I think we all understand, in general, what science is and how it is supposed to work. If one looks into the Big Bang Model, it should be quite clear it is not a model supported by science. It has been falsified countless times but instead of scrapping the model and working on a new or different model, they keep creating ad hoc theories to patch their beloved model. This is not science. I will give you a few problems with the BBM and some of its ad hoc theories for you to further investigate. Dark matter is a 'prediction' of the BBM, which is not a prediction that flows FROM the theory but is necessary for the theory to even work, i.e. ad hoc. Same goes with dark energy. It got redshift wrong. It got black holes wrong. It got curved space wrong. It got singularities wrong. It got elemental abundances wrong. It got Cosmic Microwave Backround Radition wrong. It got the large scale structure of the universe wrong. It got the expansion of the universe wrong. The Oort cloud is an ad hoc theory with no evidence. The sun should contain the majority of our solar systems angular momentum, but we have found Jupiter contains the majority (the sun comes in around 0.3%). Uranus is emitting more energy than it 'should'. Mercurys magnetic field is too weak. For those of you who love science, I encourage you to look into these things with an open mind and stop looking up to these ph.d magicians with an appeal to authority. Instead of trying to falsify this model, on the contrary, they refuse to admit it has been falsified. The Big Bang is seen as correct because no evidence is allowed to say its wrong. If evidence is found that contradicts the theory, the create a new theory and reverse engineer it to save the model. How does this pass as science and how do they call themselves scientists? For people who actually do science correctly check out Eric J Lerner Tom Van Flandern Stephen Crothers Anthony Perratt Hannes Alfven John Bradenburg Barry Setterfield Miles Mathis Halton Arp They may not all agree on a particular model, they are honest enough to reject the BBM.
I'm not a fan of the big bang theory.. to me, it is just an attempt by scientists to combat creationism. Fighting fire with fire, fighting a creation point with another creation point. I personally predict that we'll learn there was no beginning and that any age we see is relative to us.. and right now, I'm thinking that the age we think we see is relative to the rate of expansion in our lil sector. I feel ya though.. I think the big bang is on par with Aristotle's birds. Thousands of years ago he made the claim that birds hibernate, which is wrong.. but no one knew differently. That "knowledge" stuck around for thousands of years and there were even other people who made up more claims of finding/studying birds hibernating. Wasn't until a few hundred years ago that we found out otherwise. Think I remember reading something like there were 180ish scientific reports between Aristotle's time and now that were about birds hibernating. Now with the big bang, as we look out further.. we are starting to see galaxies that are more developed than they should be. So rather than think "maybe the big bang is wrong" they think "oh, that just means galaxies formed many many times faster in the early universe.. but we don't know why yet". Science isn't perfect because humans aren't perfect.. so if the big bang is a mistake, we'll learn from it either way.
Funny thing is, creationists invented the BBM, and now many of the detractors are creationists. I think once we replace the BBM we will better understand time itself. Some plasma physicists suggest an infinite universe, some suggest trillions of years. Tom Van Flandern and Barry Setterfield independantly show the speed of light is not constant, therefore our measurements of time are invalid. I dont follow one particular model but i find Setterfields model shows the relationship between zero point energy strength, the speed of light, mass and gravity which to me makes sense. My problem is learning this science to be able to determine which model seems best without having to learn then unlearn all the bad math and science a formal education would require to advance. It really does piss me off.
Always thought our planet and universe are much older than we currently think, bb being wrong supports that. I'm down to look into this a bit more. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
I don't really follow other peoples' work.. but the only model I really follow is that the universe is infinite in every aspect you can think of. The big bang just doesn't click with an infinite universe.. unless it is an infinite amount of big bangs infinitely happening, at this very moment.. infinitely in the past and will infinitely happen in the future.. and if that's the case, then there is no single big bang to go off of. I do believe the universe is expanding.. and that's what I believe the apparent age is coming from. Different people think it is expanding in different ways.. but if you do the math on the rate of expansion, at about 14 billion light years the rate of expansion relative to us surpasses the speed of light. Meaning any light emitted beyond that point will never reach us.. but at the same time, a photo that is emitted at 14 billion light years away won't take 14 billion light years to reach us. It'll take an asinine amount of time longer to reach us, like another 80 billion years because it has to travel through expanding space. That's why our observable universe is 14 billion light years out with a comoving (think that's what it is called) distance of 90ish billion light years. Don't get pisser though, its still a solid theory.. but it is as solid as Aristotle's bird theory in that there isn't enough evidence to disprove it, yet.. but as you know, there are always scientists out there looking to disprove anything really. That's why I laugh at people who talk about the dogmas of science. Sure, things that are wrong might be seen as the truth, but there is always at least one scientist out there working a different angle. If they get the evidence they need, then they can put it forth.
I want to see some links and references showing the Big Bang has been falsified. And I want you to explain how dark energy has gotten everyone of those things wrong. Because what you've listed provides nothing showing that the Big Bang is wrong. Flandern and Setterfield haven't shown the speed of light is decaying. They've proposed it, but haven't any actual experimental proof (creationists like Setterfield, tend to do that). That's why the the majority of the websites who show this theory, are religious (usually christian). Here's a creationist website who found the errors in one of Setterfields models (respect to the creationist for actually reviewing his work). http://www.icr.org/article/has-speed-light-decayed/ I think the problem here is viewing the Big Bang as the model of origin. That's still unknown. The Big Bang shows how the universe evolved to what it is, but it doesn't provide the origin. Like how evolution shows the diversity of life, but doesn't deal with the origin of life. IMO our universe is cyclic and the Big Bang will occur again. This model gives us a universe with no need for an origin and makes time eternal (IMO time is eternal).
I've read that they don't believe in the big bang theory, but because they dished it out for so long, it's embarrassing to go back and say 'we were wrong'. Or something along those lines.
ding ding ding! Appeal to authority and appeal to majority, two things that dont belong in science. Btw toke, i will do provide such after work or on break.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't name a T.V. show after something that isn't real. Oh... wait. The Cosby Show.
I was under the impression that the Big Bang is most useful for explaining the expansion of the universe, and the fact that the universe isn't slowing but speeding up in its expansion.
Issue with that is its not expanding the same speed everywhere we look. Some places are slowing down, other speeding up, some stagnant. It needs more evidence it would seem. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
I've never heard of that proof existing (it very well could). If that was so then the homogeneous universe would be disproved - which is more to the point what I wasn't aware of being debunked.
I'll find links soon, but that's why we're focusing so much on quantum mechanics right now. We need to know why these things aren't always constant, as our understanding tells us it should. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
Again, I was under the impression that the laws governing and showing the Big Bang being a strong model for the early universe was based on Einsteins Relativity works. Quantum Mechanics on the other hand don't obey the laws of large bodies. From what I've read the need to seek out Quantum Mechanics is far more toward the purpose of proving a patchwork "Theory of Everything" or M Theory, String Theory - whatever it's called now. 1 is the only number. If you find that which is the smallest 1, then you find that which produces the single unified field force. Yup.
It certainly COULD have happened as in the bbt. But certain things, speed of light not being constant, certain areas of space slowing while others are speeding up poked holes in the theory, not destroys it, just may need retweaking. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
I'd like to point out that the average Joe cannot aafford a nuclear reactor, particle accelerator, spectrometer, space ship, or even telescopes. Science is expensive especially advanced science. Some trust in the "scientific community" (authority) is rational. Its not like we can check their work. Only review it and agree or disagree. Turns out most agree -yuri
No that list was in regards to the BBM and subsequent theories not specifically about dark matter or dark energy. Ask yourself why we have a theory about a matter and energy for which there is no evidence? It was to save the BBM and is needed for the BBM to stand. The things i list after dark energy were other holes with the BBM not dark energy. Top 30 problems with BBM http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp And more http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html scroll down to . LASERS, AND A TEST FOR C DECAY or read the whole thing but its pretty long. And Setterfield responded to those creationists on his site. I am not here to defend any one person I have mentioned. I am trying to shed light on a massive elephant in the science room. I am not asking anyone to believe me or the sources and scientists i mentioned, i just want others to be able to look into it for themselves.