d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Evidence Against The Big Bang > :)
Prev1345679Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 32,985
Joined: Mar 17 2005
Gold: 6.00
Sep 10 2010 10:40pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Sep 10 2010 11:38pm)
Plasma cosmology can be proven right. And it has been so far. They are not on equal ground because the big bang is wrong. I've already shown how the big bang is wrong.


not all of the stuff for the big bang is wrong however. im sure plasma cosmology is going to end up with some of the same problems as the big bang.
Member
Posts: 22,153
Joined: May 30 2007
Gold: 6,662.22
Sep 13 2010 12:07pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Sep 2 2010 04:05pm)
What is the evidence against the Big Bang?
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.

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.
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. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. 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. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
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 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.)


i think the quantum world is far too mysterious for anyone to be so sure of anything.

though there are counterpoints to the bbt, i personally believe it is the most reasonable theory.


This post was edited by tehmilk on Sep 13 2010 12:07pm
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 13 2010 01:50pm
Quote (tehmilk @ Sep 13 2010 06:07pm)
i think the quantum world is far too mysterious for anyone to be so sure of anything.

though there are counterpoints to the bbt, i personally believe it is the most reasonable theory.


Quantum mechanics has very little to do with plasma cosmology or the big bang.

If the big bang has been proven wrong by Eric Lerner (what I quoted in the OP) then it really isn't the most reasonable theory.
Member
Posts: 16,683
Joined: Jan 2 2009
Gold: 90.00
Sep 17 2010 12:13pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Sep 6 2010 05:16pm)
Bump.


so what do you belive???

steady state theory... lol.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 17 2010 04:32pm
Quote (13lack_Cat @ Sep 17 2010 06:13pm)
so what do you belive???

steady state theory... lol.


That's what constant surface brightness seems to predict.
Member
Posts: 8,492
Joined: Sep 7 2008
Gold: Locked
Trader: Scammer
Sep 24 2010 11:19am
The big bang is the best form of exploitation we have at the moment,

The big bang is formed by a model, that we do know can be correct or not correct, there is no way to ensure since the model we have needs , Dark matter and dark energy to work.

And as we all know dark matter and dark energy has not been found, and we don't know how we can find it. One thing is, if they run the Large Hadron Collider and finds the (higgsparticle) then we can have proof that the big bang did accure !
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 0.00
Sep 24 2010 04:39pm
lol people trying to "prove" entirely theoretical shit...
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 24 2010 07:30pm
Quote (alpha_hannen @ Sep 24 2010 05:19pm)
The big bang is the best form of exploitation we have at the moment,

The big bang is formed by a model, that we do know can be correct or not correct, there is no way to ensure since the model we have needs , Dark matter and dark energy to work.

And as we all know dark matter and dark energy has not been found, and we don't know how we can find it. One thing is, if they run the Large Hadron Collider and finds the (higgsparticle) then we can have proof that the big bang did accure !


Don't use a word if you don't know what it means. And as far as I know the higgs boson has little to nothing to do with the big bang.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Sep 24 2010 07:31pm
Member
Posts: 8,200
Joined: Sep 20 2009
Gold: 1.57
Sep 24 2010 08:15pm
So is it God....?
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 25 2010 06:42pm
Quote (Ezzcrits @ Sep 25 2010 02:15am)
So is it God....?


wat. God has nothing to do with the scientific theories of the big bang or plasma cosmology.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Sep 25 2010 06:42pm
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev1345679Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll