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.

 

Big Bang: New Problem

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
There is one more problem for the Big Bang. Recently-discovered galaxy clusters reveal too much complex structure to be as "young" as Big Bang speculations would require.



The small inset in the photo above shows a recently discovered cluster of galaxies that can only add to the accumulated difficulties facing proponents of the Big Bang.

According to conventional theory, which determines the distance of a galaxy by its redshift, the cluster is 9 billion light years away. That means the light we see today was emitted 9 billion years ago, or only 5 billion years after the Big Bang, in which all matter and energy supposedly was created. Gravitational forces could not have generated such a cluster of galaxies in such an astronomically short time.

Therefore this find has falsified the theory of the big bang.

[edit on 3-4-2005 by phixion]




posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Care to share a link?



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Yeah you can prove anything with fuzzy pictures and inkblots.

Personally I think that the effects of relativaty on time could be used to explain this discrepancy. Differnt parts of the universe moving at different speeds. Over extended periods of time anomalies are bound to occur.

Next...



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Well it could point to a big slap instead of a Big Bang. Two membranes slapping into eachother could have cause the explosion we call the Big Bang.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   


I see somebody has been looking into the 'string theory' Nice work. Interesting isn't it?



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Care to share a link?


www.biblelife.org...



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by phixion

Originally posted by sardion2000
Care to share a link?


www.biblelife.org...


Not trying to be rude at all, as I follow both scientific, and theological discoveries with the utmost interest...but heres a bit of advice.

IF you want someone to listen to you about science, do not quote religious sources , and if you want someone to listen to you about religion, conversely do not quote scientific sources.......

It will bite you in the donkey every time...At least it always has with me.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by phixion

Therefore this find has falsified the theory of the big band.


Could you please explain to me how this Rorchak test 'falsifies' the big bang theory? If anything, it gives credence to M-theory...................



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by phixion

Therefore this find has falsified the theory of the big band.


Could you please explain to me how this Rorchak test 'falsifies' the big bang theory? If anything, it gives credence to M-theory...................


According to conventional theory, which determines the distance of a galaxy by its redshift, the cluster is 9 billion light years away. That means the light we see today was emitted 9 billion years ago, or only 5 billion years after the Big Bang, in which all matter and energy supposedly was created. Gravitational forces could not have generated such a cluster of galaxies in such an astronomically short time.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Interesting link occurs like somebody pointed out the source will be controversial to some.

I believe that higher sources were involved in the "creation" of the universe, occurs, I am not religious follower and I rather attribute that to alien sources than one particular God.

But interesting nerveless.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by phixion
Gravitational forces could not have generated such a cluster of galaxies in such an astronomically short time.


And you know this how? If you want to debunk a theory with the strength of The BB, or M-Theory, you had better come bringing proof and not just a statement.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
I don't understand how a time-line descrepancy would negate a mechanical theory. The Big Bang is postulated as a potential way of occurance(mechanical). Ancellory questions that evolve during investigation of a theory in no way negate the entire theory. Unless, the postulate is in regard to mechanics. Your postulate refers only to timelines.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
All theories should be thought of as correct and incorrect at the same time. We will never know what happend. All of our theories are a set of rules that will never be presented as an absolute truth. Thats how I see it at least : p



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join