Thread: Big Questions About the Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory -

There are many flaws to the theory - yet it endures - why ?

Check out this link


http://scienceray.com/physics/big-qu...g-bang-theory/

It's the best explanation to explain what we see currently available to us. What flaws specifically concern you? Also, are they flaws, or just limitations or gaps? There's a bit of a difference.

Hi x

If you read through the link I posted, I have come across and written about 11 significant flaws.
There may be more.
But my question is, at what point do you scrap the theory altogether and look at / adopt one of the many other many theories.

When it stops being useful and a better one becomes available to replace it.

There are lots of alternative theories - from admirable sources, however to investigate these theories...money has to be spent - which is not available to anything other than the prevailing theory - catch 22

I disagree. One can put forth valid science in the absence of lots of funding. It's not a catch-22 at all. It's that some ideas don't measure up, even though you seem to think they do. BBT explains observations better than any other idea currently available.

I would agree - if it were not that every new discovery seems to disprove the theory
What is your take on the flaws?

Which ones?

OK, let's go over the "flaws" from that link.

...

First two pages... no actual flaws listed...

Crikey! Nothing until the 6th page? Talk about bad writing.

Alright, now on to the "flaws"...

Flaw 1

Computer modeling of a “big bang” reveals an unfamiliar picture of a chaotic, lumpy, uneven universe – A universe where matter is clumped together in large areas, intersected by vast expanses of emptiness…a universe where the temperature varies significantly from area to area – The model does not represent the factual observations of our structured and even temperatured universe

Well, some modelling does this. But this isn't really a problem for the standard model that scientists believe, it's a problem for the theory of the very early universe. Few scientists really commit to a detailed theory of the very early universe even though they commit to the standard model of cosmology.

Inflation is one possible part of theories about the very early universe, and it is still optional.

There is no scientific evidence to support Inflation theory – only a stubbornness to reject the original big bang theory.

I wish this were true, since I don't really like Inflationary theory. However, there are some things in the nature of the CMB that are evidence for Inflationary theory. Not strong evidence, but some.

Flaw 2

The big bang theory states that after the initial explosion, the universe cools and the building blocks of matter are formed, and then gravity takes effect.

Ummm... no. Gravity always has an effect. But I can see how someone could make this mistake, so let's move on.

However, observations of distant galaxies, shows that in some solar systems, this is not the case, planets have differing rates of spin that are not proportional to their distance from their sun or any other large body of matter nearby, this flies in the face of our entire understanding of the laws of physics and based upon current scientific doctrines, suggests that over 90% of matter our universe is missing . However, rather than review the current scientific understanding of gravity, spin and the big bang theory – science proposes:-

It's not true that nobody review the current understanding of gravity. It's just that no alternative theory matches the evidence.

But note that this missing matter is a challenge for standard gravitational theory, not just cosmology.

Dark matter cannot be any sub-atomic particles that we know of, so they invented new ones, 24 identical sub atomic particles “super symmetry” which they deem new particles, yet to be discovered. The invisible particles can pass through solid objects, which supposedly, they do all the time and have no observable reaction upon anything which they pass through

Super-symmetry was around independent of astronomical observations.

Flaw 3

The big bang theory states that the initial energy created from the big bang would eventually diminish and the expansion of the universe would slow and then eventually stop.

No, it didn't.

To keep the big bang theory alive, scientists proposed the concept of dark energy.

No, they didn't. The idea of dark energy pre-dates the standard model of cosmology. We just didn't have any good evidence for it until 1998.

Flaw 4

The big bang theory describes uniform expansion from a single point of explosion, however, actual observations indicate that there are areas of the universe that are not moving in the same direction, or at the same rate as the rest of the universe.

The standard model uses an approximation of the universe. Anyone who looks or feels around them knows that the universe is not entirely homogenous.

Flaw 5

A recent report highlights yet another flaw in the big bang theory – an observation of an organized superstructure within the universe that, if based upon the proposed date of the big bang, and the quantified rate of expansion within the theory, simply would not have had sufficient time to form.

I bet another recent study casts serious doubt on this one. Let's wait for some actual work to be done to verify the work of one study. Given that we have hundreds of others with serious support for the standard model of cosmology, this one study has got to be pretty good to establish a problem. (This is something that the authors of the first dark energy papers in 1998 and 1999 knew really well.)

Flaw 6

In some observed areas of the universe, mature, fully formed galaxies are observed alongside galaxies which are in the early stages of being formed. Thus indicating that there is no relationship in time and distance from the position of the big bang – there are possibly other forces at work in either the creation of matter or movement of the universe..

Galaxies, like stars, can form at different rates. Plus areas observed to be near each other in the sky can be wildly far apart in actual fact because the sky is 2D and the universe is 3D.

LINK:-

http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html

NB: If your sceintific support comes from the Journal of Cosmology, you have failed. It's like going to a NABMLA publication for child-rearing advice.

Flaw 7

The report indicated that, as expected, the more distant quasars had greater redshift – BUT the length of time that it took the pulses of light to reach the earth from quasars from supposedly massively different distances from the earth remained exactly the same, – therefore, the lack of time dilation would suggest that the quasars are in fact, not moving away from the earth but are all at the same distance from earth.

This is not what the report indicated. Regardless, the report on the supposed quasar anomaly has since been superceded by a more careful, more detailed study using more objects. This shows the danger of using only one recent report to do your science.

Flaw 8

The big bang theory suggests that equal amounts of matter and anti-matter would have been created simultaneously in the “bang”, the two would have annihilated each other instantaneously – leaving ….nothing.

This is a problem of particle physics, not the standard model of cosmology. We still don't know what happened in the very early universe because we don't know everything about particle physics. This is no reason to throw out a theory that explains most of the rest of our 13 billion year history.

Flaw 9

The big bang theory contradicts one of the standing laws of physics – in the form of “General Relativity” - which states that super-massive objects would have gravity fields so strong that even light would not be able to escape, and matter would not be able to dissipate from it at all. If, during the big bang, the entire matter of our universe existed at one single point then this would constitute a super-massive object, and as such, our universe could not have been born.

To combat this, scientists propose, that at some moments (specified by themselves) – the laws of physics do not apply.

Sigh. That's really, really weak. This is just "not even wrong". The standard model of cosmology is an application of GR. The idea of a "big bang" in the sense of "the entire matter of our universe existed at one single point" doesn't make any sense physically, which is why we can't apply the laws of physics to it. Scientists tend not to believe in that sort of big bang.

Flaw 10

Everything in our universe is spinning; however, computer models of the big bang do not reproduce this observable fact. It would take an enormous amount of energy to initiate spin – so it is hypothesized that the point of singularity from which the big bang was initiated, must have been spinning, therefore all matter flung out from this point, must also be spinning.

What? Again, not even wrong. When matter condenses to form galaxies, stars, and planets, it naturally starts to spin. No extra energy needed.

Flaw 11

If nothing existed prior to the big bang, then what caused the big bang?

This is the most obvious paradox of the big bang theory – and a concept that was largely ignored by scientists for some time, and even today, despite the numerous theories, is remains a difficult concept to.

This is a problem for later. Again, we need to know more things about particle physics before we can pretend to know what went on in the early universe. Once we figure that out, we can move on to earlier times. It might be that there never was a first moment but that everything in the standard model of cosmology is correct.

Originally Posted by PhysBang

NB: If your sceintific support comes from the Journal of Cosmology, you have failed. It's like going to a NABMLA publication for child-rearing advice.

Well done, sir. Well done, indeed. Lol.

It is scientifically impossible there was a big bang

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

It is scientifically impossible there was a big bang

Based on what.... its usually a good idea to back up claims you make on a science forum.

I agree it is going to be published very soon and its going to change alot of what humans think they know :-)

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

It is scientifically impossible there was a big bang

Is Moe Theory a splinter faction of those that support the MoeLarry&Curly Theory?

Moee is the new evolutionary understanding of many things from
space to humans to history to lost ancient knowledge god and more.

It also proves we are not human
and so many jaw dropping things that it will change science religion humanity and history.

Moee is the missing link and understanding of many subjects.

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

Moee is the new evolutionary understanding of many things from
space to humans to history to lost ancient knowledge god and more.

It also proves we are not human
and so many jaw dropping things that it will change science religion humanity and history.

Moee is the missing link and understanding of many subjects.

well, why dont you stop telling us what its going to prove and start telling us how it proves it. by showing us the proof. Did you come up with this theory? If you did, then you should know it without having to wait for the publication of it. So spit it out already.

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

Moee is the new evolutionary understanding of many things from

Revolutionary.

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

space to humans to history to lost ancient knowledge; god and more.

Scientology?

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

It also proves we are not human

You're batshitcrazy, son.

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

and so many jaw dropping things that it will change science religion humanity and history.

It will change nothing. Get over yourself. The most likely you will get out of it is a few book sales and a very small cult following.
Worst case scenario; no one will listen to you and you will have no book sales at all.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

Moee is the new evolutionary understanding of many things from space to humans to history to lost ancient knowledge god and more. It also proves we are not human and so many jaw dropping things that it will change science religion humanity and history. Moee is the missing link and understanding of many subjects.

well, why dont you stop telling us what its going to prove and start telling us how it proves it. by showing us the proof. Did you come up with this theory? If you did, then you should know it without having to wait for the publication of it. So spit it out already.

Humans are Energy Element beings to even get into information of this would take a massive post.

Human baby copy.jpg
this is a tiny sample if the picture comes out ok on this forum

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

Human baby copy.jpg
this is a tiny sample if the picture comes out ok on this forum

Oh man, I can't wait for a "large" sample of "Hey Moe" Theory, because this tiny sample has answered almost every question I ever had about my existence. We should all bow down before you and thank you for giving us this glimpse of the TRUTH.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Moeetheory

Human baby copy.jpg
this is a tiny sample if the picture comes out ok on this forum

Oh man, I can't wait for a "large" sample of "Hey Moe" Theory, because this tiny sample has answered almost every question I ever had about my existence. We should all bow down before you and thank you for giving us this glimpse of the TRUTH.

Puma Man...I saw some cheesy sci-fi movie about a superhero of the same name, any relation?