Big Bang Theory gets another serious hit

Gumtree

Profile

Memberlist

FAQ

Big Bang Theory gets another serious hit

Gumtree Forum Index -> Community

Report this post for review by Gumtree admin

Author

Message

ThePenguin

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 5541

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: Big Bang Theory gets another serious hit

For all those faithful devotees of theories that contradict evidence, yet are pushed as being "fact" by a noisy bunch claiming consensus (which is unscientific to begin with). http://www.forbes.com/businesswire/feeds/businesswire/2008/06/12/businesswire20080612006206r1.html?partner=moreover

gummyrooster

Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 2804
Location: The Big Smoke

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:22 am Post subject:

so you believe Noah's ark as a more creditable theory?

Ice-ikle-pops

Joined: 03 Jun 2008
Posts: 1194

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:29 am Post subject:

its a THEORY thats all! you use it, and its evidence to come to your own conclusions!! anyway, we will find out what the hell happened soon enough.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17399245/ science totally gets in the way of a good rant eh!

ThePenguin

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 5541

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:34 am Post subject:

gummyrooster wrote:

so you believe Noah's ark as a more creditable theory?

There's nothing that wrong with Noah's Ark story, which was obviously a mythologising of a real event; a group of people who survived with a large number of animals and plants, hoping to start again at a later date. Stories of massive cataclysms are common worldwide, and there seems to be plenty of evidence that such huge disasters occurred that 99% (or more) of the human race were wiped out. In Chinese texts going back to 3300BC they write of enormous super tsunamis flooding the land, and similar stories are found everywhere. There are at least two times that I know of where the human race was reduced to mere thousands of people on the entire planet, around 25,000 years ago and 74,000 years ago.

Now, stick with the subject - that silly theory about the Big Bang, which ignores the lack of any evidence of the Higgs Boson. An absolutely critical particle that is vital to the entire theory, but which can't be found.

ThePenguin

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 5541

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:37 am Post subject:

Ice-ikle-pops wrote:

its a THEORY thats all! you use it, and its evidence to come to your own conclusions!! anyway, we will find out what the hell happened soon enough....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17399245/
science totally gets in the way of a good rant eh! Laughing

Probably won't prove what they want it prove, but someone will at least get paid lots of money trying.

30 big problems with the Big Bang THEORY

gummyrooster

Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 2804
Location: The Big Smoke

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:40 am Post subject:

ThePenguin wrote:

gummyrooster wrote:

so you believe Noah's ark as a more creditable theory?

Why don't you post alternative theories then? what's your alternative theory of how life began?

Ice-ikle-pops

Joined: 03 Jun 2008
Posts: 1194

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:10 am Post subject:

ThePenguin wrote:

Ice-ikle-pops wrote:

Probably won't prove what they want it prove, but someone will at least get paid lots of money trying.

30 big problems with the Big Bang THEORY

thats the point of science chuck...remove the variables. this one particular experiment does not have to prove anything, its just has to disprove something, therefore removing a variable. science is awesome.

ThePenguin

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 5541

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:22 am Post subject:

Ice-ikle-pops wrote:

ThePenguin wrote:

Ice-ikle-pops wrote:

Probably won't prove what they want it prove, but someone will at least get paid lots of money trying.

30 big problems with the Big Bang THEORY

Actually, that's not the real problem.

With many of these, they have to find evidence of the Higgs Boson in particular....but, as has happened many times before when no evidence of it can be found, the believers say "Oh, we just need a bigger collider and a lot more money - please give us some". The wall keeps being pushed further and further back, the goal posts being moved, but ....always nothing.

Science can be as filled with mad fools wanting to spend loads of other people's money as any other arena of life.

Ice-ikle-pops

Joined: 03 Jun 2008
Posts: 1194

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:32 am Post subject:

ThePenguin wrote:

Ice-ikle-pops wrote:

ThePenguin wrote:

Ice-ikle-pops wrote:

Probably won't prove what they want it prove, but someone will at least get paid lots of money trying.

30 big problems with the Big Bang THEORY

This attitude can be apportioned to any field of existance. The point of the matter is that they are trying to prove something. So far, the majority, not all, of the proof lies in the big bang theory. Your post has highlighted that now there is another branch of science who will be demanding money to disprove the theory that so far has seemed to be the most plauseable. Im all about the science, I believe the no matter what the answers, they are in fact...answers, and therefore are the most significant thing we have to explain the existance of everything on the planet. They are not speculation nor blind beliefs. But I am also aware that, no matter what we discover, it is only a human interpretation of the evidence that has been presented to us. No matter what it is we believe to be looking for, surely that warrants more money spent on it, than providing people with the means to destroy any evidence that may potentially exist. Whatever your belief, you should have all the facts before resigning yourself to one particular reasoning.

ThePenguin

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 5541

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:44 am Post subject:

Ice-ikle-pops wrote:

No, the "majority of proof" does not lie in the Big Bang Theory - it doesn't have enough real evidence, and all of the assumptions that such evidence is based on are questionable.

I wrote the following before in answer to a question from Ceejayo.

Let's see if you know enough to even understand the problems being mentioned here. They are only the beginning.

30 big problems with the Big Bang Theory
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

The most critical that stand out to me are the following;

The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

The average speed of galaxies through space is a well-measured quantity. At those speeds, galaxies would require roughly the age of the universe to assemble into the largest structures (superclusters and walls) we see in space [[17]], and to clear all the voids between galaxy walls. But this assumes that the initial directions of motion are special, e.g., directed away from the centers of voids. To get around this problem, one must propose that galaxy speeds were initially much higher and have slowed due to some sort of “viscosity” of space. To form these structures by building up the needed motions through gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of 100 billion years. [[18]]

The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

According to the Big Bang theory, a quasar at a redshift of 1 is roughly ten times as far away as one at a redshift of 0.1. (The redshift-distance relation is not quite linear, but this is a fair approximation.) If the two quasars were intrinsically similar, the high redshift one would be about 100 times fainter because of the inverse square law. But it is, on average, of comparable apparent brightness. This must be explained as quasars “evolving” their intrinsic properties so that they get smaller and fainter as the universe evolves. That way, the quasar at redshift 1 can be intrinsically 100 times brighter than the one at 0.1, explaining why they appear (on average) to be comparably bright. It isn’t as if the Big Bang has a reason why quasars should evolve in just this magical way. But that is required to explain the observations using the Big Bang interpretation of the redshift of quasars as a measure of cosmological distance. See [[19],[20]].

By contrast, the relation between apparent magnitude and distance for quasars is a simple, inverse-square law in alternative cosmologies. In [20], Arp shows great quantities of evidence that large quasar redshifts are a combination of a cosmological factor and an intrinsic factor, with the latter dominant in most cases. Most large quasar redshifts (e.g., z > 1) therefore have little correlation with distance. A grouping of 11 quasars close to NGC 1068, having nominal ejection patterns correlated with galaxy rotation, provides further strong evidence that quasar redshifts are intrinsic. [[21]]

The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

Even though the data have been stretched in the direction toward resolving this since the “top ten” list first appeared, the error bars on the Hubble age of the universe (12±2 Gyr) still do not quite overlap the error bars on the oldest globular clusters (16±2 Gyr). Astronomers have studied this for the past decade, but resist the “observational error” explanation because that would almost certainly push the Hubble age older (as Sandage has been arguing for years), which creates several new problems for the Big Bang. In other words, the cure is worse than the illness for the theory. In fact, a new, relatively bias-free observational technique has gone the opposite way, lowering the Hubble age estimate to 10 Gyr, making the discrepancy worse again. [[22],[23]]

RELATED TO THIS IS;
The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.

The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be “primitive”, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest” quasars and galaxies. [[31],[32],[33]] Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be the “dark age” of evolution of the universe, when the light of the few primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds. [[34]]

Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this invisible, not-yet-detected “dark matter” to keep the theory viable. Overall, over 90% of the universe must be made of something we have never detected. By contrast, Milgrom’s model (the alternative to “dark matter”) provides a one-parameter explanation that works at all scales and requires no “dark matter” to exist at any scale. (I exclude the additional 50%-100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by, e.g., MACHO studies.) Some physicists don’t like modifying the law of gravity in this way, but a finite range for natural forces is a logical necessity (not just theory) spoken of since the 17th century. [[29],[30]]

Milgrom’s model requires nothing more than that. Milgrom’s is an operational model rather than one based on fundamentals. But it is consistent with more complete models invoking a finite range for gravity. So Milgrom’s model provides a basis to eliminate the need for “dark matter” in the universe at any scale. This represents one more Big Bang “fudge factor” no longer needed.

Ice-ikle-pops wrote:

Your post has highlighted that now there is another branch of science who will be demanding money to disprove the theory ....

No, you got it WRONG again. Completely WRONG in this particular case, because it's not the doubters are demanding money, it's the believers, who are unable to "prove" the existence of the Higgs Boson.

That's why the theory is not plausible. I notice that you completely ignored the points made by the writer in the very first link.

As wel not dealing at all with any of the other points made. You have entirely a faith-based argument.

ThePenguin

Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 5541

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:01 am Post subject: Re: Big Bang Theory gets another serious hit

ThePenguin wrote:

For all those faithful devotees of theories that contradict evidence, yet are pushed as being "fact" by a noisy bunch claiming consensus (which is unscientific to begin with).
http://www.forbes.com/businesswire/feeds/businesswire/2008/06/12/businesswire20080612006206r1.html?partner=moreover

Forbes removed the page (that was a fast backpedal on their part), but I've found other copies of the original article here;
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080612006206&newsLang=en

Freshia

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Posts: 239

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:27 am Post subject:

ThePenguin wrote:

Ice-ikle-pops wrote:

Probably won't prove what they want it prove, but someone will at least get paid lots of money trying.

30 big problems with the Big Bang THEORY

Great post great link Wink

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 13169

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:30 am Post subject:

Freshia wrote:

ThePenguin wrote:

Ice-ikle-pops wrote:

Probably won't prove what they want it prove, but someone will at least get paid lots of money trying.

30 big problems with the Big Bang THEORY

Great post great link Wink

and who might you be then our little imposter

too scared to use a real login so you pretend to be someone else

Display posts from previous:

	Gumtree Forum Index -> Community	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Forum Terms & Conditions