LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Alot of atheists prescribe to the Big Bang as the theory for our universe's creation. Whenever the subject of Creationism comes up, this is usually the counter argument. I personally believe in the Theist apporach to the universe, but that doesnt mean i dont believe in science.I do believe strongly in presenting both sides of a theory, there are alot of threads stating why the Big Bang theory is correct, but no contary threads on the matter.
The press release from the Crisis in Cosmology Conference in Moncao, Portugal, June 23-25 2005 ( http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p17.htm ) is a good paper to get a laymans view on the problems with the theory. Additionally i found the following inaccuracies with the current Big bang theory.
1) Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.
2)Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.
3) Surface brightness is constant
One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.
In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3.In the expanding universe, objects at large distance actually appear larger not smaller, and the surface brightness falls sharply with distance. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang.
4)Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Now this is the kicker for me.
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.
No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.
No Conservation of Energy
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.
Alignment of CBR ( Cosmic Background Radiation) with the Local Supercluster
The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)
Now im not pretending to understand all of the above, however it does illustrate that there are shocking "gaps" in the Big Bang theory. As Persecuted illustrated, the chances of the Big Bang occuring initially are astounding. Coupled with these findings, i find it difficult to believe that God didnt create our universe. Its either belief in a scientific theory or faith in God. Everyone here is entitled to choose their own belief, but its always a good idea to find out both sides of a theory before placing you beliefs onto it.
Feel free to discuss the above points, if anyone here is more knowledgeable ( or more skilled at googling :D ) than me about these findings post your views
Originally Posted by Fragilezim
