It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There's something wrong with the Big Bang Theory

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
There appears to be a problem with the explanation of a well-established derivative of the General Theory of Relativity. For several hundred years it was known that the orbit of Mercury is not circular but also that the focus of the ellipse wanders around the Sun. The gravitational influence of the other planets accounted for a significant amount of the precession but there was still a sizeable error that defied calculation. Other planets were blamed for this but it wasn't until Einstein's General Theory of Relativity that the extra precession was finally explained. The effect is small: just 42.98 arc seconds per century for Mercury; it therefore requires a little over twelve million orbits for a full excess turn. Recent observation of the Milky Ways' Super Massive black hole and its orbiting stars also show the signs of precession of orbit, again in line with General Relativity.
Relativity describes how, for both observers, the clock that is closer to the gravitational mass, i.e. deeper in its Gravity well appears to go more slowly than the clock that is more distant from the mass. In the case of a satellite orbiting a planet, it has the opposite effect of the relative velocity time dilation. A climber's time passes slightly faster at the top of a mountain (a high altitude, farther from the Earth's center of gravity) compared to people at sea level.
There are anomalies however, extra energetic photons, Flyby anomaly, extra massive Hydrogen clouds, extra fast Stars and bizarrely enough I would like to add another one. The relative precession of Mercury’s' orbit, which cannot be explained by the argument of Time passing slower within a Gravitational well. Since the Sun and the Milky Way Black Hole are by far the larger objects I wonder if our earthly measurements are the anomalies.
The following link contains a 2051 word document explaining why. Mercury is the subject at the beginning, following that the Big Bang theory. Following links are for the document and full size image files.

Mercury Doc
Mercury Orbit
Big Bang





posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Honestly, everything is wrong with the Big Bang theory.

A singularity had to happen which follows the laws of physics, and then virtually every law had to broken immediately following that for the Big Bang to happen, which then created the laws of physics (talk about circular logic).

There's more wrong with the Big Bang Hypothesis (as it should be correctly referred to) than there is right about it...

Hell, we don't even fully understand gravity. We have one test that calculates mass based on gravitational pull, and it's based on multiple assumptions, one being that electricity has no effect on gravity, which we are unable to test either way.

If you ask me, the Big Bang is just as much religious as Creationism



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon

There are many 'un-plugged' holes in current cosmological models.

I have suggested in other threads that the Big Bang and inflation is so un-physical as to be as 'mythical' as ancient creation accounts.

The whole Hubble constant representing optical doppler shift is questionable. Especially when there are distant galactic mass objects that are blue-shifted (blue outliers).

If the universe is expanding away from a singularity there should be NO exceptions. The further away an object is, the faster it should be receeding but that is NOT what we observe.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon




I wonder if our earthly measurements are the anomalies.


This is my guess.
We are very small objects very near a center of gravity. I sometimes wonder if super computers would be more accurate
if we used them out in space away from any gravity well.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew



If you ask me, the Big Bang is just as much religious as Creationism


From what I understand, the Big Bang theory is supported by the data/mathematics from Inflationary theory, string theory and it all comes together in the Standard Model.

The only thing we are missing is the data that explains gravity. If we could figure that out, we could finally create the Theory of Everything. But I don't think that we will get that data until they build the International Linear Collider.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   


I've never really believed that we had it spot on but we will have to wait for a theory of everything till we can get a better theory on how it all began and how the "Bang" happened.
edit on 30-8-2017 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I vote that We grant BILLION$ to the exploration of Space... right after We grant BILLION$ to explore the Oceans.

Why?

Look how many BILLION$ are saved in 'commuting' Big part of 'space travel' is getting there. When/if We do get there than We are the visiting team. Look over the herstory of sports where the contest was between 'home vs. away' The home team is usually at an advantage. Home cooking, sleep in own bed. Look at many 'away teams' as to why they lost and they'll blame the traveling to the game.

We also NEEED water to survive. How about a de-salination plan?

I'm just SPITballing here... (pun intended)

Stay Hydrated...



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon

So basically one explanation for the anomaly in mercuries rotation is that there is a fluctuation in the rate mass bends time/space???


Yea that seems like a mistake in the math rather than in physics lol..



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
Honestly, everything is wrong with the Big Bang theory.

A singularity had to happen which follows the laws of physics, and then virtually every law had to broken immediately following that for the Big Bang to happen, which then created the laws of physics (talk about circular logic).

There's more wrong with the Big Bang Hypothesis (as it should be correctly referred to) than there is right about it...

Hell, we don't even fully understand gravity. We have one test that calculates mass based on gravitational pull, and it's based on multiple assumptions, one being that electricity has no effect on gravity, which we are unable to test either way.

If you ask me, the Big Bang is just as much religious as Creationism


There are those who say that the singularity was caused by quantum fluctuations creating virtual particles that failed to annihalate (and somehow supersymmetry was broken, too).

We know from the Casimir experiment that virtual particles do not come into existence if there are already vparticles in that space. That is why the disks are drawn together, because the physical distance between them limits the vparticle pressure.

Yet the only way vparticles could fail to annihalate is if they are somehow separated by a force (with high gradient). Yet you need particles as force carriers. If nothing exists yet, there are no force carriers.

You can't even get the first particle because you need particles to create particles from quantum fluctuation.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon

When I studied cosmology it occurred to me a white hole, or Big Bang, was the result of star collapsing to black hole in another already existing space-time dimension. If you consider the number of stars capable of collapsing to a black hole in our Universe, the idea of each one creating it's own big bang white hole event is a much BIGGER idea of time.

Then when you consider the many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics, then you must have big bang white hole events created by stars collapsing to black holes to ensure every possible quantum state is realized over the infinite number of space-time dimensions. This would also include every possible configuration of matter including non-existence and a single energy blob with every possibility in between.

One thing I do know about nature is reality always turns out to be so much stranger than anything we can imagine.

If the purpose of this thread is to discount the Big Bang as an ill conceived theory in order to strengthen the idea of creationism, then I would say the following. People who believe in creationism who argue against the Big Bang or evolution lack faith in God. An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all your fake memories, fake carbon dating evidence, and fake fossil record. Once you declare your God to have omnipotence, you are done. You don't have to argue against science. An omnipotent God is now bounded by the laws of physics by definition. So any creationist arguing against the Big Bang or the theory of evolution is showing their own lack of faith their own God's omnipotent powers.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Those theories that were brought up (string, inflation) are unproven and untestable (to an extent... they both have workable math, but fail to account for monopole issues, flatness and horizon issues, along with string theory being extremely questionable.) I mean come on, everything is mathematically based, until the math doesn't work.... Then it simply... doesn't apply..?

at it's core, the Big Bang is a textbook representation of everything that is wrong with the scientific method: Create a theory that kind of works. develop further theories and assumptions to make the rest of it work. If something is still in question, write it off as anomalous data and disregard



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Cinnamon

When I studied cosmology it occurred to me a white hole, or Big Bang, was the result of star collapsing to black hole in another already existing space-time dimension. If you consider the number of stars capable of collapsing to a black hole in our Universe, the idea of each one creating it's own big bang white hole event is a much BIGGER idea of time.

Then when you consider the many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics, then you must have big bang white hole events created by stars collapsing to black holes to ensure every possible quantum state is realized over the infinite number of space-time dimensions. This would also include every possible configuration of matter including non-existence and a single energy blob with every possibility in between.

One thing I do know about nature is reality always turns out to be so much stranger than anything we can imagine.

If the purpose of this thread is to discount the Big Bang as an ill conceived theory in order to strengthen the idea of creationism, then I would say the following. People who believe in creationism who argue against the Big Bang or evolution lack faith in God. An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all your fake memories, fake carbon dating evidence, and fake fossil record. Once you declare your God to have omnipotence, you are done. You don't have to argue against science. An omnipotent God is now bounded by the laws of physics by definition. So any creationist arguing against the Big Bang or the theory of evolution is showing their own lack of faith their own God's omnipotent powers.


The point is that there are many who suggest (and believe) that the Big Bang is a complete explanantion of universeal origins, not just a very rough and flawed hypothesis.

Your response mentioned the many worlds hypothesis (which you called a theory) with which you gave explanantion to the Big Bang hypothesis, supporting a hypothesis with another hypothesis. That is how you build myths.

While I understand your reasoning, trying to make sense out of what we do know, we need to be careful about what is proven (or provable) and what is mere speculation.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

God speaks to us through experimental error.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew



at it's core, the Big Bang is a textbook representation of everything that is wrong with the scientific method: Create a theory that kind of works. develop further theories and assumptions to make the rest of it work. If something is still in question, write it off as anomalous data and disregard


If I am not mistaken, those theories match up perfectly in the aspect of data/mathematics.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Science explains "how" nature behaves not "why". There is exists a measurable background noise supporting the idea of a big bang at the estimated birth time of our universe. I'm open to hear your alternative explanation to what the cause is for the background noise?

en.wikipedia.org...

Robert H. Dicke, Jim Peebles, and David Wilkinson were doing pretty good science as far as I can tell.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

This is my thinking and experience also. I think the Big Bang is a pretty good well supported theory.


edit on 30-8-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon


Golly gee-willackers...... Science might be wrong?

Whoa....



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: FHomerK
a reply to: Cinnamon
Golly gee-willackers...... Science might be wrong?
Whoa....


Science seems to do a better job than incantations, live sacrifices, and ju-ju beads.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon

There's a lot of paradigms that are better explained by alternate theories.

For instance red shift and blue shift have required the creation of mythical material like dark matter to explain the extra energy required for an Ever accelerating universe expansion.

A much better explanation is that space is not infinite but is finite yet it is stretching as the universe expands. This stretching causes time to speed up towards the periphery of the universe where it is expanding and slower where it is closer to the center of the expansion.

It is that time is moving faster farther away that causes redshift it's not actually accelerating it just appears to be moving faster because time is moving faster.

No Dark Matter needed no excess energy to actually allow for the accelerating because there is no accelerating explains redshift and blueshift much more elegant much better.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
i thought this universe was the son of another universe. meaning, its a multiverse, and when one piece bubbles out, it forms its own universe, which is sort of big bang.

but what if at the end, all the stars go super nova to black holes. then all the black holes start sucking in the other black holes, causing a chain reaction?

wham, big bang to nothing back to everything again.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join