.

11... There are no objects that have ages indisputably greater than the expansion age of the universe.

12... There are about 10,000,000,000 photons in the cosmic background radiation field for every proton and neutron of matter.

13... The degree of galaxy clustering observed is consistent with an expanding universe with a finite age less than 20 billion years.

14... There are no elements heavier than lithium which have a universal abundance ratio.

15... The universe was once opaque to its own radiation.

16... The universe is now dominated exclusively by matter and not a mixture of matter and anti-matter.



I should point out that, although some rival theories have proposed alternate explanations to a few of these observations, there are no rivals that provide a simple explanation for all of these remarkable observations. What could be simpler than a universe expanding from a hot, dense state to the present cool, rarified one with all of the above features emerging! No new physics is required, no mysterious forces, just gravity and hot matter doing their thing over billions of years! Copyright 1997 Dr. Sten Odenwald Now John ..... prove them wrong!!

 

[Locrian]

I doubt John16:2 will understand your arguments. Statements such as

Hubble proved there are galaxies as far as can be seen in the past, relatively evenly spaced, filling space, and no center of the big bang has been found. Hubble proves that stars and galaxies can form without any big bangs. This all wasn't known before Hubble proved manunkind ignorant, a few years ago.

show Joohn16:2 has an extreme ignorance of what the inflationary big bang theory suggests. IBB predicts very clearly that no center should be observed. Furthermore, IBB is not necessary to describe the birth of stars or galaxies - just to make predicitons about their details. No one would say otherwise. Suggesting that a lack of "center of the big bang" is evidence against the theory suggests the poster has absolutely no understanding of the theory at all, and should not be commenting on it. Making a case against someone this lacking in education on a topic they feel so strongly on will be difficult indeed. What do you say to someone who doesn't understand the most fundamentals of a concept they are intent on deriding?

 

[Deamiter]

Your rebuttal #1 is based on distortion of facts by taking a statement out of context and giving it another meaning than intended. BY STATIC, Dr Van Flandern was referring to the static electrical field of the visible universe, NOT a "static universe". That's not an answer! That's acting like you have an answer to it. I'll be back, it'll take time to rebut your lame rebuttals in a scientific manner, one by one.

Look at the page. This is the entire statement: "Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models."

There's neither further context here nor anywhere else on the page. Furthermore, he contrasts static with expanding which leads rather clearly to the idea that he DOES indeed refer to a "static universe" (direct quote by Van Flandern) and this electrical field you talk about isn't mentioned anywhere on the site!

Come on now, if you have some sources you've been hiding, perhaps it's time to whip them out and let us have a look. Otherwise, we're going to misinterpret Dr. Von Flandern's assertions every time simply because (as you seem to be claiming) he didn't bother to post correct or complete assertions on his site!

 

[Iron Sun 254]

Your rebuttal #1 is based on distortion of facts by taking a statement out of context and giving it another meaning than intended. BY STATIC, Dr Van Flandern was referring to the static electrical field of the visible universe, NOT a "static universe". That's not an answer! That's acting like you have an answer to it. I'll be back, it'll take time to rebut your lame rebuttals in a scientific manner, one by one.

Uhhh.. No he isn't. He's talking about models of the universe which don't involve any expansion. Here's his own explanation of how the data fits non-expanding universes better http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp .

Now, I defy you to find the word "electric" any where in that text.

 

[John16:2]

Let's play this game the other way around:

From this site

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q401.html

comes the following list

Can you list 10 or more observational facts supporting Big Bang Theory?



Sure!

1.... The universe is expanding.

2.... There exists a cosmic background radiation field detectable at microwave frequencies.

3.... The cosmic microwave background field is measurably isotropic to better than a few parts in 100,000 after compensation is made for the relativistic Doppler effect caused by Earth/Sun/Milky Way motion.

4.... The cosmic microwave background radiation field is precisely that of a black body.

5.... The cosmic microwave background radiation field has a temperature of 2.7 K.

6.... There does exist a universal abundance ratio of helium to hydrogen consistent with the current expansion rate and cosmic background temperature.

7.... The cosmological abundance of deuterium relative to hydrogen and helium is consistent with the levels expected given the current expansion rate and density.

8.... There are only three families of neutrinos.

9.... The night sky is not as bright as the surface of the Sun.

10... The cosmic background radiation field is slightly lumpy at a level of one part in 100,000 to 1,000,000.

11... There are no objects that have ages indisputably greater than the expansion age of the universe.

12... There are about 10,000,000,000 photons in the cosmic background radiation field for every proton and neutron of matter.

13... The degree of galaxy clustering observed is consistent with an expanding universe with a finite age less than 20 billion years.

14... There are no elements heavier than lithium which have a universal abundance ratio.

15... The universe was once opaque to its own radiation.

16... The universe is now dominated exclusively by matter and not a mixture of matter and anti-matter.



I should point out that, although some rival theories have proposed alternate explanations to a few of these observations, there are no rivals that provide a simple explanation for all of these remarkable observations. What could be simpler than a universe expanding from a hot, dense state to the present cool, rarified one with all of the above features emerging! No new physics is required, no mysterious forces, just gravity and hot matter doing their thing over billions of years! Copyright 1997 Dr. Sten Odenwald Now John ..... prove them wrong!!

The things you list that fit the big bang model do not address the 10 points of former US Naval Observatory Chief of Celestial Mechanics, Dr Van Flandern in a scientific manner. I'll not debate on, because the record DOES show that basic facts are denied falsely, meanings deliberately twisted, character assassination rather than debates. I don't have a career on the line in science, like the Doctors do, so have your lying unfair arguements with them. message board at metaresearch.org. IF you have a VALID point they will listen, in the name of science. I'm off to sites that are more polite, like ALL of them!

 

[John16:2]

I doubt John16:2 will understand your arguments. Statements such as



show Joohn16:2 has an extreme ignorance of what the inflationary big bang theory suggests. IBB predicts very clearly that no center should be observed. Furthermore, IBB is not necessary to describe the birth of stars or galaxies - just to make predicitons about their details. No one would say otherwise. Suggesting that a lack of "center of the big bang" is evidence against the theory suggests the poster has absolutely no understanding of the theory at all, and should not be commenting on it. Making a case against someone this lacking in education on a topic they feel so strongly on will be difficult indeed. What do you say to someone who doesn't understand the most fundamentals of a concept they are intent on deriding?

I'm supposed to believe that ALL the galaxies as far as Hubble can see and beyond the claimed age of the universe spewed forth in an orderly fashion from a little point in a bang. How wide is the universe? Infinite? Galaxies go on for infinity? Seeing is believing, but Hubble is being shut down before the answer is clear. Take your questions to those qualified to answer, like the former Chief of Celestial Mechanics at US Naval Observatory, Dr Van Flandern. Show him you know more than him! (Yea, right!)

 

[raphael_aa]

John

Let's remember you started this. You put up a hypothesis based on your acceptance of 'experts'. You have admitted you don't really have enough science to defend your arguments on your own.

Do you see you are accepting these guys completely on faith? It's fine if you choose to have faith in these men as opposed to the great majority of practising scientists. To me the interesting question is why you have faith (without adequate knowledge) in these guys but not in mainstream science you do not understand.

I understand this line of questioning is challenging for you. We hate to be confronted by our presuppositions and prejudices. It would be a shame if you ran from them now rather than learning something about the diversity of the Body of Christ.

 

[John16:2]

Uhhh.. No he isn't. He's talking about models of the universe which don't involve any expansion. Here's his own explanation of how the data fits non-expanding universes better http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp .

Now, I defy you to find the word "electric" any where in that text.

A "static field" implies "electro-static" in point #1 of the 10 flaws. The other 9 points are ignored while y'all claim ALL false based on (your) understanding of point #1. The message board is there explicitly for debates on the 10 flaws, so let him have it! No former Chief of Celestial Mechanics can tell YOU you're wrong! I'm sure of that much.

 

[funyun]

I'm supposed to believe that ALL the galaxies as far as Hubble can see and beyond the claimed age of the universe spewed forth in an orderly fashion from a little point in a bang.

1. I've already told you that the reason some galaxies, protogalaxies, and galaxy-like celestial objects are s15 billion light years away does not show they are actually 15 billion years old, because of expansion.

2. Nothing "spewed forth", least of all fully formed galaxies. Expansion. Keep in mind that the term "Big Bang" is a misnomer created by those who, upon its inception, challenged the theory.

How wide is the universe? Infinite? Galaxies go on for infinity? Seeing is believing, but Hubble is being shut down before the answer is clear.

Another time when you hint some kind of conspiracy is taking place, though you turned it around on me in that other thread and claimed youw eren't and I was. Funny.

Take your questions to those qualified to answer,

Well, we don't have questions, but your advice is good. I suggest you follow it.

like the former Chief of Celestial Mechanics at US Naval Observatory, Dr Van Flandern. Show him you know more than him! (Yea, right!)

Appeal to authority?

 

[michabo]

Appeal to authority?

According to the former Chief of Celestial Mechanics at US Naval Observatory, Dr Van Flandern, that was a legitimate argument and not merely an appeal to authority.

 

[michabo]

A "static field" implies "electro-static" in point #1 of the 10 flaws.

You're getting your points mixed. The term "static field" is not mentioned at all in this list. He refers to a "static Universe model" which he elaborates on, contrasting it with an expanding universe model.

The other 9 points are ignored while y'all claim ALL false based on (your) understanding of point #1.

I don't see any dependencies. Can you elaborate?

No former Chief of Celestial Mechanics can tell YOU you're wrong! I'm sure of that much.

It doesn't matter what he says. It only matters why he says it. So far we haven't seen anything to substantiate any of his concerns. Care to fix this?

 

[sparklecat]

For a second rebuttal of the supposed flaws:

The article in question is authored by Tom van Flandern, and can be found here (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp).

1) Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

No justification is given for this statement. Nothing to refute. I'd love to see van Flandern's reasoning, though.

2) The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

Again, stated without justification. But how would this model explain the CMB angular power spectrum?

3) Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

Firstly, that isn't a problem for the Big Bang at all. At worst, if there are so many free parameters that the models can account for any observation, we lose prediction of light element abundances as support for the Big Bang.

Secondly, the models aren't so hideously complicated for the simplest cases: hydrogen, deuterium, and helium. They still give good results.

Thirdly, the parameters are constrained by experiment. The same physics that is used in nucleosynthesis calculations is used in particle physics. Indeed the relation is so strong that, before sufficiently advanced particle accelerators were available, the best constraints on some parameters in the standard model of particle physics were derived from observations of light element abundances. That these constraints agree with those from particle accelerator experiments provides strong support for nucleosynthesis models.

Fourthly, the models predict multiple data points: abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, two isotopes of helium, beryllium, and lithium. We would need six completely free parameters to fix six predictions. But the parameters are not free, they are constrained by observation. So to fix these six predictions requires a very large number of adjustable parameters.

Fifthly, nucleosynthesis models can successfully predict light element abundances only if the density of baryonic matter is sufficiently low, thus adding yet another independently constrained parameter that the models need to explain.

4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

This is a problem for models of structure formation, not for the Big Bang.

5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

Untrue. Quasars are found only within a relatively narrow range of distances, and so the effect of distance on luminosity is not significant.

6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe

Also untrue. The only measurements which have suggested this had large error bars, and better observations have fixed this non-problem.

7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

The Universe is not supposed to be everywhere uniform - it has large scale structure, as van Flandern himself earlier noted. Additionally, studies of streaming motion are notoriously inaccurate.

8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

So what? Multiple independent lines of observation indicate that non-baryonic matter is indeed the dominant ingredient of the Universe. And 'invisible' does not imply 'unobservable.'

9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

Again, a problem for structure formation, not the Big Bang. Nevertheless, galactic evolution is indeed observed, with both type and number density of galaxies varying with increasing redshift.

10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

No problem whatsoever: inflation drives the density of the Universe towards the critical value.

 

[John16:2]

John

Let's remember you started this. You put up a hypothesis based on your acceptance of 'experts'. You have admitted you don't really have enough science to defend your arguments on your own.

Do you see you are accepting these guys completely on faith? It's fine if you choose to have faith in these men as opposed to the great majority of practising scientists. To me the interesting question is why you have faith (without adequate knowledge) in these guys but not in mainstream science you do not understand.

I understand this line of questioning is challenging for you. We hate to be confronted by our presuppositions and prejudices. It would be a shame if you ran from them now rather than learning something about the diversity of the Body of Christ.

Let me remind y'all again that "expert" CAN be defined as ex-Chief of Celestial Mechanics who spent 20 years with US Naval Observatory; Dr Van Flandern, who published the 10 flaws with the big bang, along with a message board for unbelievers like you, so if you THINK you have a case, they already have the Aces up their sleeves to pull. I'm not qualified to discuss ALL fields of study of science, or defend the 10 flaws adequately. Only flaw #1 is discussed so far. Take it up with the chief, and repost all here. Character assassination rather than counter-evidence is poor science. The others y'all call loonies are doctors and professors, and are totally unrelated to the issue of 10 flaws with the big bang. This ain't my thread. metaresearch.org Go humiliate the chief, and save the world from scientific blasphemy! Yea, sure, yea. Make them shut down the site in shame! (Right!) Ego+science=flaws.

 

[raphael_aa]

Let me remind y'all again that "expert" CAN be defined as ex-Chief of Celestial Mechanics who spent 20 years with US Naval Observatory; Dr Van Flandern, who published the 10 flaws with the big bang, along with a message board for unbelievers like you, so if you THINK you have a case, they already have the Aces up their sleeves to pull. I'm not qualified to discuss ALL fields of study of science, or defend the 10 flaws adequately. Only flaw #1 is discussed so far. Take it up with the chief, and repost all here. Character assassination rather than counter-evidence is poor science. The others y'all call loonies are doctors and professors, and are totally unrelated to the issue of 10 flaws with the big bang. This ain't my thread. metaresearch.org Go humiliate the chief, and save the world from scientific blasphemy! Yea, sure, yea. Make them shut down the site in shame! (Right!) Ego+science=flaws.

I like how you use the word 'unbelievers' here. I think it is most accurate for how you see science. You don't have enough science to accurately judge the veracity of these claims as you readily admit (that's not saying your ignorant, most of us don't have advanced degrees in astrophysics) you just accept them 'on faith'. Van Flandern may have credibility, but among astrophysicists he holds a minority opinion with regards to Big Bang theory. That doesn't mean he's wrong of course but why do you accept his word over the 100's of other experts in the same field who disagree with him? Why is this minority opinion of such importance to you that you rant and rave and name-call when it is threatened? What exactly does it have to do with christian faith? Why are you advocating us to take on the good doctor when you brought him up in the first place and ,as fas I can tell, in a completely unrelated topic.

I find astrophysics interesting but it is by no means a passion of mine. Evidence could disprove the Big Bang tomorrow and I wouldn't lose any sleep. It just seems to me that in matters of experts the most prudent course is to support the majority opinion of experts in the field. What I'm wondering is why you delight in advocating the minority view in practically every scientific matter you raise?

 

[John16:2]

You're getting your points mixed. The term "static field" is not mentioned at all in this list. He refers to a "static Universe model" which he elaborates on, contrasting it with an expanding universe model.

I don't see any dependencies. Can you elaborate?

It doesn't matter what he says. It only matters why he says it. So far we haven't seen anything to substantiate any of his concerns. Care to fix this?

I wasn't quoting from the chief's "list", but the elaboration for #1 on the list, as I recall, though I haven't even bothered to doublecheck if I misread it. jmccanneyscience.com is where I actually learned of the discovery of a static electrical field to the universe incorporating and assisting stars in their process. If you deny all as usual, take it up with McCanney. And take up your dispute over one of the flaws with US Naval Observatory Chief of Celestial Mechanics (ex)Dr Van Flandern at his message board just for guys like you that do think you know it all, and want to challenge any aspect of it. Another reply told me a team sits ready to fire back at your assertions based on old understandings of the meaning of red shift, etcetera. The only expert I have IS the chief on this subject, however, and he's ready to defend his 10 flaws in the big bang, he logs in regular. metaresearch.org

 

[Locrian]

I'm supposed to believe that ALL the galaxies as far as Hubble can see and beyond the claimed age of the universe spewed forth in an orderly fashion from a little point in a bang.

This has nothing to do with the statement I quoted. You clearly suggested that the big bang theory predicts that a center is observable. It does not. You need at least the most basic understanding of astrophysics before you post on this subject. If you are unable to learn at least that very tiny bit, you need to get someone else to post in your place.

There is no excuse for someone taking up the argument that you are, and knowing so little about it.