| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - THE BIG BANG THEORY -> Big Bang? | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 1, 2002 Views: 3840 | Big Bang? It is only a theory, but it does match observations and I have yet to see a better one. |
| Posted By: Chris Posted On: May 1, 2002 Views: 3836 | RE: RE: Big Bang? You will not see a better theory! |
| Posted By: Jonathon Thomas Posted On: Jul 7, 2002 Views: 3813 | RE: Big Bang? I agree. As the author of this summary of 'The Big Bang Theory' stated, "The situation is such that any new theory, far from displacing the Big Bang, would have to incorporate it. In other words, it can only be improved upon in much the same way that Einstein incorporated Newton's theory of gravity into his own theory of relativity. Relativity did not overthrow Newton's theory, it incorporated and developed it." |
| Posted By: Russ Posted On: Jul 23, 2002 Views: 3800 | RE: Big Bang? All through history man has thought he had hard evidence that his theories were true but how many times has man proved himself wrong. There are some fundamental flaws in the big bang theory which is very close to being discredited. The only way the universe could possibly exist would be in an infinite state. Give me M theory anyday. To think of the universe as not being of infinite size is ludicrous in the extreme. Big Bang - Big Schmang! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 23, 2002 Views: 3798 | RE: Big Bang? Its true what you say about theories often being proved wrong. A theory is only a mathematical model used to explain observed phenomenon. The Big Bang may not yet be the ultimate theory, but it does explain many observed phenomenon better and more comprehensively than any other. M theory is indeed very interesting, and may explain the missing mass problem, but so far is only an alternative theory with no scientific evidence to support it. Maybe it will be accepted, maybe it will be proved wrong, but it has a long way to go before replacing the Big Bang theory. The fact that you consider an infinite universe more palatable than a finite one is a matter of your personal likes and dislikes, and does not go any way to justifing M theory. |
| Posted By: Ben Posted On: Jul 24, 2002 Views: 3793 | RE: Big Bang? i like what the guy above me said; as he said a theory is only a mathematical model used to explain observed phenomenae and that is true. So under this standard, could you even call the big bang, a theory? A lot of things in astrophysics is hog wash. The big bang is just a story; not a theory. That is simply because it does not possess any simple qualities of a theory. A theory is a mathematical and sometimes complexe explanation of an consistent observation; something the big bang lacks. If there was such overwhelming evidence that there was a big bang, why are they still putting in millions of dollars to find it? I assumed they already had enough. Obviously, when you dig around, whether or not it explains the most, or is simply the "best" in opinion, one would realize that the big bang does not deserve its title as a thoery and support which was just a bunch of herd mentality in the first place-with no hard evidence and only modified "proof" story telling. There are a lot of questions people have raised, and they are starting to take its toll on this "theory". I know it is not perfectly sound, but who said you'd have develop on it anyway other than someone who says it is the best!? That is not proof and nor is it scientifically reasonable enough for me, it should be scrapped quickly and we should use what we know. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 26, 2002 Views: 3789 | RE: Big Bang? The comments above from BEN include the phrases: "The Big Bang is just a story" "A lot of things in astrophysics is hog wash" "The Big Bang lacks scientific proof" "Just a bunch of herd mentality" "No hard evidence" "Not scientifically reasonable enough for me" "It should be scrapped quickly" Okay Ben, we can see where you are coming from, but how much proof do you need? The Big Bang theory is not complete, granted, (Can any theory claim that?) but at least it is entirely based on scientific observation and sound mathematics. It is not based on empty rhetoric and subjective opinion, it is based on known facts. Try reading the page again and if you find anything wrong with the facts that support the theory, then please share it with us. We eagerly await your reasons for why you think it is "just a story" without "scientific evidence". Or is it just that you don't like it? Keith. |
| Posted By: Ben Posted On: Jul 29, 2002 Views: 3781 | RE: Big Bang? Okay, since this message board so eagarly awaits my reply to the statement above I will give you what you want: a 5 formal paragraphy essay that demonstrates my reasoning behind my statement that the big bang is a story with no scientific proof. If the Big Bang is so correct you should have no problems dismissing the statements below We all know the Big Bang theory. The thought-to-be origin of the universe. However, is the Big Bang legitimate as a theory? Or is it the true origin of the universe. The Big Bang is just a story; being weakly supported by scientific evidence and is inconsistent with the scientific method. It depends on circular reasoning whereby only evidence that can be made to fit its predictions is allowed and observations that question its integrity ignored. Furthermore, the Big Bang lacks reasonable arguments, facts and observational evidence and thus leaves behind a long string of stories and explanations that have not been observed, but philosophized. Because of all of these important reasons, the Big Bang is lacking in either scientific evidence or the logic on which the modern scientific method is founded. Using fabricated stories and predictions to support itself, the Big Bang fails to demonstrate its viability as a theory. A theory must be based on modern scientific evidence and scientific methods to explain an observed phenomena. The Big Bang assumes much of the data without using scientific observations. The Big Bang dictates so many things ex: it began with so many photons, became a soup of quarks a fraction of a second later . . . How can one determine how the universe began in this way without knowing how it happened or what triggered the Big Bang? Big Bang cosmologists fabricated their own evidence when their observations failed to prove the Big Bang and their predictions. A great example of this is the lead and most important piece of observations considered by the majority of the scientific community, to be from the Big Bang: the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. It had long been predicted before it was detected and all of the cosmologists argued that had the Big bang existed, it would have been produced and it would be around the temperature of 15 to 50 kelvin. When it was finally detected, it was measured a mere 2.7 k., a five thousand fold difference from what they predicted. However, unlike what it significantly meant, was all melted away to victory for the Big Bang theory. Within a days notice the cosmologists modified their predictions, in turn fabricating new evidence to support their predictions and what would seem to be sophisticated calculations. However, unlike the Plasma Universe theory, the Big Bang has yet to prove that it originated exactly where the cosmologists wanted it to come from: the great Big Bang. In fact a Noble Prize winner Hannes Alfvén, predicted a concept that would deliver a huge blow to the Big Bang Theory: the continuous emission and absorption of electrons by the strong magnetic fields of galaxies and their intergalactic filaments. This concept is proven, however rejected by Big Bang cosmologists: it undermines all of their hard work and the Big Bang theory, which has overwhelming support, and says that the CMBR came from the Big Bang; so it must be wrong. The concept was proven by producing magnetohydrodynamic waves within a tank of mercury, which in turn produced microwave radiation via the production of an electrical current, by a mechanical motion created within the tank. This physical observation also demonstrates that it would be isotropic in all directions, and also match in its anisotropic micro-fluctuations in the observed cosmic structure. Alfvéns concept additionally would also perfectly match a black body curve. One should also notice that CMBR was not the specified temperature the cosmologists estimated they were, which indicates that the source of CMBR may not be what it would appear to be. The CMBR was also not fully examined to determine its origin/source if it lead elsewhere like Alfvéns theory demonstrated. One should also be aware of the Big Bangs other predictions that will probably never be proven with direct observation. An example is the suspension of the four major forces at the initial beginning of the Big Bang. This gives Cosmologists and the already battered theory protection from the obviousness that it could have never happened that way with those 4 forces involved. All of this demonstrates the use of fabricated stories and assumptions to support an idea. The Big Bang simply is based on very poor scientific evidence and as stated circular reasoning. Furthermore, the Big Bang Theory fails to examine or incorporate the existence of all observations, especially the ones that questions its integrity. Thus lacking the scientific method or scientific evidence to determine the events that take place in the theory and its existence. One observation that questions the legitimacy of the Big Bang is the discoveries of super-clusters of mammoth galaxies and voids in-between (the great wall of galaxies). This questions the current model of the temperatures of the universe and the events that formed galaxies. Yet another observational problem to the Big Bang, is the question of the age of the universe; especially using the current values of the Cepheid variables, and the Hubble constant-particularly in the discovery of the age of certain globular clusters that are much older than the universe, and the relation of the distances to other galaxies when the hubble constant is too high or low. Yet another observation dictating the need of change within the Big Bang theory is the consistent discoveries of super-clusters of galaxies. This counters the missing mass problem within the Big Bang, we can lower the amount of dark mater, especially if it turns out to be an insignificant number. Yet another observation/question: if the age of the universe was found otherwise due to recent discoveries, it may explain the hydrogen-helium ratio and other elemental abundances, which was supposably produced within the big bang. Thus the big bang does not consider important factors, and likewise my have important problems like the disprovement of its evidence which accords with the Big Bang theory. Obviously these observation were never accounted for in the Big Bang theory, which seems to not take seriously or even examines all observations. Thus it lacks scientific proof and method. Thus it is just a story with not all the scientific facts or observational evidence currently visible in the universe; it is just a plagued as other theories whether big bang supporters admit it or not, they just have a lot more herd mentality. Because the Big Bang lacks reasonable arguments, facts and observational evidence, all that remains of this theory are a bunch of stories and explanations that have not been observed, but have been philosophized. Theories lacking evidence or observation are not theories, but stories. Since they use explanations to account for phenomena instead of observational data and the scientific method. The Big Bang has reduced itself to a fabrication of proof-story telling (fairy tales and myths do the same). Because they have fabricated their own evidence and use superficial data to support theories, the theory lacks hard evidence and reason. The whole world can agree the big bang theory doesnt tell all the truth and it has its problems, but because of the way it was developed it should be scrapped. Observations alone should be the only way to formulate a theory, while the big bang uses circumstantial evidence and stories to explain itself. In fact the Big Bang was created to explain the beginning of the universe, not to account for universal scientific observations. That is what the world calls fairy tales, which are not true at all. So the Big Bang does lack reasonable arguments, facts and observational evidence and in doing so reduces it to pre-Galileo theories of frauds. Without doubt, the Big Bang is just a story without scientific evidence because: it fabricates stories and predictions/evidence to support itself. Using that the Theory does not use scientific evidence or the scientific method, used to show anythings legitimacy as a theory. Furthermore, the Big Bang Theory fails to examine and incorporate the existence of all observations; especially the ones that proves otherwise, thus it lacks the scientific method or scientific evidence and events of its existence; thus it is not scientifically proven On top of that the Big Bang Theory lacks reasonable arguments, facts and observational evidence, thus the remains of this theory are a bunch of stories and explanations that have not been observed, but have been philosophized. However, due to the herd mentality; everyone in support of the big bang will probably support it for a long time until the idea dies out. Herd mentality is an effect taken on when a popular idea is assumed to be correct, because of its quantity of support and not its legitimacy as a theory and law which is often in question. Okay, so now I have given my formal opinion, maybe you could point out all my errors in my thinking process. I do not oppose the Big Bang because it one of my dislikes as a theory, but because it isn't very well understood by everyone, including myself. Probably big bang supporters are a bit dubious of their preferred theory. |
| Posted By: Shane Posted On: Aug 14, 2002 Views: 3744 | RE: Big Bang? Can I get a dollar for everytime Ben reworded the same sentence in his "5 formal paragraphy essay?" Please? I could really use the money. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Aug 15, 2002 Views: 3741 | RE: Big Bang? I agree. Ben mentions that the Big Bang lacks experimental evidence at least a dozen times, but only comes up with a few, incorrect, arguments. Missing mass for example has nothing at all to do with the number of galaxies discovered, but how they rotate about their core, and does not contradict the BB theory. The age of the universe, using Hubble's constant, and Cepheid variables for measurement, has nothing to do with disproving the Big Bang, only a means of trying to get an accurate age for the universe. The argument that the cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted as being 15K+ and is in fact 2.7K is hardly reason to rubbish the theory. And how do you calculate that to be a 5000 fold difference? Also the existence of super clusters of galaxies and voids in between does not go against the BB theory either. As for the experiment producing magnetohydrodynamic waves within a tank of mercury, never heard of it, but would question the validity of the experiment in relation to the Big Bang. None of Ben's arguments disprove the BB theory, they only go to show that continuing research throws up more accurate information that adds to our knowledge. The BB theory is not complete, no theory is, but it has not shown to be wrong, and that is a huge difference. There are still questions to be answered, but that is the very nature of research. |
| Posted By: Katie Posted On: Oct 15, 2002 Views: 3655 | RE: Big Bang? The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and BANG! it happened. |
| Posted By: Brendan Posted On: Oct 21, 2002 Views: 3647 | RE: Big Bang? why would speaking lead to the creation of the universe? |
| Posted By: Katie Posted On: Oct 21, 2002 Views: 3644 | God = POWER God speaking and resulting in the creation of the universe is possible because God is all-powerful. God is...God, therefore, He can do anything, even create the universe. |
| Posted By: Oliver Wong Posted On: Oct 22, 2002 Views: 3638 | RE: Big Bang? Dear everyone who has written on this board, paticularly to the "boardmaster"...thank you for the interesting discussion started here. Well, personally, I'm not a 'science' person so I dont really know much about "Big Bang" and whether it's theory or not. Another thing is, I'd like to make clear that I'm a Christian who believes in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, and firmly hold on to the belief that God created the universe. I know there are Christians out there who believe that yes, God did _create_ the universe; but He also created it through "Big Bang". (An e.g. would be Katie...who posted messages before mine). I'm sorry to say that I dont believe God 'used' "Big Bang" to create the universe. My problem with accepting the "Big Bang" theory is not with the theory itself; rather, it's because the theory propagates a universe that's (about) 13 billion years old where the Bible stated a 6-day creation of the universe. Unless "Big Bang" tells a 6-day creation, I cannot agree with it. I dont want to be dogmatic (even though I might sound like one :) And well, yeah, I welcome comments (if there're any...). |
| Posted By: Oliver Wong Posted On: Oct 22, 2002 Views: 3637 | RE: To Katie Hi Katie, I'm sorry if I've assumed _wrongly_ in the message above that you meant God created the universe through "Big Bang"...where you wrote: >Subject: RE: Big Bang? >The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and BANG! it >happened. What I should do was to ask you what do you really mean by that? CLICK ON PAGE [2] FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS TOPIC |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next Page -> |