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).

[Goat]

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.

Do you have any papers that, well, actually made it through peer review and had the claims confirmed? I mean, your article talks to news groups about 'forthcoming papers' that are not yet published in a peer reviewed magazine, and they are over 4 years since that, and not a whisper of something that would have had major consequences. There are things known as 'oops, we made a mistake in our evaluation'. Do you have something , you know , substantial?

[stcordova]

Do you have something , you know , substantial?

As if the quasar lack of time dilation isn't substantial. As if fantasized non-existent matter isn't substantial. As if the supposed Dark Energy measurements that conflict by 60 orders of magnitude and are labeled the worst prediction in physics isn't substantial. As if having to concoct an inflation that begins for no good reason and stops for no good reason based on untestable mechanisms. As if the absence of shadows isn't substantial. As if expanding space isn't a major violation of the conservation of energy. As if the failure of the Tolman test isn't substantial.

Does the Big Bang have anything substantial except the supposition that supposed redshifts imply movement away from us. We know experimentally that redshifts can be induced by plasmas, and there are lots of plasmas in space.

See: Wolf Shift:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_effect

and redshift due to plasma anisotropies:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003APS..APR.R9004K

[100%atheist]

Do you have something , you know , substantial?

As if the quasar lack of time dilation isn't substantial. As if fantasized non-existent matter isn't substantial. As if the supposed Dark Energy measurements that conflict by 60 orders of magnitude and are labeled the worst prediction in physics isn't substantial. As if having to concoct an inflation that begins for no good reason and stops for no good reason based on untestable mechanisms. As if the absence of shadows isn't substantial. As if expanding space isn't a major violation of the conservation of energy. As if the failure of the Tolman test isn't substantial.

Does the Big Bang have anything substantial except the supposition that supposed redshifts imply movement away from us. We know experimentally that redshifts can be induced by plasmas, and there are lots of plasmas in space.

See: Wolf Shift:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_effect

and redshift due to plasma anisotropies:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003APS..APR.R9004K

I think by 'something substantial' people here mean peer-reviewed publications (hopefully more then one publication by different research groups). APS meeting abstracts in a session of freaks (many of them without relevant, if any, accreditation) do not count as a credible science read because anyone can present at APS meeting literally what they want.

[stcordova]

Even assuming the CMBR is not a local phenomenon, it does not necessarily mean the source of the anisotropies is cosmological!

See: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/ ... uterer.pdf

The anisotropies are strangley aligned with the Solar System plane. Doesn't that strike you as odd. If you accept the alignment as due to the Solar System aligning with the Cosmological Anisotropy, doesn't that smack of design and fine tuning?

On the other hand there could be a more mundane explanation if one still insists the CMBR is real. It is still possible the CMBR is real, but the anisotropies are a local phenomenon. Like a lot of things floating along the solar system plain (the asteroid belt, the planets, the supposed OORT cloud) there could be debris or plasma out there that register a little heat that cause the anisotropy.

A few millionths of a degree kelvin variation in inferred temperature seems like diddly squat. It seems to me we have some reflecting debris out there that we are detecting.

So either way, we have design and fine tuning, or the anisotropy isn't cosmological. Take your pick.