• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Big Bang Problem

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Flatness problem" is a a problem for the Big Bang model.

"The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is called "flat." If the universe were the accidental byproduct oa a big bang, it is difficult to imaginehow such a fantastic coincidence could occure.

The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows the the universe must have been EVEN MORE precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually exactly flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (ASSUMING the big bang) dispite the fact that the laws of physics allow for such an INFINITE RANGE of values. This is a coincidence that streatches credulityto the breaking point."

So says Jason Lisle (Answers in Genesis)
 

Ozymandius

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2005
838
47
✟1,237.00
Faith
Atheist
Loudmouth said:
Ahh. From my understanding our universe is on the side of forever expanding. Is this correct? Or is it still unknown?

I have been on and off studying this since I was a kid, and I think the most recent dat is that the expansion is still speeding up. I could be wrong though.
 
Upvote 0

madarab

Senior Member
Nov 15, 2002
574
23
60
Visit site
✟23,335.00
Faith
Atheist
LittleNipper, I don't think that you have the slightest idea what you're talking about. You are clearly worshipping false quotes (Quotidolitry?). Can you please explain step-by-step why deviations from flatness will tend to increase as time moves forward? Don't spare the math. I don't imagine that I'll have any trouble keeping up with you.

Now to address yet another creationist non-issue. the "problem" with the flatness of space-time was addressed over 25 years ago and as we all know today the condition known as flatness has absolutely nothing to do with balancing gravity and universal expansion. Please tell your creationist quote gods to use somewhat more recent information so as not to make you look as foolish in the future.
 
Upvote 0

MartinM

GondolierAce
Feb 9, 2003
4,215
258
43
Visit site
✟5,655.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
LittleNipper said:
Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually exactly flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (ASSUMING the big bang) dispite the fact that the laws of physics allow for such an INFINITE RANGE of values. This is a coincidence that streatches credulityto the breaking point.

1) That there's an infinite range of values means nothing unless you have some way to determine which values are more likely, if any. Do you? How close to flat can the Universe be before you declare it too much of a coincidence? How are you defining 'close' in this case?

2) You're assuming that no mechanism has driven the Universe towards flatness. Anyone even vaguely familiar with GR could tell you that during any period of accelerated expansion, the Universe becomes increasingly flat.
 
Upvote 0

Lucretius

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2005
4,382
206
37
✟5,541.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The geometry of the universe is probably not Euclidean (aka, it is not flat). The observational evidence points to accelerated expansion, which posits spherical geometry instead of Euclidean, and therefore positive curvature rather than a flat universe. Other than that, you've put the cart before the horse. Things happened the way they are because if they didn't, they wouldn't be the way they are. The chances of them being a different way are all equally likely probabilistically.
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,363
7,214
61
✟176,857.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
"

LittleNipper said:
"Flatness problem" is a a problem for the Big Bang model.

"The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is called "flat." If the universe were the accidental byproduct oa a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic coincidence could occure.

The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows the the universe must have been EVEN MORE precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually exactly flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (ASSUMING the big bang) dispite the fact that the laws of physics allow for such an INFINITE RANGE of values. This is a coincidence that streatches credulityto the breaking point."

So says Jason Lisle (Answers in Genesis)

"
Logical fallacy. Can't remember what it's called exactly.
 
Upvote 0

madarab

Senior Member
Nov 15, 2002
574
23
60
Visit site
✟23,335.00
Faith
Atheist
Lucretius, space-time is probably both Euclidean (flat) and accelerating in its expansion. Flatness simply refers to whether "parallel" lines diverge, continue the same distance forever, or eventually meet. With the discovery of dark energy, it no longer has any real connection to the final fate of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,740
186
51
South Florida
Visit site
✟26,987.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
LittleNipper said:
"Flatness problem" is a a problem for the Big Bang model.

"The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is called "flat." If the universe were the accidental byproduct oa a big bang, it is difficult to imaginehow such a fantastic coincidence could occure.

The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows the the universe must have been EVEN MORE precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually exactly flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (ASSUMING the big bang) dispite the fact that the laws of physics allow for such an INFINITE RANGE of values. This is a coincidence that streatches credulityto the breaking point."

So says Jason Lisle (Answers in Genesis)
anthropic principle.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
anthropic principle.

Precisely. Is it any wonder that life exists in a universe capable of sustaining life? Of course not. Is it any wonder that coffee conforms to the shape of the coffee cup? Of course not.

LittleNipper first needs to show that this is the only universe in existence. If the odds of this type of universe existing are 1 in a million and there are 3 billion universes then it is no coincidence.

LittleNipper also needs to show that universes can form in different ways. There may be certain laws that require universes to have certain qualities. Little too much of this or too little of that and the universe implodes on itself creating a new universe somewhere else.

Another lapse in logic that I see is that Cosmic Fine Tuning and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive. If the Cosmos was fine tuned for the creation of life, then no designer is needed. If an Intelligent Designer is needed, then the Cosmos is not fine tuned for life.
 
Upvote 0

Tomk80

Titleless
Apr 27, 2004
11,570
429
45
Maastricht
Visit site
✟36,582.00
Faith
Agnostic
raphael_aa said:
Thanks Tom ... I guess I could have done that myself. :doh:

Just from reading this bio, it doesn't look like this guy has ever been a practising or published scientist. Has he ever actually worked in the field?
Well, it does say that he published a thesis on the sun, using SOHO imagery. It also states that he published in peer-reviewed journals. This seems to be his.

More hits from scholar, though not all are his:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=jason+lisle&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en
 
Upvote 0

Ozymandius

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2005
838
47
✟1,237.00
Faith
Atheist
Tomk80 said:
Well, it does say that he published a thesis on the sun, using SOHO imagery. It also states that he published in peer-reviewed journals. This seems to be his.

More hits from scholar, though not all are his:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=jason+lisle&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en

This guy does seem to have done real work, and such a person is interesting to me. He obviously knows what science is and how it's supposed to work, yet "publishes" for AIG.

The way I see it, he either needs the money and pushes creato-**** for financial reasons, or he maintains a monumental amount of dissonance in his brain. Since sicentists are generally pretty poor, i suppose either one is plausible.
 
Upvote 0
D

Dark_Adonis

Guest
LittleNipper said:
"Flatness problem" is a a problem for the Big Bang model.

"The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is called "flat." If the universe were the accidental byproduct oa a big bang, it is difficult to imaginehow such a fantastic coincidence could occure.

The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows the the universe must have been EVEN MORE precisely balanced in the past than it is today. Thus, at the moment of the big bang, the universe would have been virtually exactly flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (ASSUMING the big bang) dispite the fact that the laws of physics allow for such an INFINITE RANGE of values. This is a coincidence that streatches credulityto the breaking point."

So says Jason Lisle (Answers in Genesis)

Posted for irony's sake
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/bbproblems.html

Thanks Icartoons...

One solution is that universe's expansion has accelerated in the past, this flattened the universe out...
Thanks for playing
 
Upvote 0

YellowStar

Active Member
Aug 14, 2005
44
1
49
✟170.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The Big Bang Theory Collapses (#216)
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

The Big Bang theory concerning the origin of the universe was spawned about 50 years ago, and soon became the dogma of the evolutionary establishment. It has had many dissenters, however, including the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, and astronomers Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded. As the matter and radiation expanded, so the theory says, it cooled sufficiently for elements to form, as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four. Most of the gas that formed consisted of hydrogen. These gases, it is then supposed, expanded radially in all directions throughout the universe until they were so highly dispersed that an extremely low vacuum and temperature existed. No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed. The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas. Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction. The molecules within a space of about six trillion miles diameter collapsed to form each star, a hundred billion stars somehow collected to form each of the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and our own solar system formed about five billion years or so ago from a cloud of dust and gas made up of the exploded remnants of previously existing stars. No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations. But now a cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all -- the Big Bang theory.

Based on the Big Bang theory, cosmologists predicted that the distribution of matter throughout the universe would be homogeneous. Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe.

The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across.[1] These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years.

In November of 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced the results of their research. Their map of the sky revealed what they termed the "Great Wall" -- a huge sheet of galaxies 200 million light years across and 700 million light years long.[2] A team of American, British, and Hungarian astronomers, it is reported, discovered even larger structures.[3] They found galaxies clustered into thin bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretched across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology.

Even more recently (January 3, 1991), Will Saunders and nine fellow astronomers published the results of their all-sky redshift survey of galaxies detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite. This survey revealed the existence of a far-greater number of massive superclusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by Big Bang cosmologies.[4]

In an attempt to salvage the Big Bang theory, cosmologists have invented hypotheses to explain the failures of their hypotheses. One of these is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory. According to this theory, 90-99% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected. If CDM existed, it would supply sufficient gravitational pull to create large clusters of galaxies. The structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM did exist, it could not account for their formation. Saunders and co-workers thus state that the CDM model can be ruled out to at least the 97% confidence level. In the same issue of Nature, in which is found the article by Saunders, et al, there appears an article by David Lindley in the "News and Views" section (p. 14) entitled "Cold Dark Matter Makes an Exit." Caltech cosmologist S. George Djorgovski, taking into account the astronomical observations that contradict the CDM theory, states that the demise of the notion of the existence of cold dark matter is inevitable.[5]

Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth.[6] Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that "This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory. " Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars.

If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. Sure enough, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave background radiation of 2.7° <!#P6MJ239><!#P255DJ0>K. Evolutionary cosmologists were absolutely delighted. This discovery was considered proof of the Big Bang, and Penzias and Wilson were duly awarded Nobel Prizes. It now appears, however, that the background radiation may turn out to be additional evidence against the Big Bang theory, rather than its proof.

Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was perfectly smooth. Theorists were delighted, smug in the assurance that this background radiation was the leftover whimper of the Big Bang. Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies and great voids in space. Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang. Astronomers thus began to search for differences in the background radiations. All measurements showed it to be perfectly smooth. Thus COBE was launched to an orbit 559 miles above the earth, carrying sensitive instruments to measure the background radiation. Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth.[7]

"No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang."[8]

Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies."[9],[10],[11]

Eventually, all such theories will fail, for "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).



-- References --


  1. R. B. Tully, Astrophysics Journal 303:25-38 (1986).
  2. M. J. Geller and J. P. Huchra, Science 246:897-903 (1990).
  3. E. G. Lerner, Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 38-43.
  4. Will Saunders, et al, Nature 349:32-38 (1991).
  5. T. H. Maugh, II, Los Angeles Times, San Diego Edition, January 5, 1991, p. A29.
  6. R. Cowen, Science News 139:52 (1991).
  7. Reference 3, p. 41.
  8. Reference 3, p. 42.
  9. Reference 3, p. 43.
  10. A. L. Peratt, The Sciences, January/February 1990, p. 24.
  11. H. C. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. V. Narlikar, and N. C. Wickramasinghe, Nature 346:807-812 (1990).


What are some of the problems with the ‘big bang’ hypothesis?
 
Upvote 0