The Big Bang is broken!

[Lineman]

Why don't we hear about this stuff as soon as it happens? Did you know about this already? I sure didn't! Do you suppose the Devil had something to do with us not getting the message?

Found at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041227prediction-bigbang.htm

Quote:

Dec 27, 2004

Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.

"A concession speech may be unlikely in 2005, but the progressive decline of one of the twentieth century’s most popular theories now seems inescapable. The Big Bang has lost its theoretical foundation, which was the Doppler interpretation of redshift (linking redshift to the stretching of light wavelengths as objects move away from us). It is now known that, while almost all observed galaxies are redshifted, the Doppler interpretation of this shift does not provide a reliable measure of velocity or (indirectly) of distance. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter. Quasars, whose high redshift would place them at the outer edges of the visible universe, are in fact physically and energetically linked to nearby low-redshift active galaxies.

The Big Bang was dismantled by direct observation—including a highly redshifted quasar in front of a nearby galaxy!"

The article goes on with several more paragraphs. If this is so obvious why are the public schools still teaching the Big Bang theory?

[Gregory Matthews]

The So-called Big Bang broken? Hardley. Proven? Absolutly not! It is a theory that has many redeeming features. Yet it lacks confirmation in important aspects.

As to why these issues are not taught, they are taught to people who are willing to study the issues. Those who do not understand this are typically those who have gained their understanding of the Big Bang theory from sources such as the popular media.

Here is a quote from Brian Greene on just one aspect of the issues that faces cosmology today:

Quote:

But, in telling this story, we've made a pivotal assumption that's as yet unjustified. To assess the likelihood ofinflation's being initiated, we've had to specify the characteristics of the preinflationary realm out of which inflationary expansion is supposed to have emerged. The particular realm we've envisioned. . . sounds reasonable, but delineating this intuitive description with mathematical precison proves chalenging. Moreover, it is only a guess.

page 322

Greene is talking here about inflationary cosmology.

The above quote came from:

Greene, Brian, THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS: SPACE, TIME, AND THE TEXTURE OF REALITY. Vintage Books, 2004 569 pages

This is just one of the vital aspects of the Big Bang that have not yet been experimentally demonstrated. Are these missing elements taught. Absolutely and they are known by people who do the appropriate reading. It is their knowledge that is leading scientists today to devote much time, energy and research funding to study these areas.

Modern cosmology is not solely limited in knowledge to the Big Bamg theory. There are many other areas in which we are ignorant or otherwise lacking in information, as is true in the many areas of science.

I will not comment on the specifics of the claims made in the cited article as I do not have the competence to comment on their specifics.

But, I am not impressed by what it says: It is not written in the style of a serious scientist. I suspect that it is exagerated by someone who likely does not understand the subject. Overall, I am not positively impressed by the cited article.

Again, any serious study of cosmology will clearly show that there are major issues associated with the theory of the Big Bang thatneed to be resolved.

I will suggest that the major such issue, which is widely known by any serious student and one that has been widely taught is the following: The Big Bang requires somethng that initiated the Big Bang. Yet the theory itself does not provide an explaination for its initiation.

In a slightly different area of concern, here is a different quote from Greene"

. . . for the standard big bang to be consistent with observations, some mechanism--one that nobody could explain or identify--must have tuned the matter/energy density of the early universe extraordinarly close to the critical density.

[Bravus]

Thanks for the hint that led to some very fascinating research and reading, Lineman.

But I'm afraid rumours of the Big Bang theory's death are exaggerated. That article is from the perspective of a particular rival theory called 'plasma cosmology'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiplasma

It's well known but definitely a minority view: so while it's fair enough to say that people writing from within that perspective believe there are other explanations for the observed phenomena than the Big Bang, it's hardly correct to say that the Big Bang theory itself has been definitely debunked.

Who knows, with more study it may well turn out that plasma cosmology is correct and the standard model incorrect - that's the beauty of science. But one internet opinion piece doth not a scientific revolution make...

[Bravus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp

[Dr. Shane]

Discussions like this serve to reinforce the idea that these pseudo-scientific theories like the Big Bang and others should be taught in the philosophy classroom and not the science classroom. No one can prove how the universe started. It is educated guesswork at best. It is based upon which set of assumptions a person chooses to start out with.

[Bravus]

Nup, there's a lot more to it than that. A theory needs to explain all the observed data. The Big Bang theory does, but at the moment it needs some ad hoc-seeming tweaks like the existence of dark matter to make it all hang together. The plasma cosmology explains some but not all of the observations. They are competing theories, and this is science operating exactly as it should. As more observations come in, one or other theory will be debunked and the other will triumph, at least for the moment. The initial post Lineman quoted was an instance of premature celebration. But there is a lot more than basic assumptions - there is evidence and data.

[GreatLakesGramma]

I have a video called "A Scientist Looks at Creation". It is an illustrated, college-level lecture by a geologist who became convinced by his study that there has to be a God. It is very interesting.

One of the things he says is that the scientific evidence points shows that all matter in the universe came into existence in a single moment of time - the Big Bang. But he also explains that the laws of physics demand that in the very next moment of time, it would have all collapsed back into itself and ceased to exist. This is not inconsistent at all with Biblical creation. For the Bible states that at the time of creation, the matter with which God created our solar system, or perhaps our galaxy, was already there. He had already created it at some previous time.

Another thing the scientist pointed out in his lecture is that the methods scientists use to date matter don't tell the date of the object, only of the matter it was made of. His example: if he had some sheet metal that was 200,000,000 years old (I don't remember the exact time frame he used, so am substituting my own figure here), and he made a car out of it, then immediately dated the car by scientific methods, they would show that the car was 200,000,000 years old.

This all sounded very reasonable to me, as well as the rest of the things he said in the video.

[Gregory Matthews]

Discussions like this serve to reinforce the idea that these pseudo-scientific theories like the Big Bang and others should be taught in the philosophy classroom and not the science classroom. No one can prove how the universe started. It is educated guesswork at best. It is based upon which set of assumptions a person chooses to start out with.

Sorry Shane, but if you think the above, you do not understand scientific theory. A scientific theory remains tentative during the time that is lacks demonstratable evidence for some of its aspects. That is exactly what the Big Bang does. There are aspects of it that lack demonstrated evidence. No one who understands the Big Bang argues that it explains everything aspect of it.

[Gregory Matthews]

Grandma: Not quite accurate.

There are various dating methods. They differ in what they can do and what they can't.

The C-14 dating method, when used to date shellfish will give a date for the time when the shellfish died. Now, one could argue whether or not that was an accurate date. But, it is a date for the death of the shellfish.

Bravus, as I am going back in my memory to my reading of Libby about 46 years ago, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[Guest truthseeker007]

Heyy Lineman i know how much you like the universe. Walter Veith his first presentation of the genesis conflict series deals with the big bang theory, explaining that it is absolutely impossible that the big bang every existed.

Check out this link! Big Bang veith

[Guest truthseeker007]

every existed= ever took place

[Dr. Shane]

A theory needs to explain all the observed data. The Big Bang theory does, but at the moment it needs some ad hoc-seeming tweaks...

A theory is a theory is a theory is a theory. It is not hard, operational science. Hard operational science is measurable, repeatable and observable. Operational science is what gave us pasteurized milk, penicillin, electricity, steam engines, cell phones and put a man on the moon. Pseudo-science is the pondering of things that can never be proven or disproven. They are not testable. They are not measurable. They are not observable. No one can prove or disprove the Big Bang, Plasma Cosmology or the Bible. We would have to have a means to go back in time so we could observe and measure the processes taking place and even at that we probably wouldn't be able to repeat them.

[Lineman]

Doesn't the Big Bang Theory tell us that there had to have been matter (even though it was extremely dense) in existance already? If that is the case doesn't that go against what we know to be correct, that God created all that is seen out of NOTHING?

I understand that some are saying that when God spoke the universe into being there must have been a huge "big bang", but seriously, couldn't God have placed each and every sun/star and planet into it's perfect orbit, with some spinning in one direction and others spinning in the opposite direction, without there being a "Big Bang"?

What I think I am hearing here is that the reason this theory is still being taught in school is that there isn't another explaination out there that makes any more sense that the "Big Bang", which has it's own flaws. This seems to indicate that people will go to any lenghts to leave God out of the picture, or at least not give Him all of the credit for what He has done.

TS, thanks for all of these great video links you share with us. People make fun of those who believe in a God who can do the "impossible", but there are some who stand by what they know to be true even when some of the evidence seems to say otherwise.

[Bravus]

No, the Big Bang theory starts with nothing - no matter, no space, no time. A singularity forms out of nothing and explodes. That is consistent with the idea of God starting the universe out of nothing. But yes, there are a number of methods or mechanisms God could have used. He could have created the universe exactly as it is today, though of course we know it is all in a state of movement, not stationary - the stars look different to us than they did to King David.

[olger]

Discussions like this serve to reinforce the idea that these pseudo-scientific theories like the Big Bang and others should be taught in the philosophy classroom and not the science classroom. No one can prove how the universe started. It is educated guesswork at best. It is based upon which set of assumptions a person chooses to start out with.

Excellent, Sir Shane.

Darwin walked away from the God of Jonathan Edwards and ended up in the arms of naturalism. Those who walk in faith away from the false religion of naturalism will end up in the arms of God.

oG