10 Flaws with the Big Bang

[John16:2]

Actually, the theory of "inflation" suggests a mechanism where matter/energy and gravitational energy are essentially the opposite of each other, so that they were created together - the ultimate free lunch. One way to think about this is that moving an object from the surface of the earth into space takes energy, so that you can think of it's gravitational potential energy as being negative. Positive matter/energy + negative gravitational energy = 0.

Of course, there still needs to be something which starts the process of inflation, but that could be a very small thing.

See The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins by Alan Guth. Awesome book.

Also, from the Metaresearch website:



Please see my previous post.

Yea, sure, yea; "all created at once" from nowhere and strewn into nothingness to be the infinite universe full of matter. 100 years ago they'd throw you in a nuthouse for saying this, NOW, you're crazy if you DON'T say this!

 

[John16:2]

From March of 2004: Newfound Galaxy Shatters Distance Record:



Sounds OK to me? Did I miss Hubble finding one futher away?

Before accepting that 15 billion light years equals a few million actual years our time, please investigate what Dr Van Flandern says about a fundamental flaw in the interpretation of red shift data. Until then, debate is futile. metaresearch.org

 

[John16:2]

The matter didn't blow out. The actual dimensions that contained it expanded.



There was no "already".

Forgive us cavemen for questioning, but if there was a "big bang" didn't matter blow out, or was it more of a big bubbling? How about a big birthday hat on the universe while we're at it? And it all materialized from nowhere!

 

[michabo]

Before accepting that 15 billion light years equals a few million actual years our time, please investigate what Dr Van Flandern says about a fundamental flaw in the interpretation of red shift data. Until then, debate is futile. metaresearch.org

You evidently read (and place great faith in) this site. Why don't you do us a favour and find the relevant argument and present it for us. To say "there's a contradictory argument somewhere in this site" is very unhelpful. And, as you've said, you don't understand these arguments anyways and evidently confuse it with other sites. So this would also be a good chance for you to check your "facts".

 

[michabo]

Forgive us cavemen for questioning, but if there was a "big bang" didn't matter blow out, or was it more of a big bubbling? How about a big birthday hat on the universe while we're at it? And it all materialized from nowhere!

The term "Big Bang" was not used by its proponents to accurately describe it, it was used mockingly by Hoyle to deride it. However, the term has stuck. You apparently base much of your understanding on the name and not the theory itself which is unfortunate.

As funyun said, there is no out, no blowing, and it wasn't matter doing the blowing out in the first place. And has been said before, it didn't come from "nowhere" as this term implies space, and it is space itself which is expanding.

 

[NumberTenOx]

Hey, thanks for responding to my posts!

100 years ago they'd throw you in a nuthouse for saying this

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Ever studied any quantum mechanics? Relativity? At some point in the past they would have burned you at the stake for suggesting the earth was round.

Inflation is a beautiful theory that solves several problems with modern cosmology, although it raises a few others. I'm not sure how it's any more or less crazy than thinking the universe was always here, or that God created it (what process did He use?).

please investigate what Dr Van Flandern says about a fundamental flaw in the interpretation of red shift data

Actually, I've read a quite a bit from that site, and I can't find a fatal flaw. A telling section is:

One of many possibilities (the one favored by this author) is that one day we will discover the particle or wave serving as the carrier of the gravitational force. If such entities, dubbed "gravitons", exist, they must necessarily be of a much finer scale than current quantum particles. It therefore seems likely that they would have negligible scattering effects on light over cosmological distances, although light traveling through such a resisting medium of gravitons would necessarily lose energy and be redshifted.

Certainly an interesting theory, as noted this is one of the "tired light" theories. Try this page: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.

Also, check out my post a few back, about the big bang prediction of the hydrogen absorbtion of quasar light.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

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

It is. There are large quantities of this "dark matter" in existance thruought the universe. Some scientists speculate that that dark matter may keep the universe from re-colapsing in on itself.

 

[funyun]

Forgive us cavemen for questioning, but if there was a "big bang" didn't matter blow out, or was it more of a big bubbling?

I already told you, it was just an expansion of the dimensions of space-time. This expansion continues to this day.

How about a big birthday hat on the universe while we're at it? And it all materialized from nowhere!

No, it didn't. In order for that to happen, there has to be a time when you can say "nothing exists", then a time, later, when you can say "something does exist." But there was no such time. To not know that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the model.

 

[John16:2]

Before accepting that 15 billion light years equals a few million actual years our time, please investigate what Dr Van Flandern says about a fundamental flaw in the interpretation of red shift data. Until then, debate is futile. metaresearch.org

I'm listening to an interview with Dr Kaku on Coast to Coast AM radio, and it occurred to me that I forgot to endorse the concepts of string theory and a "multi-verse", though I did mention the term multiverse, which is a different horse, so to speak than using the term; universe. With string theory the source of the matter is better explained to my neanderthal brain. mkaku.org is his site. The multiverse concept explains multiple big bangs. Which reminds me; Did y'all hear about the gamma ray burst on the ionisphere? It's real big bang news. I only posted to warn Christians about the possibility of predictions coming true soon, in full, and get them to get water filters, not to take on the National Academy of Sciences here. I'm not qualified to represent the theories of Dr Van Flandern, or Dr Hoagland, or Dr Kaku, or jmccanneyscience.com. I still see the cosmos as a structure, rather than a wildly expanding time/space continuum. But I'll not argue it further, I should tell more folks to get filters now. It ain't important about the cosmos now. BYE!

 

[michabo]

John et al.,

I think I found the source of Flandern's claims and to no great surprise, he didn't come up with them himself (which is probably why he did such a poor job of explaining them). I also found a good rebuttal. If you don't understand the claims, I doubt you'll understand the technical explaination of the flaws and the even more technical explaination of reality. But I hope you try. And others may find it interesting:

http://www.evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

 

[NumberTenOx]

Michabo,

AWESOME AWESOME site! Thanks for posting it! I just finished reading it and I am so inspired. Thank you.

 

[John16:2]

Michabo,

AWESOME AWESOME site! Thanks for posting it! I just finished reading it and I am so inspired. Thank you.

P.S. Another astrophysics site to appall the big bangers and wildly expanding universe devotees is; electric-universe.info, compiled by various rebels. More names to call kooks while ignoring the science facts of the matter for y'all! Posted for further support of my claim of a static electrical field to the universe (multiverse).

 

[Locrian]

Heh, is that the same "static field" you got confused with "static universe?" Are you going to misrepresent this site like you did Flandern?

 

[John16:2]

Heh, is that the same "static field" you got confused with "static universe?" Are you going to misrepresent this site like you did Flandern?

If you'd check the site, you'd need not ask the question. But truth ain't what you're after. electric-universe.info, and jmccanneyscience.com cite the field, and Dr Van Flandern is about the 10 flaws and debunking expanding universe theory, (my terrible mistake, obviously), but I still believe I know what I read somewhere on the Dr Van Flandern site referring to it, but I'm too lazy to care what you think enough to search again, when I have other sites by professional astro-physicists to refer y'all to. I still see no scientific debate about the 10 flaws here, except based on misinterpretation of red shift, which Dr Van Flandern covers with a link not related to the 10 flaws, I believe the link refers to the "expanding universe theory". mkaku.org & mkaku.com . They expect me to be Omniscient at CF.

 

[michabo]

John,

An electric field requires a large-scale difference in the ratio of negative to positive charges. This is easy to detect. Where is the evidence (and please, your kook sites aren't evidence, they are claims)?

 

[NumberTenOx]

Wow, just read through electric-universe.info, and my brain hurts worse than when I was watching "American Idol" with my daughter. It's as if someone is singing "It's Howdy Doody Time" to the tune of Pearl Jam's "Do the Evolution" backwards and off-key.

Many, many claims made on that site, but (no surprise) zero evidence or predictions. Some of the claims:

- The electric force travels many times the speed of light. This is easily measured in the laboratory - I did it in physics class in high school.

- The heat of the sun and other stars is not based on thermonuclear fusion but on "electric discharge" (they are a "galactic glow discharge"). So how do you explain solar neutrinos? They exist, the scientists have even imaged the sun using solar neutrinos. You can't have neutrinos without nuclear fusion, and the number and type of neutrinos exactly matches the theory. (As a sidebar, there was a "neutrino problem" which has since been solved, a triumph of theory, experiment, and the progress of science).

- Of course, the "big bang" never happened. Did you even read my post about distant quasars and the Gunn-Peterson effect (absorption of quasar light by non-ionized hydrogen)? Doesn't that qualify as "scientific debate"? But my favorite quotes from this section are "Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding" followed by "If Arp is right many experts are going to look very silly". So which is it? Has he "proven" it or not? (Snort).

These types of claims always baffle me. So you have a wacko theory, fine! Lots of current physical theories run well up the wacko scale! So make a prediction! Gather some evidence! Everyone, even scientists, LOVE to see the dominant paradigm get a smack to the chops. Fame, fortune, the Nobel Prize are yours! If your theory has any merit, let's see it!

Science is a meritocracy, not an oligarchy like Christianity. You think you can play in the NBA? Grab a ball and let's see your shot! A big fat contract awaits you, but first you have to be facing the basket.

 

[michabo]

- The electric force travels many times the speed of light. This is easily measured in the laboratory - I did it in physics class in high school.

So does this mean that light travels faster than light, or does he not believe that light has anything to do with electromagnetism?

- The heat of the sun and other stars is not based on thermonuclear fusion but on "electric discharge"

And the current is generated... how?


*sigh*

He must have gotten fixated on one idea, possibly that the electromagnetic force is vastly more powerful than gravity. And then, struck by the obvious corollaries, wrote this web site. I marvel at the arrogance in thinking that, his vision should have been overlooked by so many generations of brilliant scientists, instead of being considered and discarded.

 

[pgp_protector]

Is the Higs(sp) Field still valid, been listing some about string theory (now up to 10 Deminsions, and some can be as large as 1/1000 of a mm)

 

[NumberTenOx]

So does this mean that light travels faster than light, or does he not believe that light has anything to do with electromagnetism?

Read it and weep:

At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force** in matter interactions. It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits. That is, the energy exchanged between those sub-particles in elastic deformation during each orbit sums to zero. Being charged, the sub-particles interact via the electrostatic force. A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light - some 2.5 million light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second! So the electrostatic force must act at a speed which is almost infinite on our scale for the electron to be stable. It is the stable orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms. Other denizens of the particle "zoo" are merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub-particles. The so-called "creation" of matter from energetic photons is an illusion in which pre-existing matter is reorganized into new resonant states that give the impression that a particle has suddenly materialized. Antimatter is a misnomer since it too is formed from the same sub-particles as "normal" matter except that the total charge is mirrored. Matter cannot be created or annihilated.

Gee, guess we ought to throw out the standard model of subatomic particles and start over .

In his defense, he doesn't say that light travels super fast. But it can still be demonstrated that the electric force travels at 'c'.

I don't know how the "galactic current" is supposed to be generated, I think it's suppose to be "obvious" that there are charge imbalances. It would be nice to know if we could detect the current flowing through the sun, I mean, where are the wires (and where's the switch)? I'm only being somewhat facetious, shouldn't there be evidence of the energy flowing through the sun?

 

[quantumspirit]

I'm not saying that the Big Bang happened, nor am I saying that it didn't happen. I am just saying that it could not happen all by itself. Something, or rather I should say someone, was there to cause it to happen. Evolution has an extremely low probability of spontaneity, however, the Big Bang has a spontaneous probability of exactly zero. Evolution is put near, but not exactly zero, for spontaneity, because so much would go against the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy. Some other problems I have with spontaneous evolution are the existence sexual reproduction. Why is it that there has to be sex for there to be reproduction? Why don't organisms just form birth pods or magically replicate themselves? The other is the extreme complexity of the human brain.