d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Evidence Against The Big Bang > :)
Prev1789
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 3006Replies: 87Track Topic
Member
Posts: 14,823
Joined: Aug 23 2005
Gold: 2.90
#81
Dec 8 2010 12:03pm
The Big Bang theory isn't utterly flawless, but it's currently so well supported it doesn't even make a difference. If in the future we find discrepancies in the theory, it will either be adjusted to better suit the facts, or scrapped altogether once a superior theory is introduced.

Until then, this is the scientific standard. Believing in anything else at the current time is somewhat foolish due to the underwhelming evidence by comparison.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
#82
Dec 8 2010 10:09pm
Quote (CMBurns @ Dec 8 2010 12:41pm)
As an atheist, I think you're wrong for being here and mentionning religion. There's a strict-as-fuck christian fellowship forum where we can't fuck around in so don't mess up our science fun with religion shit.


As a Christian, I think you're wrong for immediately discrediting religion. Science can't explain how the universe came to be so it's obvious that God created it. Quit being so ignorant.
Member
Posts: 20,217
Joined: Mar 20 2007
Gold: 431.00
#83
Dec 8 2010 10:14pm
Quote
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.”


Man, this one is totally fucked.
Member
Posts: 19,951
Joined: Nov 18 2009
Gold: 10,760.00
#84
Dec 22 2010 03:52am
:bouncy:
Member
Posts: 7,679
Joined: Jan 23 2009
Gold: 0.03
#85
Dec 22 2010 11:31pm
Quote (thundercock @ Dec 9 2010 04:09am)
Quote (CMBurns @ Dec 8 2010 12:41pm)
As an atheist, I think you're wrong for being here and mentionning religion. There's a strict-as-fuck christian fellowship forum where we can't fuck around in so don't mess up our science fun with religion shit.


As a Christian, I think you're wrong for immediately discrediting religion. Science can't explain how the universe came to be so it's obvious that God created it. Quit being so ignorant.


As an agnostic, I'm unsure of who to listen to.
Member
Posts: 17,018
Joined: Jul 8 2007
Gold: 0.00
#86
Dec 24 2010 05:28pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Sep 3 2010 12:05am)
What is the evidence against the Big Bang?


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.


Not true, there is not enough matter even with the white dwarfs to account for the gravitational effects observed, so the theory behind why the galaxies stay together is because dark matter holds it together

This post was edited by xMaxPower on Dec 24 2010 05:28pm
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
#87
Dec 24 2010 05:44pm
Quote (xMaxPower @ Dec 24 2010 11:28pm)
Not true, there is not enough matter even with the white dwarfs to account for the gravitational effects observed, so the theory behind why the galaxies stay together is because dark matter holds it together


I think that he is also not mentioninig electromagnetic effects that hold the galaxies together, whereas gravitaitonal effects are accounted for by nomral matter.
Member
Posts: 33,701
Joined: Jul 17 2006
Gold: 1,990.00
#88
Dec 24 2010 10:02pm
i havnt read this thread but how accurate are these lil paragraphs?
i know the light elements section is pretty accurate and the too many hypotheticals makes sense, but im pretty sure the no room for dark matter and no conservation is incorrect. normal matter observed in galaxies is NOT enough to account for how fast they spin (which is why they hypothesize a halo of DM) and the conservation can be explained by e= -rho*dv
where rho is the density state of a vacuum (which is why they hypothesize dark energy)
it goes back TO conservation of energy where a system must consume energy in order to do work on it. if you are going to expand a system then the system must use energy. because the universe is expanding it 'creates or consumes' energy in that the work required to 'expand' is seen in the negative energy of space in a vacuum (aka dark energy)
where dark energy uniformly occupies all space and has a negative pressure aka repulsion affect
this is supposed to explain the acceleration of expansion

i have a pretty elementary knowledge of these theoretical physics topics but but im fairly certain the two explanations i gave are correct, or at least generally accepted theories

This post was edited by Kamikizzle on Dec 24 2010 10:02pm
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev1789
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact