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).

[Enoch2021]

The problem is the cosmic background radiation IS the Big Bang. You can't dismiss it (the BB) by saying the CMBR has anomalies we don't understand yet.

You sure about that?....

Blackbody Radiation: and the foundations of QM (See Planck's Law of Thermal Emission) is based on....

Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission in 1860....which has been falsified by Professor Pierre Robitaille Professor OHU (the Worlds foremost expert in Imaging and Signal Acquisition and Inventor of the 8 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Scanner).
It is not universal and is unequivocally dependent upon each specific material; Equipartition of Energy is FALSE. By the way, this sends Astrophysics back to the days of Aesculapius!!

CMB from (COBE-FIRAS and DMR) along with Penzias/Wilson discoveries is the 'Cosmic Microwave Background' ....of the immediate background!!: THE OCEANS and Water in the Atmosphere! Lets see, put a cup of water in a Microwave, What Happens? Is it an Absorber...does the water get hot? If it does, then by definition..... it's a powerful EMITTER! COBE 900km above the Earth had a Shield protecting the Horn....RF and Thermal, not microwave naturally.
Define Diffraction?

Special Note: the COBE-FIRAS Horn was designed to operate from 30 - 3,000 GHz. There is no other horn in the History of Man, including now 25 Years later, that can match this fairytale. It is an Engineering IMPOSSIBILITY!

More on COBE in a Moment (SEE: Ringer below)

WMAP: My Goodness. Look the Maps in the Research Papers! Gives a whole new meaning to Photoshop and Scissors! There are so many holes in this it's like a dart board. Let's take one and annihilate it: The units of measure for the anisotropies are in "u" (micro-Kelvin) and the measure for the Galactic Foreground is in milli-Kelvin; that is to say, that the NOISE is (1,000 times Stronger!) than the "alleged" signal.
By Experiment, it is well known that if you have a signal that is 1,000 times weaker than the "Noise" YOU CANNOT REMOVE THE NOISE to extract the Signal.......Unless:
1. You have "a priori" knowledge of the Nature of the Source....and:
2. You can physically manipulate the Source

End of WMAP Story.

Now for the Ringer!...

Planck Satellite ( L2---1.5 million Km from Earth): (This is quite the Boondoggle .....: Carried Two 4 K Reference Blackbodies (High and Low Frequency) both in-cased in Aluminum. But they ran into a problem. They couldn't keep the Low Frequency Blackbody (BB) 4K; they noted that the High Frequency BB was good to go and was attached to a shield. So, to keep the low frequency BB thermal equilibrium they decided to "bolt it" also to the High Frequency Shield. Sounds Good, what's the problem? Well, they used metal washers and screws...that creates a "CONDUCTION PATH"; Hithertofore, renders the Blackbody no longer a Blackbody. So then they compared the Low Frequency Blackbody Reference Horn to the Sky Horn and got "Great Results!!" a match. Because they're getting ZERO from the BB Reference Horn and a "Match" from the Sky Horn (which MUST BE ZERO....see "match" and "No Blackbody"); Which is Confirmed by NO MONOPOLE SIGNAL L2 from Planck.....
The Best Part, They Unwittingly confirmed in One Fell Swoop that there is "NO COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND" and.....CONFIRMS that COBE-FIRAS and COBE-DMR results were both overwhelmed by the Giant Microwave Emitter.....The OCEANS.
End of "the big bang"....AGAIN.


Moreover, from..... Fixen D.J., Cheng E.S., Gales J.M., Mather J.C., Shafer R.A., Wright E.T., The cosmic microwave background spectrum from the full data set; Astrophys. J., 1996, v. 473, 576-587



If I'm not mistaken, this is the Famous Graph that is asserted that the thickness of the Line is 400 Times Greater then the Error Bars!

Ahh, why is the Data Set shifted to the Right? And what on Earth is going on with the X-axis (It's Mislabeled). If I handed in a Graph like this to my Junior High General Science Teacher they'd tear it up and tell me Start Over!

Also, How in the world are they getting a Continuous Black Body Spectrum from the Universe? Is it Encased...is the Universe in a Box? Moreover, how are they getting this when Gases emit in Bands?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 30 by Enoch2021]

You sure about that?....[/quote]

Yes. We can't dismiss it (the BB) by saying the CMBR has anomalies we don't understand yet.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 30 by Enoch2021]

You sure about that?....

Yes. We can't dismiss it (the BB) by saying the CMBR has anomalies we don't understand yet.

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 30 by Enoch2021]

You sure about that?....

Yes. We can't dismiss it (the BB) by saying the CMBR has anomalies we don't understand yet.

So this is your response, x 2 no less? So you're saying the Oceans causing the CMB is an "anomaly" that can be overcome? How about Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission being Falsified?

Are we good on 2LOT with evolution and 1LOT with the big bang?

Thanks

[LiamOS]

Ahh, why is the Data Set shifted to the Right?

It isn't...

And what on Earth is going on with the X-axis (It's Mislabeled).

Inverse distance is a valid unit of frequency, since c is a constant.
If you can't grasp that, I have my doubts as to the validity of any other criticisms in your post.

Also, How in the world are they getting a Continuous Black Body Spectrum from the Universe? Is it Encased...is the Universe in a Box? Moreover, how are they getting this when Gases emit in Bands?

All these questions are answered when one actually researches the big bang theory.
The radiation is purely thermal since, at the time of its last scattering, there were very few atoms/molecules; all matter was fully ionised. The scattering cross section for photons with free electrons is huge, so that makes sense when you think about it.

Further, space expanded in all directions, so each point was surrounded by a large amount of electrons in thermal equilibrium scattering photons. This explains why there is thermal emission from all directions without assuming anything about the universe's boundaries.

So this is your response, x 2 no less? So you're saying the Oceans causing the CMB is an "anomaly" that can be overcome? How about Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission being Falsified?

Molecular emission is of a very well known shape. Extracting it from the signal is, I would imagine, rather trivial. If you examine the raw data from the satellites, it becomes even more clear that your argument is incorrect. Emission from the Earth would not be doppler shifted for satellites in Earth or Lagrange orbits, but doppler shifting is present in the data consistent with both the Earth and solar components of the orbits. I'm not sure if the raw data for any of those satellites is completely public(Microwave isn't my area), but if you can find it it can't take long to get the data to a point where you see the doppler shifting and galactic contributions only.
Also, as in my previous post, good luck explaining the angular power spectrum with the oceans...

[stcordova]

then we have no way of explaining the extreme isotropy of this perfect blackbody radiation

If the phenomenon were local and small scale, like a fog, then the uniform temperature (isotropy) is explainable by simple heat exchange at close distances!

The absence of shadows is evidence the heat source is not distant but local.


One other evidence against the Big Bang, by the way, Quasar's do not evidence Lorentz time dilations in their blinking relative to their red shift.

[LiamOS]

then we have no way of explaining the extreme isotropy of this perfect blackbody radiation

If the phenomenon were local and small scale, like a fog, then the uniform temperature (isotropy) is explainable by simple heat exchange at close distances!

The absence of shadows is evidence the heat source is not distant but local.

Once again, please explain "shadows". Why do you expect them, where, what are they caused by, etc.
Also, the power spectrum presented previously is impossible to explain with a local thermal source, as is its being perfectly static.

One other evidence against the Big Bang, by the way, Quasar's do not evidence Lorentz time dilations in their blinking relative to their red shift.

Haven't heard this. Link to a paper, please?

[stcordova]

Once again, please explain "shadows".

Did you even look at the link I provided?

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.

....

If the standard model of how the universe was formed is correct, microwave radiation from the edges of the universe would be blocked by clusters of galaxies, causing 'shadows' in the microwave background. (Graphic courtesy of The University Of Alabama In Huntsville)

Here "edge of the universe" refers to the locations distant from us and thus supposedly emissions from the recombination event that supposedly occurred 380,000 years from the beginning. It is not an edge in the Euclidean sense, but rather the distant locations that give us a look at the universe when it was in the recombination era.

[stcordova]

Haven't heard this. Link to a paper, please?

http://news.discovery.com/space/astrono ... uasars.htm

Quasars, the massive, enigmatic and energetic centers of distant galaxies, have long fascinated us with their bizarre behaviors. Why do they pump out so much energy? Why do they produce the radiation that they do? How did they affect the early universe? A recent publication, however, finds the a lack of bizarre activity of quasars that is, well, bizarre.

Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh searched for, and did not find evidence for, so-called time dilation in distant quasars. Time dilation is a counter-intuitive, yet actual, feature of Einstein's special relativity in which time slows down for an object that is in motion relative to another.

Since the universe is expanding " and the distant quasars are racing away from us " a clock placed in one of these distant galaxies should be running more slowly than a clock we have on Earth. Therefore, the effects of time dilation for distant objects can be measured if we can observe the ticking clock in the distant galaxy.

HowStuffWorks: Does time change speed? Time dilation explained.

Hawkins took advantage of the fact that quasars blink. This blinking, or variability, can be viewed as the "ticking clock." He used data from quasar monitoring programs stored on photographic plates to measure the timescale of of the blinking. Looking at the timescales for two groups of quasars, one distant and the other even farther away, there was no measurable difference. That meant no time dilation: meaning that for both groups of quasars, the clocks were the same.

[stcordova]

the power spectrum presented previously is impossible to explain with a local thermal source, as is its being perfectly static.

Well it doesn't agree with the Big Bang inflation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403353

The large-angle (low-l) correlations of the Cosmic Microwave Background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies compared to the standard inflationary big-bang model,

I wouldn't be to quick to call it some sort of vindication for the Big Bang. Local phenomenon can have slight anisotropies. You look hard enough, you'll find an anisotropy somewhere.