Why the Big Bang couldnt have ever happened

Yes Sir / Ma'am

Im here to bust a few bubbles about the misconceptions of so called "modern science"

In a nutshell im going to attack the theorys of the
1- Big Bang / Big Crunch
2- Speculations on the Age of Universe
3- Speculations on the Size of Universe
4- The Light Speed Barrier

In this treatise I will be upholding the Scientific Method
I will be attacking "old world" ideas offered in Physics over 50 years ago , sometimes even as far back as over 100 years ago.

I will not use any fancy math to prove my point. It is unnessasary and I myself am not schooled aduquately in the mathematical portions Quantum Physics, Cosmology, String Theory, or other fields of Physics. I have a basic knowledge of the subjects but I consult with Physicists about my Questions and I pay close attention to their Theorys.
If anyone uses math i can follow but when it comes to writing it myself i find it painful and timewasting.
I have presented my ideas /speculation to some very prestegious Physicists. And as far as I can recall, None have presented me with a "Your Incorrect". In fact most say "Perhaps So".

Anyhow, On with the 'show.

1- The Big Bang /Big Crunch theory.

In essence , I would deem this theory a "Monotheists attempt to use science to validate Religion.
Western Religion claims that there was a Begining , and there will be an End.

The big bang states that The ENTIRE universe was once crushed into an infinitly small space.
And then one day alas, it Exploded and out flew all the matter which the present Universe is composed of. This theory relies heavily on the concept of Gravity presented by Newton. Because as the theory states, the universe will expand to a point, and then eventually all the gravity will eventually pull all the galaxies back into that same infinitely small space. A big Crunch, as they say.

Whats wrong with this theory you ask? Well, saddly, Everything in this theory is inconsistant with itself. Its illogical in my opinion, and now I will tell you WHY.

The existance of Black Holes.
In a black hole, supposedly, so much matter has accumulated in such a small area that the Gravity grew so strong that NOT even Light Could Escape! I am however aware that X-rays do escape the black holes. You can correct me on the Xray thing, it may be gamma but thats beside the point.

Heres my Logic.
If Every single spec of matter in the ENTIRE universe collapsed into a point of 'singularity' it wouldnt be a "Big Bang" it would be a "Big Black Hole".
There is currently NO EVIDENCE that black holes explode and all the matter inside of them expells into the surrounding space. I dont even think there is a theory regaurding such phenomena.

Why Would a near infinitely large black hole 'decide' to just explode? What makes the singularity reverse?? The Big Bang scenario fails to recognize Black Hole Theory becauase at the time the Big Bang was proposed, the ideas of Black Holes were unheard of. It wasnt well known.

But nowdays in 2005 we have ample evidence of Black Holes. And No conclusive evidence of Big Bangs.
Just think about it; every single planet star moon asteroid rock spec of dust every subatomic particle even EVERY Black Hole was squeezed into a small little tiny space.
That doesnt make much sense!!!!!
It would just be a Back Hole And it probably wouldnt explode into a massive universe either.

If a small, miniture black hole such as those discovered at the center of the milkyway galaxy cannot gain the 'fortitude' to Explode outwards and eject its mass ; than what makes one think that a super massive near infinite mass- black hole would?

I have even go so far as to ask Physics professors and the like about this very INCONSISTANCY.
I will quote Michio Kaku (one of the founders of string theory-books Hyperspace and Visions)

"well jason, you have a point"
great quote huh?
he did mention however that there is a wonderful mathematical equation that i could never comprehend that attempts to explain the Reason WHY the super black hole "exploded" and thus the Universe was Born. But he himself suggested that the formula was just speculation, as is my theory.

I didnt use math to come to this point; it was just a logical idea that struck me one day.
Black Holes and Big Bangs dont Mix.

I will suggest that however; it is possible that the entire universe Is a black hole; and it expands inwards infinitly and we are inside of that massive black hole. But this is just a far fetched notion and i will not entertain it further.

Now on to my next bubble buster.

2 - Age and Size of Universe

Scientists have popularly suggested that the universe is anywhere from 12 to 20 billion years old.
How did they arrive at such a miraculus number? How did they figure that out you ask?

Simple they say; our telescopes only pick up light from objects 6 to 8 billion light years away.
In all directions.

Oh well; how convienant. Earth is Once agian at the CENTER of the UNIVERSE???
This is amazing because humans have been claiming that for our entire existance.
We think we are very special indeed, and being at the Center of the Universe is a big Plus.

Heres the Logic.

If we can see the same distance no matter which Direction we look, doesnt that mean we are at the very Center of the Universe? HAHA
Now, may i suggest, that we are just making inferior judgements based on our Inferior telescopes?
Perhaps our current methods of telescope construction are limited , therefor our telescopes can only see a certain distance.
Just because our telescopes cannot see further away than 8 billion light years does NOT imply that everything beyond that point is non-existant.

What about the Red Shift Jason?
Well, lets talk about Red Shift . This helps me disprove the big bang theory even further.

Why is it that All galaxies show a Red Shift?
The primitive earth scientists claim that ALL galaxies show a "Red Shift" suggesting that it represents All of those Galaxies MOVING AWAY from us.

Well agian we are at the center of the Universe!!!!
If ALL galaxies show a red shift; that means we are at the VERY CENTER and all these galaxies are moving away from Earth!!!
May i suggest; the Red Shift is misunderstood in entirety? Because it makes NO sense at all.

IF there was a big bang; and red shift could accurately calculate the movements of galaxies; we COULD find the central point of the Universe. It would be simple; some galaxies would be moving our way; with our galaxy; and some would be moving away.
Basically; it would seem to me that there would be a ball shaped expansion.

Not to mention those countless Hubble photos of galaxies COLLIDING! they are crashing into each other in unimaginable massive violent collisions! How could Galaxies Collide if they are all MOVING AWAY from each other??


If you have followed me this far; you should soon realize there is NO real Scientific way to gauge the AGE or SIZE of the Universe!
Its virtually impossible! There is no way of figuring this out in certainty.

Based on these inconsistancies , the Big bang theory is chalk full of contradictory ideas.
Since the methods used to determine the Size and Age of the Universe are just extensions of the Big Bang theory ; they all fall to pieces under true Scientific Scrutiny.

It just doesnt make logical sense. And it shouldnt. Humans are arrogant. They overlook too many things. No one is Perfect. It comes as no surprise that; the Big bang theory is in controversy with Black Hole theory, and thus its no surprise that our calculations on the age or size of the universe are in controversy with Logic.

Now we shall preceed onwards in our endevor...

3- The Light Speed Barrier

Many great minds in this century have claimed there is a "Light Speed Barrier"! They claim that NOTHING can go faster than Light! Why? Because of special relativity! When an object approaches the speed of light; time virtually "stops" and the mass of that object approaches infinity!
Now; even if special relativity holds true; how the Hell does that make it impossible to go faster than light speed??(FTL)

From where im sitting; it seems; that IF an objects mass approaches Infinity; that will be just like a super massive ultra sized Black Hole. Something with that type of mass, INFINITE mass; would just suck the whole dang universe up in less than a nano second.

Already we can see there is an Adverse consequence to FTL speed; but that in no way means its Impossible!

Oh but dear, the contradictions flush into the equation turning it into mathematical goo.

There is a Law of Physics that I believe in wholeheartedly.
The LAW of CONSERVATION of MASS and ENERGY.

It states that you cannot destroy nor create energy. And no one has disproved it with sufficient evidence to this date.

How could an objects mass approach infinity? Does this mean that every atom has within itself INFINITE potential energy? Is every object capable of infinite kinetic energy as long as we just make it go faster than light ???

I seriously doubt it.
Now another great point. Entropy.

Heres my example of why FTL travel is Possible. Again ive consulted with Physicists and offered my ideas and as of yet; None have countered my arguement with a counter point. Most say its Possible. Perhaps.

Ok; we are in a space ship. And we are so deep in space that virtually NO gravity is acting on our spacecraft. So we are just 'floating' in a stationary position.
So we turn on the rocket engine. Just for a second.
We are now moving forward at 500 mph.
Now our engines are Off.
We are still hurling forward at 500mph.
There is no forces acting agianst us; so we continue to fly forward at 500mph.
Now, we turn on our engine agian.
Since our craft was in entropy, we should now be going Twice as fast. *it may be more like a calculus curve but it doesnt matter* for sake of point bear with me.
SO we are now going 1000 mph.
Engines off, we still float foward at 1000mph.
Repeat this over and over. And eventually you should reach Light Speed. and Beyond

Now as i state this theory i feel uneasy with it because i am Unsure of this myself. But it does seem to have some sense in it.

Plus lets not forget that RELATIVITY means everything is Relative!
So when they say the craft would "appear" to have its mass reach infinity and "time would slow down" this is Just Relative!
To the man inside the craft it probably seems like normal Time and Normal Mass.

Agian relativity means that your Point of View determines your Perspective of the situation.
So that from here it may seem impossible and breaks the "laws of physics" but from inside the spaceship going warp5 , it may seem very possible.
From outside things may be a blur, but from inside things may seem stationary.

Honestly when it comes to FTL i am very unsure as to the Reality of it.
No Humans are. We arent technologically or mentally advanced enough to know what Really Happens.
But i will say that i do NOT believe in a "light speed barrier"

Perhaps my examples on FTL are flawed; and they very well may be.
But i will say its arrogant and foolish of us to claim
"There is a Light speed Barrier and even God himself cannot go faster than Light!"
that is just Rubbish!

THERE IS no EVIDENCE to prove it!!!
NONE!!!
What IS evident however; is that humans claim more than they actually know!

Until we make a spaceship that can approach FTL speeds, we will Never know !

Now you can flame and bash me all you want.
If you have any Q's or A's speak up.
ill be around to listen and reply

thought provoking post, it looks like you've put a great deal of knowledge behind you answers.

I look forward to the counter arguements and then your counter-counter arguements

i think you logical ideas are great. but quotes as 'so called modern science' at the start of your thread made me think that when i would read on all i would see would be someone's over blown oppinion, which is what i found.

do you think your the first person to think up most of what you've written? i very much doubt it. you one of the many that love to try and disprove scientists that say there was a big bang. scientists do not ever say 'there was a big bang end of story', they say it's a theory and explain that theory as much as possible. like your theory of a black hole could not have been the essence of our universe, it can only be proven to a certain extent from here-say and ideas, which is the same as how a big bang can be proven with ideas etc.

even the title of you thread poses questions. ''why the big bang couldnt have ever happened'. i believe this a very strange veiw point, because you say yourself in you thread that you might be wrong and that this is just your own logical thinking. almost any religious person will say to you...there was no big bang. they don't need logic...they've got the bible right there telling them god created the universe.

you keep on the idea of us being the centre of the universe solely based on the fact that scientists say galaxies move away from us, and all we can see around us is about 6 to 8 billions miles away. i dont see how this means we are the centre of the universe? all it means is our telescopes can only see a certain distance and that sometimes we see galaxies moving away from us...hence prehaps being altered by a huge gravitational force. as for the age of the universe i think its quite conclusive that it must be billions of years old. if i see a star that is 4 billion miles away, then i am actually seeing what that star is doing 4 billion years ago. therefore our star system is really just a giant piece of history and us looking billions of years in to the passed. some say that god can make light go faster, or bring the light to us like he did with adam instantly so adam could see the stars straight away. however, i believe that if i see a star 4 billion miles away then logicaly our universe has to be over 4 billion years old, or older because some stars we see are further away. so i don't think these are really speculations of how old our universe, it's theories that are almost conclusive.

Good post! I agree totally with your first two points, strange id never even thought of them before. Although your third point about the light barrier is going about it the wrong way. Special relativity does hold up, however the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy doesnt. Once you get down to the quantum level it appears you really can create energy from 'nothing' with an infinite source. Although i do absolutely believe its possible to go faster than light, using brute force, ie bigger and bigger engines isnt the way to do it.

muzzleflash, could you provide a link to the original text, please?

There is currently NO EVIDENCE that black holes explode and all the matter inside of them expells into the surrounding space. I dont even think there is a theory regaurding such phenomena.

Check into the theory of "white holes"....

Originally posted by muzzleflash
In this treatise I will be upholding the Scientific Method
I will be attacking "old world" ideas offered in Physics over 50 years ago , sometimes even as far back as over 100 years ago.

Why?

By now, they've either been dismissed or they've been built on. That's like taking computer science back to the days of Ada Lovelace and the weaving machine to argue about chip architecture and NAND gates. Or trying to talk about new racing technology using the cars of the 1900's.

I have presented my ideas /speculation to some very prestegious Physicists. And as far as I can recall, None have presented me with a "Your Incorrect". In fact most say "Perhaps So".

So who have you presented to? Inquiring scholars want to check out their CVs.

In essence , I would deem this theory a "Monotheists attempt to use science to validate Religion.

...and the physicists didn't hop out of their chair and give you a HUGE and impolite lecture on the dangers of using any ideology to craft science, particularly after the nonsense about Lysenko and the failures of the Russian physics program? Really?

The big bang states that The ENTIRE universe was once crushed into an infinitly small space.
And then one day alas, it Exploded and out flew all the matter which the present Universe is composed of. This theory relies heavily on the concept of Gravity presented by Newton. Because as the theory states, the universe will expand to a point, and then eventually all the gravity will eventually pull all the galaxies back into that same infinitely small space. A big Crunch, as they say.

Oh dear. Could I suggest that you read Stephen Hawking and then get up to speed on the current thinking, including the research by the astronomers at the Hawaiian telescopes?

Yes, you're right, THAT theory is wrong. I can't think of a single scientist out there who thought that all the matter in the universe just hung around in one condensed lump until one day it went BANG!

The truth is a lot more complex than that.

And the Big Crunch has been knocked out by evidence during the past 5-10 years.

The existance of Black Holes.

Hawking has an excellent book on Black Holes. You would enjoy it, I'm sure. The things you say are "wrong" about the black holes are things that Hawking does NOT and never did support.

Scientists have popularly suggested that the universe is anywhere from 12
to 20 billion years old.
How did they arrive at such a miraculus number? How did they figure that out you ask?

Simple they say; our telescopes only pick up light from objects 6 to 8 billion light years away.In all directions.

Actually, no... but physicists might not know this. Astronomers certainly would, however.

Oh well; how convienant. Earth is Once agian at the CENTER of the UNIVERSE???

Every astronomer around would disagree with this. You can ask over at the forums on www.badastronomy.com (where a pack of astronomers, amateur and pro, hang out.)

Why is it that All galaxies show a Red Shift?

They don't. A number are blue-shifting toward us. That's been discussed in news stories, particularly about our galaxy currently eating up another galaxy.


...and so on and so forth.

www.space.com often has some excellent articles on these topics, and there's a bunch of knowledgeable folks at badastronomy who will be glad to give you full details on all the pieces of your arguments and bring you up to date on what current thinking is in these fields.

Muzzelflash,

A very thoughtful post. However, I have a small problem with your thinking.

And No conclusive evidence of Big Bangs.

I hate to be the one to burst your theory, but there IS evidence of the big bang. When the big bang occoured, the initial explosion left an imprint of sorts around our entire universe. This imprint is in the form of background radiation and was discoverd some years ago. It was discovered using a radio telescope. There is actually a funny tidbit that goes along with this. I cant remember the names of the two gentelmen who discovered this background radiation, but when they were observing this phenom, they originally concluded that bird poop on the recieving dish was causeing the effect they were witnessing. The bird poo was cleaned up, but the phenom was still there.

So yes, there is evidence that supports the Big Bang.

Great post, but as Bryd said you should do some more research and ahve a quick chat with the guys on badastronomy.com.

Heres my Logic.
If Every single spec of matter in the ENTIRE universe collapsed into a point of 'singularity' it wouldnt be a "Big Bang" it would be a "Big Black Hole".
There is currently NO EVIDENCE that black holes explode and all the matter inside of them expells into the surrounding space. I dont even think there is a theory regaurding such phenomena.

Perhaps it is indeed a big bang, but not in this universe, what enters a black hole here, becomes big bang within its own "bubble universe/dimension" in which our universe is one???

I will suggest that however; it is possible that the entire universe Is a black hole; and it expands inwards infinitly and we are inside of that massive black hole. But this is just a far fetched notion and i will not entertain it further.

"This" universe may well be, perhaps it expands inwardly to the eventual point of totality (big bang) within a new "bubble universe/dimension"
Thus all matter and energy is recycled???? Perhaps the question should be revised to "how old is THIS universe?"

Very intresting!

[edit on 093131p://19019 by instar]

lol

when i said 'agian we find ourselves at the center of the universe '

i was just being sarcastic

it was a poke at the anthropocentric view

of course; we arent at the center lol

--- i wrote the crap about FTL while my kid was crying so my concentration was broken often and i couldnt really stay on track after that so i apoligize about that part i lost my flow

---- a link to where i found this? um ok --- link to jasons brain

---- about white holes? interesting ill look that up in a minute

---- i never thought i was the "first to think this up" thats hilarious
in fact i think my conclusions came from listening to other scientists ramblings

---- blue shift? interesting ive never heard of that actually , got something new to investigate here blue shifts and white holes -- btw all the teachers and books ive read never mentioned the blue shift, in fact they stated something along these lines "all galaxies show a red shift" and so i knew something was amiss, because thats impossible lol

---- stephen hawkings? i dont really agree with much anything that guy says -- i am with carl sagan for the most part

basically i was reading some other guys post about how he thought the universe was like 20billion years old and it got me riled up so i wrote my little hubjub on notepad while my internet was acting screwy, i located a virus and squashed it then i came back to ATS and posted it right away
took me a few hours to write that stuff, as i was dealing with baby too

ill reply more after i read up on white holes and blue shifts

good thoughts guys
keep it up

and ill just go ahead and mention ; im a firm believer in the idea that "humans are too feebleminded to truely understand the ultimate reality of the universe"
the "i know only one thing, i dont know anything" kind of mentality

im not claiming to know everything or anything
i was just simply pointing out what i percieved as inconsistancys in the science stuff...

oh ya and one last thing--- how the heck can the existance of background radiation or 'cosmic rays' i think? well, how can the mere existance of that be evidence of such a wonderous theory of big bangs?? thats pulling two separate things into the same area isnt it? a bit far fetched? please elaborate

[edit on 3-1-2005 by muzzleflash]

Originally posted by muzzleflash

oh ya and one last thing--- how the heck can the existance of background radiation or 'cosmic rays' i think? well, how can the mere existance of that be evidence of such a wonderous theory of big bangs?? thats pulling two separate things into the same area isnt it? a bit far fetched? please elaborate

[edit on 3-1-2005 by muzzleflash]

Well,

We combine detections of anisotropy in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation with observations of inhomogeneity in the large-scale distribution of galaxies to test the predictions of models of cosmological structure formation. This combination probes spatial scales varying by three orders of magnitude, including a significant region where the two types of data overlap. We examine Cold Dark Matter models with adiabatic density perturbations, isocurvature models, and a topological defects model. We set upper limits on the neutrino mass and find the primordial power spectrum needed to reconcile an apparent disagreement between structure formation observations and direct observations of cosmological parameters.
Present and future observations of Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropy suffer from foreground contamination. We develop detailed predictions for microwave emission from radio and infrared-bright galaxies and the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect from clusters. We present realistic simulations of the microwave sky, produced as part of the `WOMBAT Challenge' exercise, and introduce a pixel-space method for subtracting foreground contamination which can be tested on these simulations.

Source:
arxiv.org...

Go to this link and open the PDF file. Everything you want to know about the cosmic background radiation is there.

Here are a few more interesting sites:

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The cosmic microwave background is the afterglow radiation left over from the hot Big Bang. Its temperature is extremely uniform all over the sky. However, tiny temperature variations or fluctuations (at the part per million level) can offer great insight into the origin, evolution, and content of the universe.

And...

www.nap.edu...

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), discovered in 1964, is a telltale remnant of the early universe. Its very existence is compelling evidence that the universe has evolved from an extraordinarily hot, compact beginning. To have produced radiation with the characteristics of the CMBR, the universe must at one time have been entirely different from what astronomers see today. No galaxies, stars, or planets existed: the universe was filled with elementary particles and radiation at extremely high energies.

And...

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

A uniform background radiation in the microwave region of the spectrum is observed in all directions in the sky. It shows the wavelength dependence of a "blackbody" radiator at about 3 Kelvins temperature. It is considered to be the remnant of the radiation emitted at the time the expanding universe became transparent at about 3000 K temperature. The discovery of the 3K microwave background radiation was one of the crucial steps leading to the calculation of the standard "Big Bang" model of cosmology, its role being that of providing estimates of relative populations of particles and photons.

Do a search on it. There is a pelethra of info on this subject.

Well, I'm new here but it seems to me that all of these theories are just educated guesses from the population of a planet who's ventures into space are comparable to polynesian fisherman in a dugout canoe, 2000 years ago. If the Universe is infinite, how can there be a "center" to do any banging or crunching from...

Brilliant thread this.
Just thought I�d add my thoughts to whats already beens said.
Black holes:

Are not "Holes" how can you have a hole in a hole (vacum). In fact it is a very heavy thing which due to its mass has a large gravitiation field. Most thjings including photons moving in various wavelengths get pulled in to join the party. Because our sceintific observations rely on light waves we can�t see it and it appears to be a hole from our point of view. But it isn�t, just a very heavy piece of matter.

Time travel:

It has been suggested by many sceintists that if you could exceed the speed of light you can go back in time, WHY? whats light speed got to do with it. You can maybe overtake the light produced in the past and look back minto time but you can�t go back for the simple reason that time doesn�t exist... it is mainly a human invention to control our life. Things happen once and thats that.

A lot of scientists and so called experts produce deep mathematiical forulea and try and prove certain things, or have an "educated" gues at something and the press take it up as being fact. It isnt�!! Not even evolution is a proven fact but theory, the evidence in fact points more towards creation, (which is a difference story)

We are being mislead by scientists who are taught by scientists who though time have followed the same line, educated guessing things and then trying to find a formula which fits. This is the wrong way of doing things in my opinion and its good to know I�m not the only one who thinks so.

Originally posted by bicnarok
Not even evolution is a proven fact but theory, the evidence in fact points more towards creation, (which is a difference story)

I would like to see this. Im sorry, but I dont understand how the process of natural selection,AKA evolution, can be construed as evidence for creationism.

Also, Flight has been a theory for years......

Natural selection, that is," a dark Butterfly will become more common than a white one in a dark forest" happens, it�s been proven. This is "survival of the fittest".

The part of evolution which is a load of bollox is the "oh I don�t like being in the sea anymore I think I�ll change into something else now" thing. The same one which says that humans come from apes even though Human bones have been found in the same layer (time scale) as the Neanderthal man and ancient apes.

no one knows if the universe is infinite or finite

we have No way of knowing...

plus i did a little reading on white holes, interesting idea indeed
it may exist or should i say "may Have existed"
lol

now, LOL, in regaurds to all that info on background radiation...
whew what a read!
now those are some fancy words so it takes some Very Close inspection to figure out even the first sentance much less the terminology that is in it...

ok
its all very nice and amazing how tricked out there computer models are
and they very well could be accurate models

im not arguing that

what i want to know is WHY do they think background radiation is "evidence" of a big bang?

honestly it could have been here all along
we were not here a trillion years ago to investigate

im sure this will be debated for centurys to come
and if we ever meet aliens they may have a few clues for us

what if they were finding what they wanted to find?
what im trying to say is; what if they assumed the wrong things based on their observations? they grew up beliving in a big bang, so they "see" the universe in that way

its happened countless times in history
and today is no exception is it?

i hope your not one of those guys who says "all the math there IS, has already been discovered and there is nothing left to discover, mathematically"

throughout history human kind has discovered our earlier notions and conceptions about the universe were flawed

there is a reason the big bang is just a theory...

i mean; for one second; think Outside the Box
what if all of their facts and figures regaurding background radiation is true; but their assumption that this is directly caused by the 'big bang' is off target?
what im trying to say is

HOW can one assert that background radiation proves the big bang?
isnt this like saying
"the existance of the bible proves God exists?"

basically im equating God with Big bang here;
its an unknowable thing

im sorry i just dont see a connection here
perhaps all my time reading astronomy or physics books i failed to grasp that little ioda of info

but i have a feeling theres little basis for the accusations that there is "proof" for a big bang

in fact ive heard a dozen physicists offer a dozen possibilitys as to the "origins of the universe"

such as Multiverse theory
or the theory that everything is eternal and infinite

just because big bang is fashionable and popular
doesnt make it true

look hard and you will see' its just assumptions!
"It is considered to be the remnant of the radiation emitted at the time the expanding universe became transparent at about 3000 K temperature." when a group of people considers one thing as such; it still isnt proof

"The cosmic microwave background is the afterglow radiation left over from the hot Big Bang. Its temperature is extremely uniform all over the sky."
still seems like far fetched assumptions , just because its everywhere and its uniform doesnt do much to prove a big bang

"The discovery of the 3K microwave background radiation was one of the crucial steps leading to the calculation of the standard "Big Bang" model of cosmology, its role being that of providing estimates of relative populations of particles and photons."
how on earth does the population of particles and photons have any bearing on proof of a big bang?

"The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), discovered in 1964, is a telltale remnant of the early universe. Its very existence is compelling evidence that the universe has evolved from an extraordinarily hot, compact beginning. To have produced radiation with the characteristics of the CMBR, the universe must at one time have been entirely different from what astronomers see today. No galaxies, stars, or planets existed: the universe was filled with elementary particles and radiation at extremely high energies."
read this very closely; they suggest that since the universe was probably once a gassy radioactive universe ; that it is evidence of a big bang; but i beg to differ; i think it only proves one thing
the universe WAS different a long long time ago
but how does it Prove a big Bang??

but with all theorys
something new will trump it , only time will tell

but if u can just give me logical Reason
Why background radiation is "evidence of a big bang"
and making assumptions wont work!
example :: evidence of gravity = apple falling from tree

if you can honestly cough up a logical explanation
i will shut up and pack my bags and go home lol

as far as im concerned; the radiation could be caused by something else; like since all atoms have a Half Life, perhaps the radiation is just the accumulation of billions of years of atomic decay?
just a thought...im sure u can disprove that too

it would be nice because then i can learn more stuff

Muzzleflash, though I am not sure that I agree with the idea of a big bang being the start of the universe, I have to disagree with almost every single logical argument you make. You omit far too much science and mathematical evidence that is known to defend your statements. Now, do not get me wrong. You put thought into this and I commend you for that....(unless thats a copy paste job).

You said yourself, we have ample evidence towards the existence of black holes. There isn't a mathematical equasion that can ever get us to infinity without us putting infinity in it to begin with. Our world and observations are all finite, which leave infinite things to be illogical. Yet....an infinitely dense point, called a black hole...is still logical to us.

Anyhow, your point about x-rays escaping from black holes lacks some information, as well as your point about regarding our telescopic visula range. There are key peices of information that you excluded that have significant bearing on your logic. You forgot to mention how those xrays...amongst many other particles escape from beyond an event horizen in a black hole. You also forgot to explain how we came to the conclusion through telescopes that the universe is expanding. You forgot to tell us how we can measure speed of objects in space. You forgot to mention how we can measure the distance of these objects. I assure you, that if you take your time...and DO THE MATH. DO THE WORK. Do it before you criticize it. Find out why before you jump out of the plane. If you do these things, you will have no choice but to change your oppinion. At the very least, you would not be able to rule out the "big bang" as a theory.

Also, you should learn some things that mathematically would be certain after a big bang, and how those certainties compare to our universe today.

"do the math do the work" ha ha

the scientists should start doing that instead of making things up as they go along.

" things appear to be moving away from each other, that means there must have been a big bang" hasn�t got sod all to do with maths. And if you insist in using math then you have to take EVERYTHING into consideration including things which may have happened before the Humand race was even here.


Maybe the universe isn�t moving apart, but our way of measuring these things is flawed or effected by unknown things happening in the universe. The Dark Matter (non light reflecting or ommiting matter which for obvious reason cannot be see or measured) may have something to do with it.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
no one knows if the universe is infinite or finite

we have No way of knowing...

No way to know or nobody wants to think about the alternatives?