d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Evidence Against The Big Bang
123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 1,676
Joined: Dec 20 2010
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 10%
Jan 5 2012 04:11am
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: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Jan 5 2012 06:29pm
Took it straight from Eric Lerner's website. I love that man. :)
Member
Posts: 33,923
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Jan 5 2012 07:26pm
Quote (hard8knox @ Jan 5 2012 06:11am)
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.


Much of the others are plausible, but this simply doesn't make sense. Care to explain?

Quote (hard8knox @ Jan 5 2012 06:11am)
The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.


Claims like these are for dramatic effect and have no real significance.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Jan 5 2012 10:20pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Jan 5 2012 07:26pm)
Much of the others are plausible, but this simply doesn't make sense. Care to explain?


He explains it perfectly. The energy pops up out of nowhere, not attached to matter or anything. Therefore it violates the conservation of energy.
Member
Posts: 4,044
Joined: Nov 1 2010
Gold: 0.00
Jan 6 2012 05:38am
Quote (AEtheric @ Jan 5 2012 09:20pm)
He explains it perfectly. The energy pops up out of nowhere, not attached to matter or anything.  Therefore it violates the conservation of energy.


So... God violated the law of conservation of energy...
Member
Posts: 40,631
Joined: Nov 27 2007
Gold: 18,151.00
Jan 6 2012 08:56am
What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object? no fuckin clue
Member
Posts: 2,396
Joined: Jan 11 2010
Gold: 46.00
Jan 6 2012 05:33pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Jan 5 2012 11:20pm)
He explains it perfectly. The energy pops up out of nowhere, not attached to matter or anything.  Therefore it violates the conservation of energy.


>Energy not attached to matter.
E=MC²

The energy doesn't pop out of nowhere. In the Big Bang theory, antimatters is being created at the same rate than the matters.It doesn't violate the conservation of energy.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Jan 6 2012 07:14pm
Quote (Azure_Shadow @ Jan 6 2012 05:38am)
So... God violated the law of conservation of energy...


No, big bang theorists and their fantasies violate the law of conservation of energy.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Jan 6 2012 07:15pm
Quote (Harmonium @ Jan 6 2012 05:33pm)
>Energy not attached to matter.
E=MC²

The energy doesn't pop out of nowhere. In the Big Bang theory, antimatters is being created at the same rate than the matters.It doesn't violate the conservation of energy.


LOL

Energy has to be attached to matter. Otherwise it isn't energy. Please show me an instance of pure 'energy'. I'd love to see it. In the big bang theory antimatter has nothing to do with it. You're talking about quantum physics, and that is not a violaion of energy unless you're talking about the zero-point field, whch has not been proven to exist.
Member
Posts: 2,396
Joined: Jan 11 2010
Gold: 46.00
Jan 6 2012 08:58pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Jan 6 2012 08:15pm)
LOL

Energy has to be attached to matter. Otherwise it isn't energy. Please show me an instance of pure 'energy'. I'd love to see it.  In the big bang theory antimatter has nothing to do with it.  You're talking about quantum physics, and that is not a violaion of energy unless you're talking about the zero-point field, whch has not been proven to exist.


Wtf. You said "energy is not attached to matter", to which I reply it's false because of E=mc².

Yes, antimater have something to do with big bang, it's what "explains" why we have matter, the fact that equivalent amount of antimatter was created.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
123Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll