Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
This topic category is the war zone of many a forum. Without claiming I can speak adequately for 20 year veteran Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch
of US Naval Observatory, Dr van Flandern; see his 30 problems with Big Bang condensed to 10 flaws with the Bang.
Ok ill give it a go. From Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang by: Tom Van
1- Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models
That's not true, at the least it's not so obvious that you can say categorically "static universe models fit the data better...." Firstly it
violates Einstein "General Relativety", and even though he tried to 'fudge' it by inserting a "cosmologicl constant"(he initially
a static model as did Newton i believe) he dropped the idea when Hubble proved that the universe was expanding(which contradicts a static model).
It also violates Newton's "Law of Gravity" which precludes a stable, static Universe with no beginning or ending. All the matter would have, by
now, all lumped together in one spot, no? There are more examples of evidence that contradicts a static model, although admittedly no one knows for
The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a
It's my understanding(which ain't saying much) that the measurements of the of the cosmic background radiation showed the 'evolution' of the
structure of the universe to be consistent with the Big Bang model.
Here's a good link: physics.csustan.edu...
" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> physics.csustan.edu...
To summarize, the Big Bang theory predicts, and observations have confirmed:
-The expansion of the universe.
-The 3deg. cosmic background radiation.
-The amount of hydrogen (including deuterium) and helium present in the universe (more about this later).
3- Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
I would like to see a model, any model, that doesn't require many
4- The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion
How is the 'structure' of the universe more consistent with a static model?
The mechanism by which this clumping occurred is fairly simple, although its details continue to be studied and debated. At the time of recombination
the universe consisted of a nearly uniform hot gas with regions very slightly denser than the average and others very slightly less dense. If the
density had been exactly the same everywhere then it would have always stayed that way
Like i said the structure is evidence against the static model is it not?
5-The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at
all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
I believe that this is a "problem" for the Big Bang Theory, however it involves some mathematics which are far
beyond my abilities. Here's
a good paper supporting the static model, specifically deals with measuring the 'red-shift' of quasars:
And here's a rebuttal to the "new red-shift interpretation": www.talkorigins.org...
The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe
That statement is based on old data, the new data dates these clusters younger than the universe. The hubble constant has been 'refined'
In the mid-90s, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe had not yet been discovered. Measurements of the Hubble parameter in that time
yielded values around 80 km/s/Mpc - not too different from today's best value of about 72 km/s/Mpc. But since a decelerating universe was assumed,
this gave an age of the universe of only around 10 billion years - instead of the 13.7 billion years one obtains when one takes into account the
acceleration (and the modern measurements of the Hubble parameter).
Nowadays, the age of the oldest stars is nicely consistent with the age of the universe - see section 2g
I could provide rebuttals to the rest of the list, but as i'm severely under-qualified so i'll stop here.
It's a very interesting topic, and as i've noticed, you can find a decent argument either way, too many unknowns to say for sure who(IF anyone at
all) has it right imo. Seems to me tho that the static universe model disregards alot of science and provides no viable alternative, not saying
they're wrong but they've got some work to do imho.
[edit on 19-9-2005 by Rren]