• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

What would cause you to rethink your position on "big bang" theory?

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Aug 22, 2019.

  1. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,015
    Christian
    Recent observations of massive quasars and mature galaxies at high redshift have made me wonder if there are any specific observations that would cause proponents of the big bang model to chose to "lack belief" in that particular cosmology model?

    The basic cause/effect claims of the LCDM model have never been demonstrated in a lab. For instance, while moving objects and plasma produce redshift in controlled laboratory experiments, "space expansion" is not a known or demonstrated cause of photon redshift. Despite spending tens of billions of dollars hunting for exotic types of matter and energy over the past few decades, no such things have ever been observed in the lab. Quite the contrary, the standard model of particle physics has passed every test with flying colors.

    In terms of "predictive success", it's hard to image how any cosmology model could have done more poorly at predicting observations at ever increasing redshifts. Most of the current expansion model for instance is composed of "dark energy", a concept that needed to be added to the model due to it's failure to correctly predict SN1A observations. Recent observations of massive quasars and mature galaxies at high redshift defy the evolutionary predictions of the BB model.

    What about the big bang model do you find attractive, and what might cause you to choose to "lack belief" in it?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Dave-W

    Dave-W Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner! Supporter

    +15,157
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Others
    I had to re-think my position not too long after Penny and Leonard got married. It was a funny show that I never missed. But stopped watching and missed entirely the last few seasons.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  3. Dave L

    Dave L Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,263
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Is the "Big Bang" the voice of God that spoke the universe into existence? I have no trouble with such a concept. If you put God behind it, and everything that will ever exist into it, becoming visible throughout time, you have biblical predestination. Where God created the end from the beginning and all that leads up to it. And nothing will change the future anymore than we can change the past.
     
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,015
    Christian
    That is a funny show. :)
     
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,015
    Christian
    If you're asking me personally, I would say no. It's just a bad cosmology model that has nothing to do with reality IMO.
     
  6. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,389
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I don't normally think about of all the many diverse (and competing) theories about the evolution of the Universe to be simply:

    I'm used to thinking of the very many hypothesis and theories as simply competing theories about the evolution of the Universe.

    So, is it that you are instead thinking some kind of steady state Universe or such is instead the situation?

    I remember talking with you before a lot about but dust-induced redshift, and about magnetic fields, and the last I remember was me following up months later with giving some new links to recent articles about extra galactic magnetic fields, for your interest. I think that's about where we left off. I have no objection at all to finding out just what portion of redshifts are here and there influenced (variously) by dust, etc., except that it seems...of limited application -- past a point.

    It's good to notice there is no contradiction between having redshift from source A and redshift from source B, both. You'd merely then want to get more precise measurements of them, as possible. Sure, the general expectation of cosmologies/astronomers would probably be that dust based redshift isn't going to amount to that much of the 'cosmic red shift'.

    To review:
    Redshift - Expansion of Space -
    Wikipedia
     
  7. Speedwell

    Speedwell Well-Known Member

    +9,230
    United States
    Other Religion
    Married
    OK, and if you are able to replace it with a more successful model, good for you.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  8. Prodigal Son returns

    Prodigal Son returns Newbie

    51
    +22
    Australia
    Catholic
    Single
    The part of the big bang theory that cracks me up is the fact that the astrophysicists are stuck. They've just put their hands in the air and said "we don't know". So they propose that there is some kind of machine that keeps pumping out universes but only 1 in every trillion of them can sustain life. Its basically just Darwinism applied to Cosmology
     
  9. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,389
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    In physics (and many other related fields, like astrophysics), it's normal, all the time, through the centuries, to be 'stuck' on something, even if not noticed by many. It has to be that way, always, until a 'theory of everything' -- a complete physics theory that accounts for all physical observations all of kinds everywhere -- is finally accomplished, if that ever happens. I think we won't get to that before the end of this age though, personally.

    Science always has unanswered questions, and the whole cosmological expansion one is fascinating, and a lot of fun.
     
  10. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +4,720
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    Indeed, if there were no unanswered questions there would be no science. Science, despite the etymology of the word, is not the knowledge of physics and biology and astronomy and all the other 'ologies. Science is the method we use to answer a certain category of question. No questions equates to no science.

    Humanity seems to fall into two categories. There are those who encountering an unanswered question are troubled and unsettled. They need a solid foundation under their feet at all times. This can lead imposing a "suitable" answer for which there is little or no evidence. The second category find an unanswered question a challenge and an inspiration.
     
  11. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    325
    +262
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    I'm flexible. When I was little, the steady state theory was still around. Then I heard about the big bang theory, and realized that steady state really didn't make much sense. I'm always hoping that better explanations come around.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
  12. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +4,720
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    I find Big Bang theory philosophically unappealing. It lacks the continuity of change once offered by the Steady State option. Unfortunately nothing offered by Michael and others puts a dent in BBT, or offers an ounce of support for SST, or any plausible alternative. Consequently I shall continue, reluctantly, to accept that BBT offers the best current explanation for observations.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  13. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,389
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    There's a lot yet to be figured out, and sometimes that motivates some theorists to come up with very different ideas, but they are speculative until there is enough observational support. Here's one:

    Big Bounce Models Reignite Big Bang Debate | Quanta Magazine

    It's interesting additionally to keep in mind that either general model still leaves so many unanswered questions, and one of those is the wonderful "Why does anything exist at all, instead of nothing?" While this suggests an Initiator, or Modifier -- aka, God -- it's not why we believe (God is a being, and we can only learn of Him by relating, by seeking Him with all of our heart, and then He answers profoundly) Now, the Big Bounce model has been around a while, and it's not exactly taken over cosmology by storm. They need some kind of definite test to distinguish which general framework has to be more correct.
     
  14. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,015
    Christian
    Yes. I think that's a more likely scenario when we look at the evidence from higher redshift observations. We see little if any difference between the size and maturity of such galaxies and quasars compared to those in our vicinity.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "past a point". If the real cause of redshift is tired light/inelastic scattering, it would apply everywhere.

    Yet that seems like a dubious assumption that is *required* only if one happens to associate redshift with 'space expansion', something that's never been shown to occur in a lab. On the other hand Chen found an empirical connection between the amount of redshift that he observed in plasma, and the number of free electrons in the plasma.

    Edwin Hubble ultimately distanced himself from the concept of expansion. He seems instead to have moved toward a tired light scenario near the end of his career and life.

    Hubble Eventually Did Not Believe in Big Bang: Associated Press
     
  15. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,015
    Christian
    I've read many different "tired light" models that all seem far more appealing than "space expansion" claims, and plasma redshift has been shown to occur in the lab. It's hard to imagine why it wouldn't also occur in space.

    The high redshift observations certainly don't seem to support any sort of galaxy evolution sort of concept. BB proponents have been struggling with those high redshift observations since day one and it seems to be getting worse rather than better.

    An SST model seems far more plausible to me frankly.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,015
    Christian
    I don't think it's actually my personal job to "replace it". :) I'm comfortable with PC/EU theory, but your mileage my vary. :)
     
  17. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,389
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Plenty of things to explain, as always. Do you remember being surprised to see a giant hexagon on one of the poles of Saturn when it came into sunlight (especially from recent images so much clearer)? It was just shocking at first, for that first minute when you first see it. Then the attempts to explain start. And that's merely ordinary classical physics going on there, we'd expect. It's full of surprises.

    Here, this page may help you have a more detailed and accurate picture of the state of cosmology vis-a-vis 'big bang' and some leading alternatives, with writers that are very good at reviewing the big picture succinctly:
    Quanta Magazine with tag big bang
     
  18. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +3,876
    Atheist
    It didn't quite happen like that. Inflation was proposed to explain how the big bang came about and why the resulting expansion is so remarkably uniform. Subsequent development of the idea showed that it also solved the 'Horizon problem' (why properties like background temperature are so similar across the universe), and it also was found to solve the 'Flatness problem' (why the curvature of spacetime is far flatter than would otherwise be expected). Given inflation's explanatory power of directly accounting for four otherwise puzzling cosmological features, it's understandable why it's become a popular hypothesis.

    Further investigation of the physics behind the idea revealed that inflationary expansion wouldn't occur just once in the originating metastable vacuum, but would occur multiple times - the analogy of bubbles of gas coming out of solution in an opened bottle of champagne is evocative. This is the inflationary multiverse, and it's the prediction of an inflationary hypothesis originally devised to explain how a single universe developed - ours.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  19. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,015
    Christian
    Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

    Not only didn't inflation 'solve' the flatness problem, it turns out it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely to occur with inflation than without it, and even one of it's "founding fathers" have criticized the idea.
     
  20. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +568
    Humanist
    Private
    Since when has any 'cause' ever been demonstrated 'simply by observation'?
    What nonsense! Cause is only ever inferred from some objective observation .. and separately from that, you've never come up with a consistent set of 'lab experiments' to substantiate your beliefs about it all .. In fact, the ones you've posted before are in direct conflict with eachother.
     
Loading...