Debunking the Big Bang...

[Noir]

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]

Noir
ah,


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]

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]

[Voted4Reagan]

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]

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]

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. 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 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 . 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

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 link

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.
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"

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...-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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): 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. 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): 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). 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). 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). “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): 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). 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). 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). 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). 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): 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). “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). 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). 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). 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 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 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. One reliable Eyewitness trumps a thousand imagineers, especially when they are all demonstrably psychotic (for evidence, buy this video).
- See more at: http://crev.info/2016/01/cosmologist....mGB9GWCq.dpuf

[Gunny]

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]

The gravitational wave discovery was a big deal
http://www.space.com/25088-gravitational-waves.html

[revelarts]

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...pseudoscience/

Source story: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...es-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-hawk...er-big-bounce/


Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...lped-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.