 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
|
|
|
To perform a search, click on ==> Search
 Is the Big Bang Theory
Wrong Perhaps?
by Nic Samojluk
I want to share with you some arguments by scientists who do not believe in the big Bang theory. I am not an expert in physics, which limits my understanding of everything presented in the website pages I will be including later on, but I jotted down a few reasons for rejecting the Big Bang theory I discovered from my reading:
1. The Big Bang theory of the universe is wrong because the cosmological red shift is due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect.
2. The red shift on the sun is obviously not Doppler since the sun is not moving away from us.
3. If the Compton effect causes the red shift, the universe is not expanding, but rather is "static".
4. The galaxies in this photo don't seem to be crowded closer together as one would expect if they were really so close to the big bang.
5. There are some very large chains of galaxies spread throughout the universe. It is believed these large structures, like the "great wall", would require many hundreds of billions of years to form.
6. Galactic redshift surveys show a regularity in the spacing of galaxies a quarter of the way to the time of the supposed big bang. This is totally different from a big bang expectation which would have them closer together as they get closer to the time of the big bang.
7. How do galaxies collide if they are flying away from each other?
8. Mature galaxies are found near the time of a supposed big bang that have not had enough time to develop.
There are many more reasons for rejecting the Big Bang model. Please, check the references I will be posting on this page. Here is the first.:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html#Author
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101structures.html
Is the big Bang Concept Flawed?
by Nic Samojluk
There are many ways of interpreting known scientific facts. Here are the comments of someone who has a different view of what appears to be evidence of an expanding universe:
|
|
"The observed redshift of galaxies is therefore not a consequence of space expansion but only of (intergalactic) distance and one should look for a physical effect that delivers this redshift rather than try to involve 'known' physics by bending the rules of logic and common sense ... The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because space can only be defined by the distance between two objects, which is however by definition always given by a straight line.
Mathematicians frequently try to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships. However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual (3-dimensional) space and one can in fact connect any two points on the surface of a physical object through a straight line by drilling through it."
|
Read more: The Big Bang -- A Flawed Concept
Other Reasons for Questioning the Big Bang
by Nic Samojluk
If you are interested in analyzing other reasons for rejecting the Big Bang theory as scientifically unsound, I suggest you read the following:
| Quote: |
|
In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang (BB) as a virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world, accepts big bang theory (BBT) as scientific fact.
Education establishments involved in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, theoretical physics and cosmology are dominated by those who have accepted BB as the theory to be pursued. Scientists who seriously question the BB are generally considered disruptive, ridiculed and derogatorily referred to as big bang bashers.
As a result of that attitude alternate cosmological possibilities are left uninvestigated. Untold man-hours and vast sums of money are spent in pursuit of data in support of the prevailing theory. Such endeavors are not in keeping with the ideals of impartial scientific investigation. It is all but forgotten that the BB is not fact, but an unproven theory.
|
The document is too long to reproduce here, and the scientific and logic reasons are too long to enumerate, but you can read them by clicking on the link listed below:
Read more: Big Bang Theory Under Fire
In Defense of the Big Bang
by an Anonymous SDA Forum Reader
I received the following links to documents intended to support the Big Bang theory and its related expansion of the universe concept from a friend of mine.
1. Expansion:
Tests of the Big Bang: Expansion
2. Light Elements:
Tests of the Big Bang: The Light Elements
3. Cosmic Microwave Background:
Tests of the Big Bang:Cosmic Microwave Background
This is was my reaction to the arguments prsented in favor of the Big Bang and the expansion theory of the universe:
| Quote: |
|
I read the content of those links. The argument in favor of the Big Bang theory is not water tight. There are other theories which are not based on the expansion of the universe connected with the Doppler effect. The Compton effect explains the same data, and it makes more sense to me. Thanks anyhow for the info!
|
You can read these documents and draw up your own conclusions!
More Reasons in Defense of the Big Bang
by an Anonymous SDA Forum Reader
I received another link from my friend in support of the Big Bang theory. I did examine it and responded with the answer I quote below.
Here is the link: How Did Structure Form in the Universe?
And here is my answer:
| Quote: |
|
Thank you for this link. I read the article. It is interesting. In it, the author states the following:
"In its simplest form, the Big Bang theory assumes that matter and radiation are uniformly distributed throughout the universe."
I disagree. If matter were uniformly distributed throughout the universe, we wouldn't have any galaxies, stars, and planets. I do not need a telescope to verify this.
Notice also that the writer uses quite frequently the following terms to describe his theories:
"perhaps"
"probably"
"suspect"
"speculate"
Such words indicate that this all science fiction instead of facts.
|
Additional Reasons for Questioning
the Big Bangby Nic Samojluk
And here are other reasons for which I question the validity of the Big Bang theory:
I believe that the Big Bang theory is not based on science, but rather philosophy. A valid scientific theory must be testable. If the universe originated from a single point the size of a dot which exploded and expanded into the present universe, and which is continuing to expand, then scientists should be able to test the reverse. If all the matter in the entire universe was once concentrated in a single point the size of a dot, and it expanded into all the galaxies, stars, and planets, then we should be able to reverse in a laboratory what toop place in nature.
Scientists tell us that following the initial explosion we had a gas that eventually cooled down and coalesced into chunks of matter. Then we should be able to take a large quantity of gas and compress it to the size of a dot. Do you believe that this can be done? What happens when you compress gas? You get a liquid. Can you take that liquit and reduce it to the size of a dot? Why don't the intelligent scientists who defend the theory of the Big Bang try this experiment? Because they know it can't be done! Liquid refuses to be compressed.
Do you think that the time will come when scientists will be able to take the moon, for example, and reduce it to the size of a dot? If that is too much asking, how about taking a huge boulder and reducing it to the size of a dot? If you ask a scientist, he will say: You can't test a singularity! I know you can't! This is precisely why I reject singularities. They are not testable, and if they are not testable, they are based on science fiction. They represent a philosophical construct.
And since we are talking about singularities, I would like to ask you: What is the diffrence between a singularity and a miracle? Actually they mean essentially the same: An event for which we do not have a scientific explanation. The only difference is that in the case of a miracle, we atribute the cause to a supernatural intelligent force, while a singularity is suppossed to be a natural event. This is the reason I elect to believe in a miracle as the cause of origins instead of a singularity.
Not Enough Time for the Big Bang
by Nic Samojluk
Some scientists have taken the trouble of calculating the time needed for accommodating the Big Bang theory, which is based on the constant expansion of the universe assumption, and they have concluded that there isn't enough time. Fourteen billion years is not enough!
| Quote: |
A cyclic universe, which bounces through a series of big bangs and "big crunches", could solve the puzzle of our cosmological constant, physicists suggest.
The cosmological constant represents the energy of empty space, and is thought to be the most likely explanation for the observed speeding up of the expansion of the universe. But its measured value is a googol (1 followed by 100 zeroes) times smaller than that predicted by particle physics theories. It is a discrepancy that gives cosmologists a real headache.
In the 1980s, physicists considered the possibility that an initially large cosmological constant could decay down to the value measured today. But this theory was abandoned when calculations showed that it would take far longer than 14 billion years – the time since the big bang – for the constant to reach the level seen today.
|
I have been saying this for a long time that the Big Bang is rather science fiction.
Read more:
1. 'Cyclic universe' can explain cosmological constant http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9114-cyclic-universe-can-explain-cosmological-constant.html
2. A Huge Big Bang or Many Smaller Bangs?
http://sdaforum.com/page48.html [Scroll down after linking to the page]
3. Big Bang or Big Myth?
http://sdaforum.com/page48 [Scroll down after linking to the page]
 Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.
|
|
| |
|
|
