Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 80
  1. #1
    Steve Hutchison's Avatar
    Steve Hutchison Guest

    Default The big bang theory



    Hi all,

    I want to know what you all think about the big bang theory. Am I one of
    the few that find it so incredulous and absurd or has science finally caught
    up with common sense?
    I'm just a layman and know very little about the technical stuff, but this
    is how I see it:

    For starters the theory is based upon all of the matter and energy in the
    universe being compacted into something the size of a golf ball (I think
    that was the size of the ball but it may have been theorised to be smaller)
    and then exploding / expanding outwards. The universe is still expanding
    right, so that kind of fits, or does it?
    I'll say this: If the universe was stagnant in size then it would be cause
    for some concern. All this spinning and rotating of atoms, planets, solar
    systems, galaxies and yes universes (plural), would surely create either
    expansion or contraction. The fact that our universe is expanding doesn't
    add any weight of evidence to the big bang theory in my opinion.

    Lets look at another factor that decries the liklihood of this theory:
    Many galaxies have formed billions of years ago, yet sometimes adjacent to
    those are newly forming galaxies. How does that work? I realise there's
    vast distances between them, but how is it that some galaxies much further
    out from the supposed central point of the big bang have already formed long
    ago and closer ones are just in the process now? Seems a little unlikely
    yes?
    I realise that no one has yet determined this so called focal point, but
    there are theories indicating direction. It's not really that hard to work
    out. It's like a crime scene with blood spatter. You can find the focal
    point by extrapolation and a little detective work, but hey that still
    doesn't mean that there ever was a focal point. What is known is that the
    universe is expanding, but there's lots of factors that could cause this.

    One of my biggest issues with the theory, is this little golf ball holding
    all the energy and matter within the universe. It's simply not realistic.
    How did anyone ever come up with such a ridiculous idea?

    I still remember being in primary school and being told that the fastest
    particles in the universe are photons. It seemed unlikely to me even as a
    kid. Photons are one of the most easily detectable particles and it figured
    there would be undiscovered particles that were far more difficult to
    detect, so what made scientists so sure that some of those wouldn't be
    faster? I believe they have indeed discovered faster particles now, but I
    think to myself why would these idiots they call scientists have considered
    such an absurd idea to be so likely?
    Sure it was possible, but we're talking using common sense and logical
    reasoning here. Something educated people should be skilled at.

    I remember seeing an astronomy documentary not so long ago that showed the
    curvature of light around areas of intense gravity. It was quite
    fascinating. Then they went on to say that there had to be a certain amount
    of mass in the universe for anomolies like this to occur and stated there
    wasn't enough detectable mass in this universe, therefore there had to be
    far more dark mass (mass that we can't yet detect). They also figured that
    with too little mass light would have to bend the other way.
    What!!! That's absolute rubbish!!!
    If the universe was totally devoid of mass and energy, then it would simply
    be a vacuum and light would travel in a straight line. Makes sense right?
    So if there's less mass than expected it would for the most part be doing
    exactly that. There wouldn't be any bending of the light in the opposite
    direction. Hey even a layman like me can work that out.

    They then proceeded to pose all sorts of additional theories based upon the
    big bang. So you've got an unproven theory which is dubious at best and
    then all these so called educated people proposing their own theories on top
    of something that has virtually no scientific basis.
    They're not religious people espousing the dogma of their church. They're
    supposed to be scientists.

    My own theory, is that there are lots of universes and they didn't all start
    from the one focal point (in fact none of them did). I realise that uni
    means one, so you can call what is currently known as the universe something
    else if you like. The point being, why would we think there's only one
    cluster of galaxies (the universe). There might be a billion clusters of
    galaxies (call it the polyverse if you like) and there might be a trillion
    clusters of those (call it the multi-polyverse ) and so on. We don't know
    that it's not true and there's no evidence to disprove it. It wasn't so
    long ago that all we could detect was our own galaxy. Most people didn't
    realise that we were just observing, with the naked eye, one edge of our own
    galaxy.
    Technology has now shown us far more of our universe and we "may" even
    have discovered the edge (probably not).

    Note that I didn't use the word multiverse. That's already being bandied
    around as a description of multiple dimensions of universes occupying the
    same space. Now I do see some merit in that theory, but admittedly it's a
    little out there for scientists. Interesting however and I'll be keeping
    track of that one.

    This is a bit off topic, but once I even saw a documentary where a dinosaur
    expert (paleantologist I think is the correct term???) proposed that the
    Tyrannosaurus Rex would have died if it ever fell over. Huh???
    He stated that due to its large body mass and lower limbs, compared to its
    upper limbs, that it wouldn' be able to right itself. That's a totally
    absurd statement for someone who should be an expert in his field. How
    would a species ever thrive with such a seriously flawed structure? It's
    statements like those that make me think half the scientists are braindead
    idiots.
    Anyhow, the point I wanted to get to, is that I feel the same way about the
    guy whom proposed the big bang theory. That scientist is a fool and all the
    rest that base their own theories upon it are even bigger fools.


    Regards - Steve







  2. #2
    Bill Sheppard's Avatar
    Bill Sheppard Guest

    Default The big bang theory

    From Steve H.:


    Dude, before you critcize it you need to be able to come up with an
    alternate hypothesis. Take for instance the deuterium enigma. How do you
    explain the presence of deuterium in the universe, considering that it
    cannot be formed in normal stellar processes? Deuterium was not formed
    in stars, yet it exists, and its presence is consistent with a superhot
    'genesis event'. See-
    http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html

    If you can propose a better explanation for the presence of deuterium
    (and the genesis of the light elememts), then you can throw stones at
    the BB model. Do a Google under 'Big Bang Nucleosynthesis' and 'Evidence
    for the Big Bang' and then do a point-by-point refutation of the
    evidence. oc


  3. #3
    Steve Hutchison's Avatar
    Steve Hutchison Guest

    Default The big bang theory


    "Bill Sheppard" <oldcoot@webtv.net> wrote in message
    news:9617-426BC7E7-350@storefull-3177.bay.webtv.net...

    Love to help you out there, but I have insufficient knowledge to refute the
    more technical aspects. All I ask is that you think about the theory a bit.
    "If" there is deutrerium in the universe then perhaps it arrived there by
    some other means. It doesn't mean that because you are unable to explain
    how a composite was formed, that therefore the big bang occured. You're
    just another follower whom takes everything that sounds feasible to be true
    (and the big bang doesn't even sound feasible to someone who thinks about it
    sufficiently). It's like talking to a Christian whom absolutely insists
    that Mary was a virgin. It's a ridiculous statement, but they believe this
    via blind faith.
    It was also like talking to a scientist from a few hundred years ago that
    still went along with the flat Earth theory or that the Sun travels around
    the Earth.
    These ideas were all based on the sound scientific theory of the time, so
    telling me about deuterium is not going to change my mind one little bit.
    Come up with a valid scientific theory on how all the energy and matter of
    the universe was contained within a globe the size of a golf ball and then
    we're talking, however I know that you can't.

    How about this, tell me why all the energy and matter of the universe had to
    begin in the same location? Why can't it just be everywhere? Why does it
    all have to start from some focal point? The answer is that it doesn't.

    Want an alternate theory? How about this:
    I did hear of a theory once that actually sounded like it might have some
    merit. I don't know all the details and am unable to provide a technical
    explanation, but a scientist proposed that all galaxies were originally
    formed by what he called ether. You can call it whatever you like, it
    doesn't matter what it's called, but basically it fills the cosmos, is
    currently undetectable and begins to coalesce in hot spots. I saw a
    documentary once that talked about the universe having the equivalent of
    trenches (= hot spots) and I guess that's a reasonable semblance of what
    this scientist was talking about.
    Anyhow, the ether gradually gathers "in a manner" like mist tends to
    gather in our atmosphere which then eventually becomes raindrops (used as an
    analogy only and is not part of the theory).
    Eventually the ether becomes gaseous and then begins to form into matter.

    Can he or I prove any of it? The answer is no. I don't even know if I
    believe that, but it certainly has more merit as a theory than the
    ridiculous big bang.


    Regards - Steve



  4. #4
    Bill Sheppard's Avatar
    Bill Sheppard Guest

    Default The big bang theory

    Steve,
    Even though you don't believe in the BB, at least you
    haven't totally bought into the 'space-as-void' premise which currently
    is the bedrock axiom of science. Maybe there's hope for you yet.<g
    oc


  5. #5
    Bill Sheppard's Avatar
    Bill Sheppard Guest

    Default The big bang theory

    Hey Steverino,
    If it's any consolation, the idea of a singular or
    'one-shot' BB is just as reprehensible as the open-ended,
    ever-accelerating-expansion, entropic heat death model currently in
    vogue.
    Much more plausible and rational is a _continuously
    running_ closed loop process in which the central "Bang" point resides
    outside the sphere of our visible cosmos. Per the adage "a picture is
    worth a thousand words", here's the idea-
    http://community.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang

    You've acknowledged recognition of the spatial medium, tagging it with
    the name 'ether'. (That archaic term needs to be scrapped BTW, but
    that's another story.) In the above referanced model, it is the spatial
    medium, space itself, exploding forth from the 'Bang' point, undergoing
    accelerating expansion, decelerating expansion, contraction, and
    eventual dissolution back into the point from which it sprang.. to be
    rebirthed anew, again and again, ad infinitum. And at every stage,
    matter is simply being carried along for the ride, like a superfluous
    'dustbunny'.

    In the above referanced model, notice that our visible cosmos, the
    'known universe', is on the size scale of a marble embedded in a
    breakfast donut. Here within our 'marble', we see ample evidence that in
    our deep past, outside our range of vision, a superhot Genesis Event has
    occured, and call it the "big bang". Our marble having decoupled from
    that origin point, we interpret the bang as centerless, having happened
    "everywhere at once" since we see uniform distribution of galaxies from
    one side of the sky to the other.

    The size of our 'marble' since decoupling is determined by the finite
    speed of light.
    Notice also that two frames of referance are involved: the 'outside'
    frame that sees the entire Process from beginning to end at once, and
    the restricted 'inside' frame that senses only its singular 'bang' of
    genesis.
    oc


  6. #6
    Whisper's Avatar
    Whisper Guest

    Default The big bang theory

    Steve Hutchison wrote:



    Yes, the BB theory is the biggest load of cods of all time. Anyone who
    seriously believes it is an A-grade dickhead.


  7. #7
    Whisper's Avatar
    Whisper Guest

    Default The big bang theory

    Bill Sheppard wrote:



    No, he's right. BB theory is bollocks. Kindergarten stuff.


  8. #8
    Whisper's Avatar
    Whisper Guest

    Default The big bang theory

    Steve Hutchison wrote:



    Yes, well said.

    You're obviously a very 'switched on' individual. This ng needs more
    contributors like yourself - atm this ng is dominated by too many
    drug-crazed poets with over-inflated egos...

  9. #9
    Whisper's Avatar
    Whisper Guest

    Default The big bang theory

    nightbat wrote:



    Are you on medication? If so, please lurk & spare us your half-arsed
    insights.....

  10. #10
    Whisper's Avatar
    Whisper Guest

    Default The big bang theory

    G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:



    Maybe, but it's complete bollocks regardless....


 

 
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 02-12-2012, 06:26 AM
  2. If I don't understand Darwinian evolution theory or the Big Bang theory....?
    By .Q-Tip ('s back-up account!) in forum Astrophysics Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-13-2008, 10:50 AM
  3. big bang theory?
    By chica in forum Astrophysics Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-31-2008, 02:22 PM
  4. The big bang theory?
    By Roosh in forum Astrophysics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 04:47 AM
  5. The Steady State Theory vs The Big Bang Theory
    By revdanielizzo@yahoo.com in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-09-2004, 05:30 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin« Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin«
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:27 PM.