d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Evidence Against The Big Bang > :)
1239Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 2 2010 06:05pm
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.)
Member
Posts: 37,595
Joined: Dec 17 2006
Gold: 311.74
Sep 2 2010 06:11pm
With science its just 1 theory after another and thats all they are
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 2 2010 06:25pm
Quote (Fix_ME @ Sep 3 2010 12:11am)
With science its just 1 theory after another and thats all they are


Except Plasma Cosmology blows the Big Bang out of the water.
Member
Posts: 6,457
Joined: Mar 12 2007
Gold: 6,745.00
Sep 3 2010 02:55am
Whats your source on this? Looks pretty interesting.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 3 2010 03:06pm
Quote (thenoose @ Sep 3 2010 08:55am)
Whats your source on this? Looks pretty interesting.


bigbangneverhappened.org
Member
Posts: 9,078
Joined: Mar 17 2009
Gold: 0.90
Sep 3 2010 03:39pm
Also did u know that the universe is showing the same temperature from one side to the next? According to the bigbang theory it shouldn't be even.

This post was edited by undertow85 on Sep 3 2010 03:43pm
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 4 2010 04:47pm
Quote (undertow85 @ Sep 3 2010 09:39pm)
Also did u know that the universe is showing the same temperature from one side to the next?  According to the bigbang theory it shouldn't be even.


Good point. :)
Member
Posts: 12,380
Joined: Jun 8 2006
Gold: 2,482.00
Sep 5 2010 01:03am
Can you explain the Plasma Cosmology in laymen terms?
Banned
Posts: 40,920
Joined: Mar 17 2008
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 50%
Sep 5 2010 01:14am
Quote (ii88 @ Sep 5 2010 12:03am)
Can you explain the Plasma Cosmology in laymen terms?


big bang didn't happen cause stuff.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Sep 5 2010 10:55am
Quote (ii88 @ Sep 5 2010 07:03am)
Can you explain the Plasma Cosmology in laymen terms?


Space is not electrically neutral. Space is filled with electricity which causes magnetic fields. Most mainstream cosmologists invoke magnetic fields without electricity to cause it.


Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology[1] which emphasizes the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma cosmology includes qualitative explanations for the evolution of the universe — from the cosmic microwave background, to galaxy formation, to large scale structure. Fundamental to its explanations are interpretations of many astrophysical phenomena by scaling results from laboratory experiments. While in the late 1980s to early 1990s there was limited discussion over the merits of plasma cosmology, today advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional cosmology community.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
1239Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll