A few simple objections to the BBT

savster · Jan 22, 2006

1) If almost 90% to 99% of the matter in the universe is "dark matter", where is it? Where is all the missing mass? It has never been credibly found so far (and probably never will be). This is a massive problem with the BBT (pun intended) that cannot be ignored. 2) Why the age discrepency between globular clusters and the "age of the universe"? Clusters that seem to be older than the universe in which they reside?? Say what? No simple or credible explanation exists for this in the BBT. 3) The BBT requires the universe to be smooth at large scales, but that's not what's being found. The universe appears to be quite clumpy. And then there's the "Great Wall" out there. How does the BBT explain that? That's only some of the objections to the BBT that I could think of right now off the top of my head. But in general, I think the BBT has more "epicycles" than Ptolemy's old theory and it desperately needs Occam's Razor.

nacnud · Jan 22, 2006

The dark matter and globular cluster 'problems' are discused by wikipedia Globular cluster age In the mid-1990s, observations of globular clusters appeared to be inconsistent with the Big Bang. Computer simulations that matched the observations of the stellar populations of globular clusters suggested that they were about 15 billion years old, which conflicted with the 13.7-billion-year age of the Universe. This issue was generally resolved in the late 1990s when new computer simulations, which included the effects of mass loss due to stellar winds, indicated a much younger age for globular clusters. There still remain some questions as to how accurately the ages of the clusters are measured, but it is clear that these objects are some of the oldest in the Universe. Dark matter During the 1970s and 1980s various observations (notably of galactic rotation curves) showed that there was not sufficient visible matter in the Universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies. This led to the idea that up to 90% of the matter in the Universe is not normal or baryonic matter but rather dark matter. In addition, assuming that the Universe was mostly normal matter led to predictions that were strongly inconsistent with observations. In particular, the Universe is far less lumpy and contains far less deuterium than can be accounted for without dark matter. While dark matter was initially controversial, it is now a widely accepted part of standard cosmology due to observations of the anisotropies in the CMB, galaxy cluster velocity dispersions, large-scale structure distributions, gravitational lensing studies, and x-ray measurements from galaxy clusters. Dark matter has only been detected through its gravitational signature; no particles that might make it up have yet been observed in laboratories

bonzelite · Jan 22, 2006

+1 as well, the BB implies a change of state of infinity, which is impossible. you have an infinite coordinate density state expanding --which is not possible-- to become a finite state of expansion that must violate c in it's first moments of such an expansion --to only then arrive at a closed state. where did the infinity go? to la la land? and sacred "c"? how about that? you can violate that to fudge-factor your way to accepting it? there is also never an explanation given for the impetus for such an explosion of an infinite density. such a state is stable and indivisible and removed from all laws of the universe. but the theoreticians who preside over this idea fight tooth and nail to preserve it when it fails to pass muster when challenged with simple questions. yet an entire schema and culture and paradigm for modern cosmology is based upon this religious fallacy.

nacnud · Jan 22, 2006

Simple questions, simple answers, [T]hat must violate c in it's first moments of such an expansion... No physical object breaks the speed of light in the inflation theory, space itself expands. [T]here is also never an explanation given for the impetus for such an explosion of an infinite density. Yep there are some things that are still unknown, shock! Solve that, prove it and a first class ticket to Sweden is yours!

harmonicaman · Jan 22, 2006

"Yep there are some things that are still unknown..." I think it's OK that we don't know everything, I'm comfortable with that. With BB theory, we obviously understand less about it than we think we do... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

bonzelite · Jan 22, 2006

Yep there are some things that are still unknown yes of course; well agreed. and BB theory is beyond even that. it is not even unknown. it is completely theoretical to the point of being untestable, unprovable, and entirely contrived from contradictory premises. it is one the most soundless ideas for creation i've seen so accepted by experts on a widespread scale --all who swear on their mother's grave by it.

Saiph · Jan 22, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />untestable, unprovable, and entirely contrived from contradictory premises.<hr /></blockquote> Sorry, I disagree. It has made many predictions that have been found accurate. If they were innaccurate, the BB would have had severe problems (CMBR for instance supports BB, it's absence would be severe). Light metal ratios and early nucleosynthesis simulations also support BB (no other theory can produce the correct metal content for the universe using very, very well understood nuclear physics). There is a redshift to distance relationship, and no other theory does a very good job of explaining why. As for contradictory premsis...please, elaborate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Jan 22, 2006

i already elaborated. infinite density is a stable state. there is no reason for this to explode. and were it to explode and change state, it would render another infinite state, staying the same. in my opinion, this is a primary and severe problem. moreover, the BB is untestable and unprovable. it can only forever remain a theory. it can never be proven. the BB cannot be approximated in a lab because it's premise for origin is untenable. a pre-BB singularity dimension cannot be created in a lab. the BB does not provide proof of itself in observed metal content. explain to me why you think it does, and i will offer debate <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

savster · Jan 23, 2006

"Dark matter has only been detected through its gravitational signature; no particles that might make it up have yet been observed in laboratories. However, there are many particle physics candidates for dark matter, and several projects to detect them are underway. " How do we know that the velocities of the stars around the outer part of the galaxy are due to gravity alone? That's just an assumption. The fact is that we DON'T know. Some "candidates" for dark matter? Give me a break! The "missing mass" is a BIG problem especially when it's supposed to be 90% or more of the mass out there. That's a BIG show stopper right there. That is, unless you have a "religious" belief in the BBT. The problem with the BBT is that it has never made any really accurate predictions. What has happened is that predictions were made, and when observations contradicted the BBT at the time, new mathematical fudge factors were introduced AFTER the observation to make it square with the theory. But really, I'm not worried about the tenaciousness with which the BBT is held dear to many cosmologists' hearts. It will eventually fall down due to its own contradictions.

yevaud · Jan 23, 2006

The problem with the BBT is that it has never made any really accurate predictions. So wrong. Unification of forces were predicted at sufficiently high temperatures, and they've been seen in more than a few collider experiments. The model shows that at high enough temperatures, particle/anti-particle pairs will be produced. Ever heard of anti-matter? There's a few micrograms produced in this fashion, contained even as we speak in several laboratories around the world. The CMB (Cosmic Background Radiation) was predicted and, although slightly off from the predictions, was indeed detected, right up to this day. Google "COBE." Good God. Don't you people actually read any science at all? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Jan 23, 2006

Try reading something such as this first <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

savster · Jan 23, 2006

"...space itself expands." How does space itself "expand"? Just exactly what is meant by a statement like that? Space is space. Three meters is three meters no matter where you make the measurement - on earth or in orbit or on the moon, it's still the same.

najab · Jan 23, 2006

>Three meters is three meters no matter where you make the measurement...True - but that doesn't mean that they are the same length....

bonzelite · Jan 23, 2006

at least the paper admits that much of the theory is untestable. most of the article portrays the particle physics involved in the theory as nearly purely of fantasy. it does more to dissuade me than to convince me, as the author's tone is largley cautiously speculative.

nacnud · Jan 23, 2006

[The big bang] can only forever remain a theory. It can never be proven. Of course it can never be proven, out side of maths you can only prove a negative. The big bang will only ever be a theory untill evidence is found that it is totaly wrong. So far this has not happened, there is still more evidence in favour of the big bang than there is against it. This is an example of Falsifiability [wikipedia.com] Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be at least in principle possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow. A falsifiable theory must make a statement concerning what is, or will be, forbidden. Falsificationists claim that any theory that is not falsifiable is unscientific.

bonzelite · Jan 23, 2006

i said the bb cannot ever be proven. and it cannot be because the idea of it is an abstract fantasy. framed in this way, there is no evidence for it's happening. extant evidence for it's occurrence is false right away: -an infinite state is stable and will not explode. -moreover, infinite gravitational attraction of infinite density and mass cannot be overcome to explode. -theoretically allowing for an indivisible state of infiniteness to explode, it will immediately become expanded back to it's stability of infinity as it reaches escape velocity from itself. this will require total violation of c, as the entire mass of the universe would instantly explode 'back" into infinity. -before some of these issues are considered, there is not any opportunity to seriously consider missing mass, CBR, doppler redshift, anything that has anything to do with proving the BB. because none of it is evidence. -even if the singular point exploded and expanded as is commonly thought, observation does not jibe with theory. and we are back to missing mass/dark matter again. and this is not observed to exist and is untestable to exist. -a uniform CBR requires violation of c in the beginning moments of the BB and this violates relativity and all known laws of physics.

nacnud · Jan 23, 2006

Thats why the big bang only is valid back down to the Plank time of 10-43s after the universe began. Before that no known physics works, this is also where you run into all your infinities. This is a well known problem. The big bang theory was developed to account for the red shift of stars and galaxies. It also acounts for the cosmic microwave background radiation and the ratio of elements, these discoveries came later. The big bang is an attempt to understand the universe at an early time using current observations, it works from now backwards. That it seems to work succesfuly untill the Plank time limit is remarkable. The fact that it breaks down on scales where the phyiscs are still unknown is not supprising. You seem to want to start with the unknowns and work from there. The singularity you mention isn't part of the big bang it is an assumption that fills in the gap before the plank time. There are lots of other possible assumptions as well. As for the inflation aspect of the big bang I'll state again that no physical object breaks the local speed of light. It is space itself that expands. Relativity is not violated as this applyed to objects in space and to space time.

savster · Jan 23, 2006

Well, stevehw33, maybe I'm not a heavy-weight in advanced astrophysics (are you?), but there ARE expert heavy-weight astronomers who disagree with the BBT. What are you going to say to them? The contrarians are people like Fred Hoyle, Hannes Alfven, Halton Arp, Eric Lerner just to name a few. You can't just brush them off with, "Oh, you don't know astrophysics, you're just ignorant and dumb!" As far as my personal qualifications in the field, I know basic physics and basic electrical concepts. I have followed the fields of astronomy and cosmology as an amateur for almost thirty years. I know basic calculus and differential equations. I have seen Friedman's equation - it's rudimentary form is just an ordinary algebraic equation with a lot of assumptions thrown in about the nature of the universe in general. The omega factor is a fudge if I ever saw one, lol. I don't expect a theory to explain everything, I just expect it to at least square with observation without having to fudge and "reach" for explanations. Ptolemy's epicycles explained the retrograde motions of the planets in the sky, but it was still a kludge. The BBT comes up with a lot of strange stuff to explain the things we see out there like the "expansion of space", the "infinite density" of the universe if it and everything in it were shrunk down to the size of a pinhole. (Of course the phrase "the universe and everything in it" is a sort of logical tautology.) In the near future, I'll write an interesting post/essay on the history of cosmology. But I'm starting to ramble on here. Forgive me, I'm tired - it's been a long day at work.

bonzelite · Jan 23, 2006

BB cannot be validated. BB cannot be valid back to 10-43s because the premise for the BB is untenable, untestable, theoretical, unverifiable, and logically impossible, and made up. there is no definitive evidence of it's happening that is observed. it is a weak theory whose supporters are unaccountable for it's beginning. and when confronted, a boilerplate standard canned retort of "we are not responsible because our physics break down beyond that" is provided and the theory is then validated. and this ethic has become allowable. explanations abound for observed phenomena but are discounted in favor of only BB, a mathematical contrivance with no bearing on reality. what are some other assumptions of it's origins before the Plank time? please elaborate for continued dialogue.

kmarinas86 · Jan 23, 2006

This is an example of Falsifiability [wikipedia.com] Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be at least in principle possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow. A falsifiable theory must make a statement concerning what is, or will be, forbidden. Falsificationists claim that any theory that is not falsifiable is unscientific. I edit this page adding the sentence: "A falsifiable theory must make a statement concerning what is, or will be, forbidden." Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falsifiability&action=history There are multiple ideas regarding the big bang itself. All of these ideas share common premises: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang As it stands today, the Big Bang is dependent on three assumptions: The universality of physical laws The cosmological principle The Copernican principle Rephrase these three assumptions: 1. Physical relationships are universal, but the values of particulars vary. 2. On large scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. 3. Our observation base is nothing special If the cosmological principle is dispensed with, we are left with a fractal universe.

nacnud · Jan 23, 2006

I'm sorry Kmarinas, I've never understood your ideas of the universe byond that you support some sort of steady state moddle. That is the only way for the material universe to be eternal: that radiation from matter is converted back into mass. Or the universe could just end in heat death.

bonzelite · Jan 23, 2006

As it stands today, the Big Bang is dependent on three assumptions: The universality of physical laws The cosmological principle The Copernican principle Rephrase these three assumptions: 1. Physical relationships are universal, but the values of particulars vary. 2. On large scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. 3. Our observation base is nothing special bb is based on one assumption: spontaneous explosion of a stable infinite density of mass and infinite gravitational attraction. this cannot be tested or proven and is dimensionally theoretical and based in pure conjecture. subsequent theories to this premise are further removed from serious consideration. extrapolations down to the briefest moments before the explosion are purely theoretical and are not factual.

nacnud · Jan 23, 2006

I think you need to sort out your assumptions from your predictions mate. You've picked on the one part of Kmarinas post that is generaly accepted.

kmarinas86 · Jan 23, 2006

this cannot be tested or proven and is dimensionally theoretical and based in pure conjecture. subsequent theories to this premise are further removed from serious consideration. extrapolations down to the briefest moments before the explosion are purely theoretical and are not factual. And yet we can prove that water is H20. We can prove that Helium is a Noble Gas. Science can actually prove things (conditionally), despite claims that it cannot prove anything. However, any sort of ultimatums about the past are unscientific. They are no more credible than the opinions established by the judicial system. The judicial system uses technology and search methods to support a case. But the conclusions, since they making claims about a no longer existing event, are more suspectible to failure. More is left to "chance" the deeper in history you go. Ultimatums about present material things are more likely to be scientific, pratical, and reliable. You can have control settings in the present, but not in the past, because being in the past is physically impossible. Therefore, it is impossible to do science before the present. The plausibility of a theory determines it's simplicity or elegance. In fact, these words could be used interchangably with little difference in the point, for those who realize the similarity between them. The origin of the universe cannot be proven scientifically. You may have theories made plausible due to the consistency it has with data. However, the theories are ideas, they are "ideal", in the sense that they are used to explain something that happens in the past (an event which does not exist anymore). The structure of the universe can be proven scientifically (with the same rigor that has proven the periodic table of elements), since the future has access to this structure. The present and future do not have access to the past. The present and future have acc

bonzelite · Jan 24, 2006

The structure of the universe can be proven scientifically (with the same rigor that has proven the periodic table of elements), since the future has access to this structure. The present and future do not have access to the past. The present and future have access to the light which exists and will exist. structure of the universe is presently unknown. origin of the universe is unknown. extrapolation of theoretical origins for cosmos is half-scientific, half mathematical conjecture and fantasy.

A few simple objections to the BBT

savster

Guest

nacnud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nacnud

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

savster

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

savster

Guest

najab

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nacnud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nacnud

Guest

savster

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

nacnud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

nacnud

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page