PDA

View Full Version : Debunking the Big Bang...



revelarts
08-16-2015, 10:31 AM
presentation by scientist that show the huge science problems with the big bang model.

By a former atheist scientist that worked at NASA who became a creationist because of the science and then later became a christian.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrNclw25jCc

NightTrain
08-16-2015, 10:47 AM
Good vid, Rev.

A small quibble... that AC hum in the audio track is terrible! They need to filter that out.

darin
08-17-2015, 12:19 PM
anyone verified his credentials?

Drummond
08-17-2015, 12:26 PM
There used to be two prevailing theories about the creation of the Universe. Namely, 'Big Bang', versus 'Steady State'. The two were opposites.

But, because so much pointed to an origin-point, Hoyle, Gold and Bondi .. the ones responsible for 'Steady State' .. had to modify their thinking. It became 'Modified Steady State', because so much scientific observation DID point to an initial 'Big Bang'.

Hoyle and his colleagues were poor losers, it seems.

I see no reason to debunk the 'Big Bang'. It perfectly indicates the existence of a God. Big Bang means the Universe was created. That means, there was a Creator, one timeless, unrestricted to space. This for me does a good job of describing a God, complete with Godly powers, and the product of their use !

darin
08-17-2015, 12:33 PM
Beyond God - intelligent design is just better science. At the crux of the problem - today's secular society refuses ANY answers or even evidence that counters the 'group think' - there's no intelligence allowed to be taught, despite overwhelming evidence.

darin
08-17-2015, 12:36 PM
and listening - despite credentials, his logic is sound for more than a few things.

Drummond
08-17-2015, 12:42 PM
Beyond God - intelligent design is just better science. At the crux of the problem - today's secular society refuses ANY answers or even evidence that counters the 'group think' - there's no intelligence allowed to be taught, despite overwhelming evidence.

Remember our friend, Augusto ? Came on here with his secular thinking, apparently believing he could counter us all with a bit of 'commonsense' .. and when it didn't prove to be the easy task he thought it'd be, the insults started.

My own countering arguments .. with just the one exception .. he ran away from.

To me, the existence of a God is logically irrefutable. The Universe, regardless of precise detail as to how, DID have its point of origin, and everything that defines existence AS WE CAN KNOW IT, is dependent on laws specific to the Universe itself. Yet, the Universe was created. Whatever did create it, MUST, by any definition we can struggle to come up with, have had 'Godly' powers, and a 'Godly' non-dependence on conditions which restrain us mere mortals.

Noir
08-17-2015, 12:49 PM
Having to go out so stopping about 25mins in.

He's currently talking about how the conservation of energy and mass are 'true' and this violates the requirements for the big bang. At any point does he go on to say how a Universe was created without the Laws of conservation being broken?

revelarts
08-17-2015, 01:04 PM
and listening - despite credentials, his logic is sound for more than a few things.
The credentials I've seen are only as he presented them. And no one seems to credible dismiss them.

But as you say the facts and logical points he outlines seem sound and i've found verification for the many of the points made and read some critiques of his various points. the critiques i've seen for the most part are lame.

the most honest thing Big Bang supporters seem to say in reply are things like.
"well there are some problems and assumptions here and there but overall it's better than anything else and we are finding more confirmation all the time."

which reads to me like, 'I know it's got holes showing my arse but It's the best dress i've got so don't knock it. and i hate your alternative.'

there are other NON creation scientist that point out many of the same Big Bang problems and propose an "electric steady state eternal universe."

As a christian i admittedly start with creation so I have a problem with an eternal universe theory.
But even scientifically an eternal universe breaks the laws of physics 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics AND still doesn't account for the fine tuning of the universe for life. as well as other problems.
But still they are very adamant about the larger problems of the Big Bang than with their young theory.
link to groups statement of big bang problems
(https://web.archive.org/web/20120209211131/http://www.cosmologystatement.org/)
At this point the MOST honest thing to do scientifically speaking is to say there's not enough info to make HARD conclusions BUT the big bang seems wrong and an eternal universe is impossible, the fine-tuning makes it look planned SOMEhow, so there might be a Creator.

Basically scientifically speaking even though there are a lot of questions still, it looks more created than random. unless you add fudge factors OUTSIDE of known scientific laws.

revelarts
08-17-2015, 01:14 PM
Having to go out so stopping about 25mins in.

He's currently talking about how the conservation of energy and mass are 'true' and this violates the requirements for the big bang. At any point does he go on to say how a Universe was created without the Laws of conservation being broken?

No he doesn't.
But naturally it's impossible.

others have pointed out that either way someone invokes a miracle to get us where we are now.
When i read Hawking's Brief history of Time i laughed out loud when he talked about a "singularity" at the beginning of time.
He just described a "miracle".

Physicist Lawrence Krauss's book about the the "universe from nothing" has been reviewed and they say he doesn't REALLY start from nothing But he starts with a quantum field ..in time... with energy.. moving... fluctuation. then you get matter, the universe (or universes) and everything.

Everyone invokes a miracle to get started and at various points along the line. So the 1st question is, is it an uncaused impersonally unconscious random miracle or is it caused and intelligently designed as it appears to be?

Voted4Reagan
08-17-2015, 01:17 PM
http://creationwiki.org/Spike_Psarris

http://www.creationastronomy.com/

https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/tag/spike-psarris/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/spike-psarris/#.VdIW9bJVhHw

Voted4Reagan
08-17-2015, 01:22 PM
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/05/1042-spike-psarris.html

That’s the level at which Psarris’s pseudoscientific denialism is pitched. To see it in more detail, you can download his DVDs, in which he explains his creationist astronomy in an accessible manner. You will look in vain for actual science or research. But creationism has always been about outreach, not research.

Despite the inanity of his work, Psarris has some fans in the creationist community. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams have been caught praising his work (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/spike-psarris/#.UZecMJX3DZs). Here (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/10/creation-astronomy.html) is something called The 4th Day Alliance trying their hand at creation astronomy as well. It is … what it is, I suppose.

Diagnosis: Firmly located at the more helplessly moronic end of the creationist spectrum. His influence is probably limited to people who are already irrevocably reality challenged.

revelarts
08-17-2015, 01:37 PM
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/05/1042-spike-psarris.html

That’s the level at which Psarris’s pseudoscientific denialism is pitched. To see it in more detail, you can download his DVDs, in which he explains his creationist astronomy in an accessible manner. You will look in vain for actual science or research. But creationism has always been about outreach, not research.

Despite the inanity of his work, Psarris has some fans in the creationist community. Bob Enyart and Fred Williams have been caught praising his work (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/spike-psarris/#.UZecMJX3DZs). Here (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/10/creation-astronomy.html) is something called The 4th Day Alliance trying their hand at creation astronomy as well. It is … what it is, I suppose.

Diagnosis: Firmly located at the more helplessly moronic end of the creationist spectrum. His influence is probably limited to people who are already irrevocably reality challenged.

got any facts to refute what the says? this is just a board side ad hominem attack.

Noir
08-17-2015, 01:41 PM
No he doesn't.

In which case i think i'll save myself from watching the final hour.

revelarts
08-17-2015, 01:50 PM
In which case i think i'll save myself from watching the final hour.
ah yes,
so we understand all we need to know scientifically by NOT reviewing the challenges to various theories.

science at it's dogmatic usual.

Noir
08-17-2015, 01:58 PM
ah yes,
so we understand all we need to know scientifically by NOT reviewing the challenges to various theories.

science at it's dogmatic usual.

Forgive me, but you could spend a week solid watching crackpot theories on youtube, and get nowhere, because they are going nowhere.

Reminds me of not long ago when i spent way too much time reviewing someones videos on 'the electric universe' because they posted them here, and of course they second you stop following endless links you're "science at its dogmatic usual"

revelarts
08-17-2015, 02:53 PM
Noir
ah,
:rolleyes:

Some of the things he mentions you're probably familiar with.
Everything he says against it scientifically he gets from secular scientific sources.
the problems are there in the literature.
People just rarely take the many observations and plainly state that they falsify the Big Bang.

People like yourself don't like to give up the big bang without "an alternative".
somehow "I don't know" is not acceptable. "Design" is not acceptable.
Despite the facts pointing most strongly to it.

Voted4Reagan
08-17-2015, 04:10 PM
anyone verified his credentials?

I posted a bunch of links.... seems like he is universally viewed as a bit of a crackpot and a Loon.

revelarts
08-17-2015, 04:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j56Uxc0wLQw

Voted4Reagan
08-17-2015, 07:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j56Uxc0wLQw

Rev... the guy is a whack-doodle...

He is affiliated with the 4th Day Alliance.

https://vimeo.com/fourthday

From their website....

The 4th Day Alliance is a non-profit religious organization dedicated to proclaiming the Glory of God through astronomy (a Creation Astronomy ministry). We accomplish this primarily by educating the public about astronomy through star parties, lectures, and seminars, and by distributing magazines, books, tracts, and astronomy articles from a Biblical creationist perspective.

Is Neil DeGrasse Tyson among them? Carl Sagan? Keppler? Levy or Shoemaker?

No... these people are driven strictly by a religious agenda.

They offer no hard facts... just loose interpretation and correlations that could mean any one of a thousand things.

The whole movement of Creation Astronomy is a bunch of whacko's....

seriously Rev... you are smarter than to believe this crap....Right?

revelarts
08-17-2015, 09:09 PM
Rev... the guy is a whack-doodle...
He is affiliated with the 4th Day Alliance.
https://vimeo.com/fourthday
From their website....
The 4th Day Alliance is a non-profit religious organization dedicated to proclaiming the Glory of God through astronomy (a Creation Astronomy ministry). We accomplish this primarily by educating the public about astronomy through star parties, lectures, and seminars, and by distributing magazines, books, tracts, and astronomy articles from a Biblical creationist perspective.
Is Neil DeGrasse Tyson among them? Carl Sagan? Keppler? Levy or Shoemaker?
No... these people are driven strictly by a religious agenda.
They offer no hard facts... just loose interpretation and correlations that could mean any one of a thousand things.
The whole movement of Creation Astronomy is a bunch of whacko's....
seriously Rev... you are smarter than to believe this crap....Right?

Sorry V4R,

I don't buy into your name calling. it's nothing but crap.
refute some of the points made and then i'll reply.
until then you just sound like A leftist whose calls all republicans racist just because they are republican.

where's the substance.
the men are pointing out many well known problems in the cosmology of the big bang.
Just because you don't like the clubs they belong to means Bupkus.

Look I'll be back and post a summery of items the men touch on.

then you can have at the science and show me why they are so wrong.

revelarts
08-18-2015, 01:09 AM
OK, V4R, or noir or ..
here's some of the info presented by the scientist. and i've add some not mentioned in the videos i posted.
It seems to me the 3 main thrust of the various arguments made to show that the big bang is wrong are.
1. the Big Bang doesn't predict much of what we observe. it has mis-predicted many items.
2. It asserts an maintains there are completely unobserved particles and forces to fill in the gaps theory v observations
3. At several points the theory breaks the known laws of physics to make it work... at least mathematically.
Some have mentioned of the last one that it's like an M.C. Escher drawing (http://www.mcescher.com/gallery/back-in-holland/relativity/). it works on paper but will never be reality.

I'm not going to go in big explanations so you'll have to look up the details on some of this to really get it.... or watch the videos i've posted to get the gist.

so Part 1
Failed scientific predictions of the Big Bang

a- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have a lot of magnetic monopoles.
Fail. there are none found in the universe.

b- The Big Bang predicts that the universe's microwave background should be different than it is.
Fail. the observed microwave background is asymmetrical and there are problems with the tempture. the big bang model could not have caused whats observed.

c- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have a deep curve of some kind.
Fail. the observed universe is flat. what we observe is mathematically impossible if the big bang is true.

those are considered fatal flaws

d- The Big Bang doesn't predict the fine tuning we see in the universe. link (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46624-Mutiverse-a-desperate-dodge-from-the-Designer&highlight=multiverse) also look up privilege planet

e- the Red Shift = distance view that's been one reason the Big Bang was accepted initially has been found not to be the only way to read it or the only reason for Red Shift. There are confirmed stars and quasars that have different red shift but are in the same general area. as well as other red shift anomalies unexplained.Unpredicted and brings into question the "expanding universe".

f- some new galaxy observations show that brightness indicates that the galaxies are not expanding and again the red shift must indicate something else. link (http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html) . that's Unpredicted and brings into question the "expanding universe of the big bang" as well.

g- The Big Bang predicts that the most distance galaxies we observe with our new telescopes will look young since they are close to the big bang.
Fail. Observational data shows the most distance galaxies look the same as the ones near by. that is they look "old".

h- The Big Bang predicts that the universe's cosmic microwave background will have "shadow" of the big bang.
Fail. observations doesn't find one where it should be. link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm)

i- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have as much anti-matter as matter.
Fail. they've been looking for it and have basically concluded it anti there. link (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9707087) link (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/280/5368/1339.summary)

j- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have a certain amount of lithium-7.
Fail.

k- The Big Bang predicts that we should be able to see stars forming. called "population 3 stars".
Fail. we don't see any. (plus gas in vacuum-near vacuum of space will not coalesce by gravity it will dissipate. so star formation from scratch is a mystery)

There are several more fails to see.

Part 2.
Unobserved particles and forces
Inflation
the above problems are well known and physicist have proposed a solution to a b and c above with "inflation".
inflation asserts a time at the beginning of the universe where it moved at MANY times the speed of light. Unobserved and impossible by known standards. Also no one has an solution -in physical reality- for why it started or why it stopped. Plus The "Inflaton" is not an observed particle/force. some say "they are exponentially unlikely".

Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Added to the theory when it failed to predict certain observed phenomena (they're not foundational to the theory it seems but added to the math to adjust the Big Bang to fit the observations), . but it seems neither will ever be observed link (http://phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theories-mysterious-lack-sun.html).
But other theories to explain the phenomena they cover are not allowed. Former Chair of Physics at Yale said "dark energy is just code for 'we don't have clue'"

Part 3
Breaks known laws of physics and goes outside of science
- Violates 'conservation of mass energy' 1st law of thermodynamic, the Big Bang says matter and energy came from nothing.

- Big Bang has no cause. no laws, no nothing.

- Multiverses are by their nature are unobservable can't EVER be confirmed or falsified and there are "no laws" in these other universes that must be adhered to so why in ours?.

....................
that's the outline of it
....................

none of the above information detail is OUTSIDE of mainstream at all. The only issue is looking at the combination of these and other observations and concluding the obvious. That it brings into question the validity of the whole big bang theory. That's what's radical. And causes the name calling and denials. Scientist are believers and strong defenders of the faith and paradigms die hard among the lay people as well.

Look up problems with the big bang in an internet search see what you find.

Here one,
a conference notes held by some physicist on the "Crisis in cosmology (http://www.aspbooks.org/a/volumes/table_of_contents/?book_id=463)"

Here's another,
"In an article in 2004, Eric Lerner, who is president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in West Orange, New Jersey, noted: “Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method” (p. 20). He continued:Big bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities—things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors (p. 20, emp. added)." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18224482-900-bucking-the-big-bang/
Here's another,
"...The arguments against the Big Bang theory are different from those given to reject theories such as relativity or quantum mechanics. While the latter theories have seen some refinements over the years, no major additional hypothesis was added. Both theories have had their predictions confirmed to a very high accuracy.
In contrast, the Big Bang theory has failed repeatedly to produce predictions that agreed with observations. Instead of rejecting the initial assumption of an initial hot, dense state of the universe, a large number of additional hypotheses are used to hide the inconsistencies. Today, more than 95% of the universe is claimed to be made of a substance which has never been seen...."

So please tell me who presenting crack-pottery here? But If you find any bad points and I'll remove them.
if you can i suspect there'll still plenty left to show the Big Bang theory piss poor.

revelarts
08-18-2015, 09:32 AM
The strength and weakness of physicists is that we believe in what we can measure. And if we can't measure it, then we say it probably doesn't exist. And that closes us off to an enormous amount of phenomena that we may not be able to measure because they only happened once. For example, the Big Bang. ... That's one reason why they scoffed at higher dimensions for so many years. Now we realize that there's no alternative...

— Michio Kaku
Quoted in Nina L. Diamond, Voices of Truth (2000), 333-334

... in 1957, after years of steady work - aided by advances in nuclear physics and stellar observations - Margaret and Gregory Burbridge, William Fowler and Hoyle published a comprehensive and detailed theory showing how stellar systems could produce all the known elements in proportions very close to those observed to exist. In addition, the theory accounted for the growing evidence that the elementary composition varies from star to star, something that would not be possible if the elements were produced by the Big Bang. The new theory was rapidly accepted as substantially correct.
... just as Lemaitre's Big Bang failed when cosmic rays were shown to be produced in the present-day universe rather than the distant past, so Gamow's failed when the chemical elements were shown to be produced by present-day stars.

— Eric Lerner
president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in West Orange, New Jersey

Noir
08-27-2015, 06:42 AM
Failed scientific predictions of the Big Bang
a- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have a lot of magnetic monopoles. Fail. there are none found in the universe.
b- The Big Bang predicts that the universe's microwave background should be different than it is. Fail. the observed microwave background is asymmetrical and there are problems with the tempture. the big bang model could not have caused whats observed.
c- The Big Bang predicts that the universe should have a deep curve of some kind. Fail. the observed universe is flat. what we observe is mathematically impossible if the big bang is true. those are considered fatal flaws

Okay, so discussing the 'fatal flaws'. I'm certainly no scientist, but reasonable answers from my pool of knowledge would be-

A- There have not yet been any observed Monopoles in the visible universe, experiments are underway to try and recreate the particle in a lab, why their have been promising signs, nothing yet thats consistently repeatable, more science needed.

B- An asymmetric CMB neither proves or disproves a Big Bang event, it merely alters the details.

C- In so far as we can currently measure, the Universe is within error of being flat, this is consistent with modified Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker Metric.

Voted4Reagan
08-27-2015, 07:54 AM
If I want to know about how the Universe was created.... I'll listen to Tyson, Sagan and all the other major names in the game that have done the math and are in agreement. Hell... Brian May the Lead Guitar player for QUEEN is a better source than Psarris.... Brian May has I believe 2 doctorates in Astrophysics.

Sorry.... The scientific community as a whole pretty much rejects what Psarris has to say.

revelarts
08-28-2015, 09:42 PM
Okay, so discussing the 'fatal flaws'. I'm certainly no scientist, but reasonable answers from my pool of knowledge would be-

A- There have not yet been any observed Monopoles in the visible universe, experiments are underway to try and recreate the particle in a lab, why their have been promising signs, nothing yet thats consistently repeatable, more science needed.

B- An asymmetric CMB neither proves or disproves a Big Bang event, it merely alters the details.

C- In so far as we can currently measure, the Universe is within error of being flat, this is consistent with modified Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker Metric.


thanks for the reply, i'm no scientist either and like you i can only go on what they report as evidence pro and con.
And to me at this point the cons seems to put the Big Bang in a position that seems less than plausable. to say the least.

To my thinking the idea of no monopoles and the lack of anti-mater found that the theory predicts is like someone predicting there'll be bubbles in glass of water if you blow in it with a straw. If you see no bubbles then there's no air.
if you don't see the anti-mater and monopolies then theres no big bang.
you may have something different but not what big bang claims.

if the scientist are honest they can't just keep claiming that what ever they find IS the big bang and patch and hope the theory to cover every issue. even if they made some monopoles in a lab. hows that explain why there are NONE found in nature when there should be tons.

B. the asymmetric CMB was again a FAILED prediction. So it can't be a PLUS, or claimed as neutral seems to me. it was predicted to be symmetrical.

C. It's fine to modify a theory after the fact, but if you have to do it to HUGE degrees over and over at what pint do folks say?
OK, We're probably off track on this one.

revelarts
02-02-2016, 11:27 PM
posting this article as a place holder
repeats some of the above


Observational astronomy continues to militate against the expectations of big-bang cosmologists:

Neutral result charges up antimatter research: Scientists push boundaries of antimatter research in quest for answers (Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160120201322.htm)): The Antimatter Problem continues to resist natural explanations. The work is “the latest contribution in the quest to chase down the answer to the basic antimatter question, “If matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts during the Big Bang, where did all the antimatter go?’” No success yet, despite hope. Roger Jones has nothing to offer in his “Explainer: What is antimatter?” on The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-antimatter-53414). The universe doesn’t play by the theorists’ rules, he says. “It is almost entirely made of matter, so where did all the antimatter go? It is one of the biggest mysteries in physics to date.”
This Monster Galaxy is Too Bright for Its Own Good (Space.com (http://www.space.com/31680-brightest-galaxy-tears-itself-apart.html)): A huge galaxy appears to be tearing itself apart, emitting huge amounts of energy and creating turbulence. “If all the galaxies in the universe lay at the same distance from the sun, this one would shine the brightest,” Nola Taylor Redd says. Something 12.4 billion light-years from the Milky Way is uncomfortably close to the big bang to be so large and compact.
Monster Galaxy Cluster Is Biggest Ever in the Early Universe (Space.com (http://www.space.com/31558-most-massive-galaxy-cluster-in-early-universe.html)). This is the old Lumpiness Problem. There shouldn’t be large structures early in the universe.
Newly discovered star offers opportunity to explore origins of first stars sprung to life in early universe (Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160122144733.htm)). Still eagerly searching for Population III stars (the first generation after the big bang), astronomers proposed this rare candidate star, an ultra-metal-poor “relic from the Milky Way’s formative years.” But it’s not metal-free. Meaning; it’s at least a second-generation star.
Traces of the First Stars in the Universe Possibly Found (Space.com (http://www.space.com/31597-universe-first-stars-gas-cloud-evidence.html)). “An enormous cloud of dust and gas may bear the fingerprints of the first stars in the universe.” What can clouds of gas say about stars, though? This is divination, not empirical science.
Green pea galaxy right after the Big Bang (Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160113144548.htm)): This article is about the Reionization Problem. What it needs is some observational evidence. “Despite twenty years of intensive research, no galaxy emitting sufficient radiation had been found” to kickstart the ionization of hydrogen. Some astronomers find a candidate galaxy, but it only “opens an important new avenue for our understanding of the early Universe.” The avenue has no passengers. Maybe the James Webb Space Telescope will help.
Gravitational-wave rumours in overdrive (Nature (http://www.nature.com/news/gravitational-wave-rumours-in-overdrive-1.19161)). Has the LIGO instrument found long-predicted gravitational waves? Some are excited about the rumors, but one commenter complained, “Krauss, Motl and those who seem unable to restrain their wishful thinking, should STOP it. It is harmful to science and the public’s view of science when the much-hyped hints and rumors fall flat. We all would like to see a bona fide detection of gravitational waves, but most of us hold our tongues until the evidence becomes compelling.”

With mounting anomalies and few confirmations, cosmologists continue to wander further off the reservation (5/17/14 (http://crev.info/2014/05/cosmology-goes-off-the-reservation/)). They are deep into Fantasyland now, as the following news items demonstrate:


Time might flow backwards as well as forwards from the big bang (New Scientist (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22930564-100-time-might-flow-backwards-as-well-as-forwards-from-the-big-bang/)). Joshua Sokol follows Caltech materialist Sean Carroll into Alice in Wonderland’s mirror world of imaginary realities. A “trippy idea,” indeed. Wake up and come to.
Black Holes Set the Clock for Life on Earth (Space.com (http://www.space.com/31546-black-holes-clock-life-earth.html)). Rational people will stop reading this after the first line: “There is a chance – just a chance – that if black holes rule the universe, they could have ‘switched on’ habitable planets, such as Earth, allowing them to support complex life.”
Theorists propose a new method to probe the beginning of the universe (PhysOrg (http://phys.org/news/2016-01-theorists-method-probe-universe.html)): Bendable clocks, quantum wiggles and heavy particles behaving like pendulums decorate fanciful speculations by Xingang Chen about what came before the inflationary epoch of the big bang, even though the article admits, “The beginning of the cosmos is cloaked and hidden from the view of our most powerful telescopes.” Can clocks reveal what produced the initial conditions of the big bang? If so, what gave the initial conditions to the clocks?
Maxwell’s demon as a self-contained, information-powered refrigerator (PhysOrg (http://phys.org/news/2016-01-maxwell-demon-self-contained-information-powered-refrigerator.html)). “The work of the team led by Pekola remains, for the time being, basic research, but in the future, the results obtained may, among other things, pave the way towards reversible computing” (see Perhapsimaybecouldness Index (http://crev.info/darwin-dictionary/)). Don’t they realize that the higher entropy of the demon swamps the reduced entropy of the result? Go back to basic thermodynamics.
New theory of secondary inflation expands options for avoiding an excess of dark matter (PhysOrg (http://phys.org/news/2016-01-theory-secondary-inflation-options-excess.html)). Spike Psarris suggests we not be too harsh on this proposal. “After all, the evidence for secondary inflation is just as good as the evidence for primary inflation” (i.e., none).
Supermassive black holes might be hiding entire universes inside (New Scientist (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22930554-300-supermassive-black-holes-might-be-hiding-entire-universes-inside/)). Need we respond? Let them waltz into their own fantasy: “A quirk of our leading theory of cosmic history could mean that black holes were once portals to a multitude of universes beyond our own.” Spike Psarris’s third DVD (http://www.creationastronomy.com/) dismantles the multiverse as not just bad science, but anti-science.

It’s nice to see that some cosmologists recognize they are in trouble. Thomas Kitching on The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/cosmology-is-in-crisis-but-not-for-the-reason-you-may-think-52349) writes, “Cosmology is in crisis” – but then adds – “but not for the reasons you might think.” We’ve just shown some pretty good reasons to think that. What is his reason?
We still have no idea what the vast majority of the universe is made of. We struggle to understand how the Big Bang could suddenly arise from nothing or where the energy for “inflation”, a very short period of rapid growth in the early universe, came from. But despite these gaps in knowledge, it is actually human nature – our tendency to interpret data to fit our beliefs – that is the biggest threat to modern cosmology.
Bingo.
Thank you, Thomas, but who’s “we”? All “your” problems would vanish if you would trust the Manufacturer’s Manual (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=NKJV). One reliable Eyewitness trumps a thousand imagineers, especially when they are all demonstrably psychotic (for evidence, buy this video (http://www.creationastronomy.com/vol-3-preview/)).
- See more at: http://crev.info/2016/01/cosmologists-bash-heads-against-reality/#sthash.mGB9GWCq.dpuf

Gunny
02-03-2016, 06:29 AM
Having to go out so stopping about 25mins in.

He's currently talking about how the conservation of energy and mass are 'true' and this violates the requirements for the big bang. At any point does he go on to say how a Universe was created without the Laws of conservation being broken?

Sure. One word answer. They call him God.

pete311
03-06-2016, 11:56 PM
The gravitational wave discovery was a big deal
http://www.space.com/25088-gravitational-waves.html

revelarts
06-08-2017, 10:41 AM
Is a Popular Theory of Cosmic Creation Pseudoscience?
Physicists battle over whether the theory of inflation is untestable, and hence not really scientific
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-a-popular-theory-of-cosmic-creation-pseudoscience/

Source story: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-inflation-theory-faces-challenges/

It looks like the parts of the Big Bang theory are finally coming off the rails within "mainstream" science circles.


the Young Earth creationist and Steady State Eletric universe people have been pointing out these issues for nearly 20 years. and it seems that 3 out of 4 or more new studies of the comos just show more and more that the Big Bang theory does NOT predict what we see, and doesn't align with reality in many ways.


Stephen Hawking and Fellow Scientists Dismiss 'Big Bounce' Theory in Letter
Aric Jenkins
May 13, 2017
Stephen Hawking and 32 fellow scientists have written a critical letter in response to an article published in Scientific American that details an alternative theory on how the universe began.
Hawking and his colleagues firmly believe in the widely-accepted theory of inflation, which describes how the universe rapidly expanded following the Big Bang. But three physicists, Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt, Abraham Loeb, argued in the article that another theory, the "Big Bounce," was more likely an explanation for the universe's origins.
Hawking and his peers did not entertain the idea.
"By claiming that inflationary cosmology lies outside the scientific method, IS&L [the authors of the earlier article] are dismissing the research of not only all the authors of this letter but also that of a substantial contingent of the scientific community," they wrote to Scientific American.
"Moreover, as the work of several major, international collaborations has made clear, inflation is not only testable, but it has been subjected to a significant number of tests and so far has passed every one," the letter added.
Ijjas, Steinhardt and Loeb were disappointed with the scientists' response."We firmly believe that in a healthy scientific community, respectful disagreement is possible and hence reject the suggestion that by pointing out problems, we are discarding the work of all of those who developed the theory of inflation and enabled precise measurements of the universe," they responded.


http://time.com/4778304/stephen-hawking-scientific-american-letter-big-bounce/


Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/


More Big Problems for Big Bang | Space News
[CENTER]The EU2017 Conference: Future Science -- Aug 17 - 20, Phoenix: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017...
A recent Scientific American article aroused a letter of protest from some prominent cosmologists, including renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, who dispute the article's challenge to the Big Bang theory. In this episode, we explore the many theoretical problems for the Big Bang, and we highlight alternatives available in the Electric Universe and plasma cosmology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUC_a-IMmGs

revelarts
06-08-2017, 10:53 AM
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/


Horgan: You were one of the originators of inflation theory. When and why did you start having doubts about it?

Steinhardt: From the very beginning, even as I was writing my first paper on inflation in 1982, I was concerned that the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. Andy Albrecht and I (and, independently, Andrei Linde (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/03/18/my-1992-profile-of-cosmic-trickster-and-inflation-pioneer-andrei-linde/)) had just discovered the way of having an extended period of inflation end in a graceful exit to a universe filled with hot matter and radiation, the paradigm for all inflationary models since. But the exit came at a cost -- fine-tuning. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.
But my concerns really grew when I discovered that, due to quantum fluctuation effects, inflation is generically eternal and (as others soon emphasized) this would lead to a multiverse. Inflation was introduced to produce a universe that looks smooth and flat everywhere and that has features everywhere that agree with what we observe. Instead, it turns out that, due to quantum effects, inflation produces a multitude of patches (universes) that span every physically conceivable outcome (flat and curved, smooth and not smooth, isotropic and not isotropic, scale-invariant spectra and not, etc.). Our observable universe would be just one possibility out of a continuous spectrum of outcomes. So, we have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. We have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities could emerge in a multiverse?).
I have to admit that I did not take the multiverse problem seriously at first even though I had been involved in uncovering it. I thought someone would figure out a resolution once the problem was revealed. That was 1983. I was wrong. Unfortunately, what has happened since is that all attempts to resolve the multiverse problem have failed and, in the process, it has become clear that the problem is much stickier than originally imagined. In fact, at this point, some proponents of inflation have suggested that there can be no solution. We should cease bothering to look for one. Instead, we should simply take inflation and the multiverse as fact and accept the notion that the features of the observable universe are accidental: consequences of living in this particular region of the multiverse rather than another.
To me, the accidental universe idea is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales. In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation.
Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.
These concerns and more, and the fact that we have made no progress in 30 years in addressing them, are what have made me skeptical about the inflationary picture....