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.

 

The Big Bang Theory is Wrong

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Like most of you, I grew up being taught that the universe was created in one great big explosion of matter into the great void of nothingness at the beginning of time. Unfortunately there are alot of holes in this theory that just do not pan out under close scrutiny. The Big Bang is in fact just religion disguised as science! Another religious conspiracy?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.physorg.com...

www.angelfire.com...

www.spaceandmotion.com...

The Universe in fact has no edge, no center and no beginning:

universe.sonoma.edu...

The Universe is in fact holographic:

www.crystalinks.com...

homepages.ihug.co.nz...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.spaceandmotion.com...

www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...

www.experiencefestival.com...

Very soon we will find that a vast many of our assumptions and scientific theories are wrong and will soon go the way of the flat earth and the earth as the center of the universe. Remember this: Just because they teach it to you in school does not mean that its true...




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Have your actually read and understood any of the current theories about the Origin of the Universe?

I think you'll find that they are a good deal subtler than a simple explosion of matter. You will also find that there are more than one theory, and physicists will cheerfully admit they haven't got THE answer worked out yet.

There is no High Priest demanding that all must believe in a simplistic Big Bang.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by emjoi]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Yes I certainly have studied the various origins of the universe, but it seems to me that maybe you havent read the articles or websites I have posted before coming to the conclusion that I havent.

Definition of 'theory' (yes big bang is only a theory):

en.wikipedia.org...

www.m-w.com...

Here are a few quick alternate origin perusals for your viewing pleasure:

www.allaboutcreation.org...

www.qsmithwmu.com...

www.astronomycafe.net...

www.byteland.org...

Here is a book a friend of mine helped write:

www.amazon.com...

Here are some youve probly never heard of before:

www.google.com...

(and this one I particularly like)

www.actionbioscience.org...

Although I must admit I appreciate your assumption, I always advocate personal investigation before jumping to conclusions. And I agree, the physicists havent worked everything out yet.

I am actually interested in finding out how many people here subscribe wholeheartedly to the big bang theory and how many of you are willing to drop your assumptions and open your perspectives. I appreciate any and all feedback I may get, no matter what side of the fence you may stand.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Now it does seem to me that the evidence for a Big Bang is quite weak. The tough question we must ask ourselves now is "how then did the universe come into being?" Although I am a Christian, I reject the cop-out answer of "God did it!" Well, this, of course, is true, but still, the question remains: how?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I also believe that The Creator (the term I prefer to use for 'God' - just seems a little more all-inclusive and universal) created the universe. How? Thats a good question, personally I believe that the universe (like God) always existed and always will. Its difficult (I admit) for finite minds to contemplate infinite realities... for example the number 1 billion gets thrown around alot these days, but its impossible to truelly fathom what exactly 1 billion is unless we can use something else to give us a reference point, like: sometime during when you are 32 years old, you have lived 1 billion seconds. That means people with 1 billion dollars have earned 1 dollar for every second they have been alive (both awake and asleep) until somewhere around the age of 32 years old... thats MASSIVE.

I don't think we will ever know the answer to the question of how, when, why etc... but its always a good mental exorcise to try :-)



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   
A Christian debunking Big Bang! How original!

But no, you're right, but having a "creator" is a much more believable answer.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Even if the big bang turns out to be false, it's not a religion.
If it does fall out, I guess the steady state theory comes back and that's the worst case scenario for any believer since an eternal universe doesn't need a creator at all.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Here is a little list of some alternate theories, models and hypothesis that you can study for yourselves (many of which I covered earlier in this thread w/ websites):

The Infinite Abyss Theory
The Perpetual Universe Theory
Cube Theory
The Temporalist Model
The Chaos Cosmos Model
Multifractal Universe Theory
Cosmic Repulsion
Big Tube Theory
Theory of Interaction
Holographic Universe Theory
Fractal Relativity
The Cosmic Commode Theory
The Infinite Universe Theory
The Collapsing Universe Theory
Theory of Reciprocity
Electric Universe Theory

Thats quite a list of theories that to some degree in some way shape or form dispute the big bang. (some arent very well thought out but some are irrefutable)

Here is a simple breakdown in layman terms of what I am saying with this thread:

www.rubak.com...

Maybe this will simplify my arguement and allow yall to google with some clearer precision and study up for yourselves on exactly why the big bang is incorrect.



[edit on 10-8-2007 by Grock]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I think in essence, Arp and Mitchell are generally considered cranks who have little understanding of physics.

But, hey, who cares.

The Electric universe sounds kinda cool. I'll have a piece of that.

If you really want to discuss these issues with people who know their stuff, try here:

www.evcforum.net...

There's a handful of physicists there who could discuss this in detail. They're a nice bunch as well.

I have little doubt that more understanding will come, and big bang cosmology will be overtaken by a more detailed theory, I think it will become part of a future theory rather than be discarded.

However, what bothers me is your 'big-bang is religion' idea. That's bascially BS. It is a scientific theory, and no scientific theories are religion. They only become so as part of a BS argument.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Wow... Ive checked it out and I agree.

BUT

However, what bothers me is your 'big-bang is religion' idea. That's bascially BS. It is a scientific theory, and no scientific theories are religion. They only become so as part of a BS argument.

This shows me that you dont realize the origins and implications of the big bang theory. Let me ask you this in response (which answers it entirely), do you know who originated the big bang theory? do you know their religious persuasion?do you know WHY they postulated this idea and the circumstances surrounding it? to call the big bang BS as it relates to religion shows us all just how little most of us know about it. (answer those questions and you will see for yourself that what I say is true)...

You dont seem to realize that the whole big bang theory is in itself ENTIRELY a religious theory, with very little science involved... again I get a response without the responder having studied what I have laid out before us all (tho I fully agree that its BS as well)...

no scientific theories are religion? I am so tempted to throw a truckload of websites refuting that, but it seems that when I do, people respond without reading what I have generously presented upon their tables...

I guess Ill have to LOWER the number of websites I present as evidence, it seems that what I present is too much for the layman to understand.



posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I know about LeMaitre (sp?), but that doesn't make the theory a religion. Essentially you're saying that a person of faith can't be trusted to develop a theory without bias from their religion.

I don't think that is always the case. Further, it wasn't just Lemaitre who was involved in laying the basis of this work.

Without doubt there are issues with the big bang, questions that require answers. There are very few theories that answer everything. And big bang cosmology is not a 'theory of everything'.

However, it still provides the best current answer. It's likely one piece of a bigger theory. If that happens to be the electric universe theory, in time it will take its place.

[edit on 11-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Grock:

Along with hundreds, maybe thousands, of scientists, I agree with you that the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is totally wrong. It will be known as the most acute embarrassment of 20th Century science. Imagine the explosion of everything out of nothing! The BBT is the most complete contradiction of the First Law of Thermodynamics (matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed) ever devised. The law of conservation has been tested and found successful enumerable times. Its opposite, creation, has never succeeded even once. For the big picture on the philosophical basis of the BBT and its underlying assumptions common to many religions, you may wish to check out my new book "The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein" (www.scientificworldview.com).

Glenn



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Glenn,

Thank You Very Much, As an avid reader of anything even approaching intelligence in such matters, I most definately will. Again, thank you.

Melatonin,

I'm not exactly saying that its all BS because its religios nor am I saying that people of religious faiths cannot come up with a valid theory without religious bias. Basicly, Im saying just what Glenn just said. Religion really has nothing to do with it (imo).

And btw, it does NOT currently provide us with the best possible answer. I dont want to seem like im just shooting you down, I appreciate your input greatly. Its just that I dont fully agree.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grock
I dont want to seem like im just shooting you down, I appreciate your input greatly. Its just that I dont fully agree.


That's cool. If we all agreed, the forum would be pretty dull


[edit on 22-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Not only do I not appreciate differing points of view, I highly respect and enjoy enlightened differing points of view
Thanks for your responses.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I agree that the big bang is wrong. It has been dis-proven for quite some time. Unfortunately mainstream academia and professional astronomers and astrophysicists have quite the edifice in place around the theory. And then you have all the general public who has been spoon fed the 'Big Bang' for 60ish years; it is not an easy task to shift the paradigm.

Here is a quick history lesson. Everyone knows Hubble's Law, it is touted as the end all observational proof of expansion. But did you know that Hubble himself didn't agree with the expansion interpretation? This is why: Hubble's original empirical observation states that redshift is inversely proportional to brightness. It was his colleagues that took this empirical formula and derived a theoretical interpretation of it, based on the only known mechanisms at the time (1920s), mixed in with a healthy dose of religion (for instance Georges Lemaître was a priest.) They turned it into a relationship between velocity and distance, which is today mistaken as the original Hubble's Law, and is consistently used as the founding proof for the Big Bang. In fact, in most textbooks you won't even see the original empirical version, but will see the theoretical version (I've read Hubble's original works and it was there that I first learned the distinction.) Near the end of his life, Hubble again strictly denied the expansion interpretation, and cautioned people to look again at the empirical version of his formula, in light of the mounting evidence that space is not a vacuum, but a plasma.

Realizing that space is filled with plasma instead of vacuum, a whole new realm of mechanisms and interpretations become available, many of which are testable in the laboratory. For instance, Forward Brillouin Scattering causes redshift in the forward direction (a key property) as light travels through a plasma. One of the major issues now is that plasma physicists are pretty well ignored by astronomers, etc etc. I could go on... Anyhow, you can check out a book called 'Cosmic Plasma' by Hannes Alfven, nobel prize winning plasma physicist. And more for the lay person, 'The Big Bang Never Happened' by Eric J Lerner.

I don't have much to say about the Holographic theory, as I have not studied it. But taking a quick glance shows parts of it agree with the plasma paradigm.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
The bang bang theory is more believable than those others. It also accounts for how all the elements were formed the other theories do not.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
I agree that the big bang is wrong. It has been dis-proven for quite some time. Unfortunately mainstream academia and professional astronomers and astrophysicists have quite the edifice in place around the theory. And then you have all the general public who has been spoon fed the 'Big Bang' for 60ish years; it is not an easy task to shift the paradigm.

Here is a quick history lesson. Everyone knows Hubble's Law, it is touted as the end all observational proof of expansion. But did you know that Hubble himself didn't agree with the expansion interpretation? This is why: Hubble's original empirical observation states that redshift is inversely proportional to brightness. It was his colleagues that took this empirical formula and derived a theoretical interpretation of it, based on the only known mechanisms at the time (1920s), mixed in with a healthy dose of religion (for instance Georges Lemaître was a priest.) They turned it into a relationship between velocity and distance, which is today mistaken as the original Hubble's Law, and is consistently used as the founding proof for the Big Bang. In fact, in most textbooks you won't even see the original empirical version, but will see the theoretical version (I've read Hubble's original works and it was there that I first learned the distinction.) Near the end of his life, Hubble again strictly denied the expansion interpretation, and cautioned people to look again at the empirical version of his formula, in light of the mounting evidence that space is not a vacuum, but a plasma.

Realizing that space is filled with plasma instead of vacuum, a whole new realm of mechanisms and interpretations become available, many of which are testable in the laboratory. For instance, Forward Brillouin Scattering causes redshift in the forward direction (a key property) as light travels through a plasma. One of the major issues now is that plasma physicists are pretty well ignored by astronomers, etc etc. I could go on... Anyhow, you can check out a book called 'Cosmic Plasma' by Hannes Alfven, nobel prize winning plasma physicist. And more for the lay person, 'The Big Bang Never Happened' by Eric J Lerner.

I don't have much to say about the Holographic theory, as I have not studied it. But taking a quick glance shows parts of it agree with the plasma paradigm.



Disproven??? where are your sources i would like to see! The best way to "disprove" a theory is to have a better one, there arn't any simple as that



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by gborchardt
 


I agree about conservation of energy/matter. In the plasma paradigm energy is stored in cellular regions and transfered through current sheets and filaments through vast regions of space. Plasma cosmology has no assumption of a beginning because it is untestable, and assumes for practical purposes that the universe is infinite.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by onthefence81
 


One doesn't need sources for something one did himself. I suggest you study the history of the big bang, the historical contexts and the people around which it was built. Go back to empirical assumptions and contrast them with the newer set of data from differing physical fields of study. Understanding of plasma will be essential for one to reconnect the original empirical assumptions with more proper mechanisms.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join