The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Before you people think I'm about to start diving into this forum, foret about it.
I just came across this and thought that you guys who are interested in this might want to kick it around, poke at it, see if you can make it squirm. I'm merely tossing a carcass into the lions cage, that's all.

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

There are four examples of the thirty, and each are accompanied by the writer's reasoning.

www.metaresearch.org...

I am now backing out of the cage. Stay on your stools until I'm out. I have a whip and a chair and I'm not afraid to use them.




posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
I thought that Evolution and the Big Bang were fairly seperate, one being a biological process while the other is an astronomical one.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I had actually contacted the author of that site in hopes of getting him to come here and participate and better explain his theories. Unfortunately his own site and research obviously keeps him pretty busy.

edit to add:
Also, if you notice, Van Flanderns 30 points are mostly summations of his own understanding of his research, rather than the hard data itself. So the 30 points are a good guidepost to what he's talking about, but he goes into more detail in other papers. From what I can gather, the consensus amoung researchers is that he's wrong, for what its worth.

Interestingly, he particpates in usenet groups, those discussions can be found here, for the interested.


On evolution and the big bang being seperate:
Definitly, they are, evolution is no more based on the big bang than any other theory, and I beleive that Van Flandern is not a creationist of any sort, his theory is simply another naturalistic scientific theory. But of course, a discussion of the big bang would fit nicely into an 'origins' forum.


[edit on 14-10-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
As far as i am aware the big bang theory was proved by measuring the Cosmic Background radiation, this was done by a satellite called COBE (cosmic background explorer) The temperature of the CB can be extrapolated back to give the timescale for the creation of the universe. Also showing the CBR to be at the temperature it is proves that the universe is expanding.

This link explains it better:
COBE
Expanding universe - a beginners guide



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobsa
As far as i am aware the big bang theory was proved by measuring the Cosmic Background radiation, this was done by a satellite called COBE (cosmic background explorer) The temperature of the CB can be extrapolated back to give the timescale for the creation of the universe. Also showing the CBR to be at the temperature it is proves that the universe is expanding.

We'll that's one bit of evidence that fits. Unfortunately there is plenty that doesn't. Such as the small problem that of 99% of the expected matter of the universe being missing. Apparently it is "dark matter", so dark we, err, can't detect it.....

However this is an evolution/creationism forum, and I can't see what this has got to do with that subject. I have no idea how the universe came about, but that in no way affects my views on the evolution of life on this planet.

Perhaps this should be moved to the science Science & Technology section....?



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
(Im continuing on in the bigbang part of this topic, with the idea around missing matter, I dont think its really off topic. Considering its the 'creation' of the universe in which we were 'created' and should point to the same God or cosmic evolution.. (teachers use this random evolution of the universe to account for intelligence, like its some fluke in a chaotic realm.))

Our senses have proven to be frequency detectors. Our eyes sense vibrations or frequencys we call light, our hands feel the vibration of what appears to be solid matter, and our ears pick up vibrations we call sound. Even our sense of smell picks up frequencys we call smell. There are things that are out of the range of our frequency detecting "senses." Like a high pitch whistle dogs can hear, or light in a spectrum we cant see...

Heres an idea i read somewhere, and maybe its totally stupid, but i thinks its at least fun to think about>>>

Some waves of matter or wave-particles are not visible to us. Like infrared, x-ray, ultraviolet, and so on. So ultraviolet light waves could "become" particles anywhere on the wave, or "act" as particles; And form an everyday object like a shoe. And this shoe could be sitting on your face or in your ear and you would not be able to sense it because its in a spectrum you cannot sense. So the missing matter, or wave-particles, could just be in wave form in a spectrum that we are not able to perceive through our normal senses, and perhaps even with the various telescopes pointed into space. Any object or matter made from particle-waves that operate in a spectrum we cant sense could fly right through us and we wouldnt notice. An entire galaxy where everything is in another spectrum could fly right through our own Milky Way with out anyone noticing.

(Sure white light cant go thru solid objects, but dont we use infrared cameras to "see" heat signatures thru walls? Cant we hear thru walls? Couldnt another type of frequency travel thru solid objects as well?...)

The anti bigbang list has this sentance in the missing matter point "(I exclude the additional 50%-100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by, e.g., MACHO studies.) " I dont know what the MACHO studies are, but maybe its along the same lines of what I said.(?)

I dont know if everything in the universe has been found and labled yet, I doubt it since they are finding new particles all the time. So it could be a possibility that whole other worlds exist in a 'spectrum' that we simply cannot sense in anyway. This could account for the missing matter. Or maby the calculations for the amount of matter we are supposed to have only takes into account everything acting as a particle at the same time? Or maybe the missing particle-waves left our universe? As we may find out gravity particles, or gravitons, leave as well, accounting for gravity's increadible weakness. The point is that theres too many maybes in physics to really know whats going on, at least for now.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join