why I disbelieve the Big Bang

[stcordova]

I studied the Big Bang in graduate school. Those studies included the study of the special and general theories of Einstein's relativity, astrophysics, plasma physics, cosmology, etc.

Though I respected my professors greatly, I find the evidence for the Big Bang quite faulty, and plenty of evidence against it. There are a minority of astronomers who reject the Big Bang.

Unfortunately, arguments over the Big Bang are highly technical, and there is no way to treat the subject well without going into some high powered physics, but the first link below is readable for general audiences.

My favorite essays against the Big Bang are:

Modern Cosmology, Science or Folktale

and

Cosmology Statement

One professor from my undergrad alma mater, Minas Kafatos, is a signatory of the Cosmology Statement.

and


http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

If the Big Bang is false, and if Galaxies are moving away from us (we're not quite sure of that), we may be living in a privileged geometric position (namely near the center of the universe).

[stcordova]

CMBR might not have cosmological origin. For all we know, we're just inside a warm interstellar gas cloud. If the MBR (microwave background radiatio) was of cosmological origin (making it C MBR) we should be seeing MBR shadows cast by stellar objects that stand between us and the more distant reaches of the universe.

That is not the case.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 104549.htm

The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang." In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 20 by stcordova]

There is no edge of the universe. There's a limit to how far we can see, but it keeps going beyond that. And the CMBR was initiated when the universe's bell was rung by the condensation of matter and the freeing up of light that happened about 380,000 years after time zero. That bell has been ringing ever since from all directions in the universe, and the CMBR is coming equally from all directions.

[stcordova]

That bell has been ringing ever since from all directions in the universe, and the CMBR is coming equally from all directions.

Seeing from Earth from all directions does not mean it is everywhere. You can be flying an airplane and be seeing fog from all directions, and it doesn't mean fogs is everywhere in the universe.

The failure of the shadow test suggest the MBR is possibly local and therefore not a cosmological C MBR. And even if there is an MBR all over the place, there might be other reasons it exists.

[ThePainefulTruth]

That bell has been ringing ever since from all directions in the universe, and the CMBR is coming equally from all directions.

Seeing from Earth from all directions does not mean it is everywhere. You can be flying an airplane and be seeing fog from all directions, and it doesn't mean fogs is everywhere in the universe.

The failure of the shadow test suggest the MBR is possibly local and therefore not a cosmological C MBR. And even if there is an MBR all over the place, there might be other reasons it exists.

Yes, like the Big Bang.
"A sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object."--Wikipedia

And again, space is curved; there is no "Edge of the Universe" as depicted. And even if there were, why would the radiation just be coming from there. The "bang" was caused by the coalescing of space into neutral atoms and becoming transparent allowing light (photons) to be transmitted within it--it didn't just happen in a specific part of the then 380,000 year old universe. That "bang" has been expanding with and within the universe ever since.

My suspicions were confirmed when I found this web page with Dr. Lieu pictured with a guy who describes himself as a "Christian with a biblical creationist worldview". This really smells bad.

http://johnhartnett.org/tag/richard-lieu/

[stcordova]

And again, space is curved; there is no "Edge of the Universe" as depicted.

Even in curved FLRW space one object is technically farther than another, therefore the picture is valid in illustrating the absence of shadow problem.

[ThePainefulTruth]

And again, space is curved; there is no "Edge of the Universe" as depicted.

Even in curved FLRW space one object is technically farther than another, therefore the picture is valid in illustrating the absence of shadow problem.

The further away an object is, the more curved space is. If you aimed a laser out into space and waited long enough, it would hit you in the back of the head.

Poetic righteousness.

[kiran]

And again, space is curved; there is no "Edge of the Universe" as depicted.

Even in curved FLRW space one object is technically farther than another, therefore the picture is valid in illustrating the absence of shadow problem.

The further away an object is, the more curved space is. If you aimed a laser out into space and waited long enough, it would hit you in the back of the head.

Poetic righteousness.

Even if space is curved to the extent you claim--I do not posses the knowledge to affirm or deny that part of your statement--the laser would definitely not hit you in the back of the head. I may be cherry-picking your rather pleasing and poetic statement, but I would like to point out its flaws anyway before I address the topic of the thread.

The laser would take significantly more than 13.7 billion years to come back (the current size of the visible universe). By that time, the sun will have become a white dwarf and the Earth will no longer exist as we know it. In fact, Earth's destruction would be very old news. Additionally, the relative location of the solar system would have changed vastly. The Milky Way is moving linearly, and the solar system is orbiting the galactic center.

Aside from this admittedly petty and rather pointless correction, I do have a few things to say about the Cosmology Statement. Its first sentence claims that we have never observed three things:

a) Dark matter
b) Inflation
c) Dark energy

All three of these things have been observed, in a scientific sense (in the same way that neutrinos have been observed). I will just address dark matter, as I am pressed for time.

Dark matter has not been observed directly. We don't know exactly what it is, but this does not mean that we have no proof it exists. Its effect has been observed, and we have simply come up with the term "dark matter" to describe the cause of a perceived effect. We know that galaxies, based on their measurable rates of spin and size, as well as a generous approximation of their masses, should not be able to hold themselves together. The gravitational force between the stars in any given galaxy is not strong enough to sustain the shape of the galaxy. There must be some "invisible" (or "dark") matter exerting additional gravitational force. We have mapped out how dark matter must be distributed through several galaxies (and are attempting to map the entire universe's dark matter). We also know that dark matter exists because we can see the gravitational lensing of light around places where is shouldn't lens, or where it lenses more than it ought to. We know there must be "dark matter" than we cannot directly obverse but that exerts gravitational force (in other words, has mass--hence "dark matter").

[ThePainefulTruth]

And again, space is curved; there is no "Edge of the Universe" as depicted.

Even in curved FLRW space one object is technically farther than another, therefore the picture is valid in illustrating the absence of shadow problem.

The further away an object is, the more curved space is. If you aimed a laser out into space and waited long enough, it would hit you in the back of the head.

Poetic righteousness.

Even if space is curved to the extent you claim--I do not posses the knowledge to affirm or deny that part of your statement--the laser would definitely not hit you in the back of the head. I may be cherry-picking your rather pleasing and poetic statement, but I would like to point out its flaws anyway before I address the topic of the thread.

The laser would take significantly more than 13.7 billion years to come back (the current size of the visible universe). By that time, the sun will have become a white dwarf and the Earth will no longer exist as we know it. In fact, Earth's destruction would be very old news. Additionally, the relative location of the solar system would have changed vastly. The Milky Way is moving linearly, and the solar system is orbiting the galactic center.

Yes, local galaxies are tied together by their gravity, some even colliding and/or having light blue-shifted between them. But the further away something is, the more the red shift to the point where they disappear just beyond the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but the fabric of the universe itself can expand at a greater speed, thus the disappearance of the objects it contains.

As for the back of the head thing, yes, your objections are correct, but the principle is still there. It's like the old Bugs Bunny cartoon where he throws a baseball so hard, it goes around the Earth and he catches it coming in from behind him. Never mind that the ball would be incinerated. A beam of any kind of light would dissipate long before it could even begin to complete the circuit--but the curvature principle is still there.

I think the rest of your post is addressed to the OP. You might copy and paste in in a separate reply to the OP so he'll get a notification of it. Chances are he won't see it buried in this response to me.

Aside from this admittedly petty and rather pointless correction, I do have a few things to say about the Cosmology Statement. Its first sentence claims that we have never observed three things:

a) Dark matter
b) Inflation
c) Dark energy

All three of these things have been observed, in a scientific sense (in the same way that neutrinos have been observed). I will just address dark matter, as I am pressed for time.

Dark matter has not been observed directly. We don't know exactly what it is, but this does not mean that we have no proof it exists. Its effect has been observed, and we have simply come up with the term "dark matter" to describe the cause of a perceived effect. We know that galaxies, based on their measurable rates of spin and size, as well as a generous approximation of their masses, should not be able to hold themselves together. The gravitational force between the stars in any given galaxy is not strong enough to sustain the shape of the galaxy. There must be some "invisible" (or "dark") matter exerting additional gravitational force. We have mapped out how dark matter must be distributed through several galaxies (and are attempting to map the entire universe's dark matter). We also know that dark matter exists because we can see the gravitational lensing of light around places where is shouldn't lens, or where it lenses more than it ought to. We know there must be "dark matter" than we cannot directly obverse but that exerts gravitational force (in other words, has mass--hence "dark matter").

[LiamOS]

Seeing from Earth from all directions does not mean it is everywhere. You can be flying an airplane and be seeing fog from all directions, and it doesn't mean fogs is everywhere in the universe.

This is a valid point, of course.
However, if we adopt this view, then we have no way of explaining the extreme isotropy of this perfect blackbody radiation, and most importantly the CMB power spectrum: (Image made from WMAP data, apparently)

There is simply no way these spatial harmonics could be present without the universe having expanded from a very small area... Or can you think of one?
Keep in mind the temperature of ~2.7K limits your hypothesis to very large scale phenomenon.

The failure of the shadow test suggest the MBR is possibly local and therefore not a cosmological C MBR. And even if there is an MBR all over the place, there might be other reasons it exists.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the 'shadow test'; if you could explain this better I'd be grateful. From reading your posts so far though, it seems to indicate that this light is not being absorbed or reprocessed by nearby galaxies, which of course it is; this is accounted for.

[Enoch2021]

I sort of take issue with the notion that if you disagree with a theory you have to supply a better one. I mean if you think a theory of something has a logical problem them trying to demonstrate that is a valid course of action. Sometimes you just prove something untrue and the alternative is a lack of a reasonable answer.

I agree with this, but many of the complaints that are being made typically fall into one of the following categories:

I agree also, this is Tantamount to a Judge asking a defendant to provide a suitable replacement to be charged with the crime before he can provide a case for his Innocence.

2. To fully understand why they are not important complaints requires a seriously in-depth understanding of the theories involved which the skeptics seldom, if ever, have, especially if their motivation for objecting to them is to support a religious creationism.

"Religious Creationism"?

Religion: mans attempt to justify himself to GOD. A Preposterous Presupposition, IMHO.
Jesus Christ was the most Anti-Religious person to ever walk the Earth; Ergo...Christianity is not a "Religion".

Also, How is The Big Bang Theory "Science"? To be "Science" and to Claim "Scientific Evidence" it has to follow it's Method----The Scientific Method:

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

The Scientific Method:

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary." "Theories which cannot be tested...do not qualify as scientific theories." {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

Unless these "scientists" can provide the Make/Model and Serial Number of their Time Machine...it's a "Just So" Story and Begging The Question Fallacy IN TOTO. Plain and Simple.

3. Many of them are outright false claims to begin with. Similar to the claim by creationists that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.

It is, As Evidenced By,

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

Attempting to describe evolution without abiogenesis is Tantamount to describing repairs to the Hubble Telescope before Space Flight.

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware! ....

The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is positive as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks". Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas. I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT.

The Software/Information---Genetic "CODE" is another Mammoth in the Room. (Hopefully we'll get to that later)

I saw in one of these objections that the Big Band violates the first law of thermodynamics, which is simply not true. They fail to take into consideration the role that gravity plays in the fabric of spacetime. This would also fall under #1 as a complaint that has already been debunked.

The big bang clearly violates 1LOT. Gravity? Where'd you get that? Don't you need "Matter" and @ Least 2 Bodies for Gravity?

Space? Where'd you get that? It's not "Nothing"; it Crackles with Energy...

“Quantum mechanics tells us that the vacuum of space is not empty; instead, it crackles with energy�
Gefter, Amanda, “Touching the Multiverse,� New Scientist, 205[2750]:28-31, March 6 2010, p. 29.

“Energy in the vacuum, though, is very much real. According to modern physics, a vacuum isn’t a pocket of nothingness. It churns with unseen activity even at absolute zero, the temperature defined as the point at which all molecular motion ceases�
Yam, Philip; “Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,� Scientific American, 277[6]:82-85. 1997, p. 82.

"Time"....This has been Reified to Death. (Maybe we can discuss after the Above)