The Big Bang Theory is false - Historum

Delenda est Roma · June 15th, 2012, 06:17 PM

Ive read through several articles and ive been convinced. Any opinions?

Why the Big Bang is Wrong

**Pacific_Victory** · June 15th, 2012, 06:18 PM

What are the major points or the biggest pieces of evidence which have convinced you of this?

Delenda est Roma · June 15th, 2012, 06:25 PM

There are a great many problems with the Big Bang Theory that have not been solved.* Many of these are identified in Bill Mitchell's paper, " Big Bang Theory Under Fire". These problems include the idea that there are many objects observed that are older than the time from the big bang, which is variously estimated to be from 10 to 15 billion years ago, with the best estimates being 10 billion years using trigonometry rather than cepheid variable brightness.

Stars and globular clusters in our galaxy are thought to be older than 15 billion years and there seem to be similar stars that are seen in galaxies that are many billions of light years away from us and thus apparently formed closer to the time of the big bang.

Measurements of the uranium content of stars has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best direct measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years. The iron content of quasars is much too great for their age. Radio galaxy measurement has found carbon in the early universe which shouldn't be there if there was a big bang since it takes too long to form.

Even our earth is thought to be 5 billion years old, and is expected to exist for another 5 billion years before the sun expands and swallows it up.* The atoms and molecules of the earth are thought to have been generated in previous stars that went through several cycles of supernovae. Even though supernovae are thought to last only fraction of our sun's lifetime, it is highly improbable that there is sufficient time for these cycles to have occurred since a big bang. VLT observations of a gamma ray burst has found an early galaxy with ingredients much older than the big bang.

Similarly, our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang, which (according to Mitchell) is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape.* Many spiral galaxies are seen at a large distance and therefore from a time closer to the big bang which would indicate they would have had time for even fewer rotations. Recent Hubble Photo shows spiral galaxies within 5% of big bang time leaving time for only 2 or 3 rotations at our galaxy's rotation rate. 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.

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.

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.

How do galaxies collide if they are flying away from each other?

Mature galaxies are found near the time of a supposed big bang that have not had enough time to develop.

There are also some great problems with the "singularity" of the big bang.* What happened before the big bang??* The big bang theorists can't answer this question and just say it's a meaningless question. (They like to say it's like asking "What's north of the North Pole?" - Actually it's not like asking that at all. North is a direction; time is a measure of change. If there was no change before the big bang, then how could it have started?)

If there was a big bang, the temperature of the background radiation would have had to be much higher in the past.* Yet there are observed cosmic ray particles, that are protons or nuclei of atoms that are traveling through space at speeds approaching the speed of light.* These particles can't plow through the background radiation field at these higher temperatures without interacting with the photons of such a high temperature background and being stopped.* But the highest energy cosmic rays are observed at energies beyond this theoretical cutoff* energy.

The temperature of intergalactic space was predicted by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener, Nernst, Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born based on a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion. They predicted the 2.7 degree K background temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang. See "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" by A. K. T. Assis and M. C. D. Neves in Aperion Vol.2, Nr. 3, page 79f, July 1995. See also their other paper: "Redshift revisited" (Unfortunately, their second paper misses the greater number of collisions a longer wavelength photon has when the red shift is comprised of multiple Compton interactions.)

There are many other discrepancies in redshift observations that are much better explained by non-Doppler shifts. Hubble, of course, didn't agree that the redshift was Doppler (see his book "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" or Allan Sandage's discussion of Hubble's beliefs).* There were several difficulties with this interpretation that he pointed out.* Not the least of which is that if it were Doppler, then not only should each photon be stretched out by the Doppler effect, but also the distance between each photon.** Because the photon flux is reduced, this causes the object undergoing a Doppler redshift to appear less bright than a corresponding object undergoing a non-doppler redshift.* Hubble knew his observations were not in agreement with this brightness correction.* He also knew that a simpler, non-curved-space cosmology resulted from a non-Doppler interpretation, and he felt that simpler was better.* He didn't know what causes the photons to lose energy as they travel through space, but he felt that it is some "new principle of nature" that I think is the Compton effect.

As big bang theorists attempt to solve the age problem by making the time to the big bang longer, they exacerbate the quasar problem. Quasars become even farther away and intrinsically brighter. Yet their temperature remains that of ordinary stars as exhibited by emission spectra of metallic ions that can only exist at a limited range of temperature. They are known to be about stellar size since they vary in brightness on a scale of a few minutes to seconds. How do they stay so bright at such a low temperature in such a small volume? They can't. They must have an intrinsic non-Doppler redshift and be nearby to be explained.

If neutrinos have mass about 1 ten millionth the mass of the electron, their Compton Effect red shift would be 10 million times that of that of the electron. The probability of a neutrino Compton Effect remains to be determined.

Paul Marmet has presented ideas very similar to the idea that the Compton effect causes the red shift and presents additional evidence against the big bang at his web site.

The stability of a static universe with a Compton Effect cosmological red shift is explained here and another paper can be found here. A paper showing no time dilation in quasar variability can be found here. Time dilation would be required if the quasar red shift were Doppler, so this result indicates an intrinsic non-Doppler quasar red shift such as a Compton effect red shift.

Delenda est Roma · June 15th, 2012, 06:25 PM

These are the main problems of the big bang.

**Pacific_Victory** · June 15th, 2012, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delenda est Roma

There are a great many problems with the Big Bang Theory that have not been solved.* Many of these are identified in Bill Mitchell's paper, " Big Bang Theory Under Fire". These problems include the idea that there are many objects observed that are older than the time from the big bang, which is variously estimated to be from 10 to 15 billion years ago, with the best estimates being 10 billion years using trigonometry rather than cepheid variable brightness.

Stars and globular clusters in our galaxy are thought to be older than 15 billion years and there seem to be similar stars that are seen in galaxies that are many billions of light years away from us and thus apparently formed closer to the time of the big bang.

Measurements of the uranium content of stars has produced a minimum age of the universe of at least 12 billion years, whereas the best direct measurements of Hubble's constant produce an age of 10 billion years. The iron content of quasars is much too great for their age. Radio galaxy measurement has found carbon in the early universe which shouldn't be there if there was a big bang since it takes too long to form.

Even our earth is thought to be 5 billion years old, and is expected to exist for another 5 billion years before the sun expands and swallows it up.* The atoms and molecules of the earth are thought to have been generated in previous stars that went through several cycles of supernovae. Even though supernovae are thought to last only fraction of our sun's lifetime, it is highly improbable that there is sufficient time for these cycles to have occurred since a big bang. VLT observations of a gamma ray burst has found an early galaxy with ingredients much older than the big bang.

Similarly, our galaxy is rotating at a speed that only permits from 45 to 60 rotations since the big bang, which (according to Mitchell) is not a long enough time for it to achieve its spiral shape.* Many spiral galaxies are seen at a large distance and therefore from a time closer to the big bang which would indicate they would have had time for even fewer rotations. Recent Hubble Photo shows spiral galaxies within 5% of big bang time leaving time for only 2 or 3 rotations at our galaxy's rotation rate. 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.

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.

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.

How do galaxies collide if they are flying away from each other?

Mature galaxies are found near the time of a supposed big bang that have not had enough time to develop.

There are also some great problems with the "singularity" of the big bang.* What happened before the big bang??* The big bang theorists can't answer this question and just say it's a meaningless question. (They like to say it's like asking "What's north of the North Pole?" - Actually it's not like asking that at all. North is a direction; time is a measure of change. If there was no change before the big bang, then how could it have started?)

If there was a big bang, the temperature of the background radiation would have had to be much higher in the past.* Yet there are observed cosmic ray particles, that are protons or nuclei of atoms that are traveling through space at speeds approaching the speed of light.* These particles can't plow through the background radiation field at these higher temperatures without interacting with the photons of such a high temperature background and being stopped.* But the highest energy cosmic rays are observed at energies beyond this theoretical cutoff* energy.

The temperature of intergalactic space was predicted by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener, Nernst, Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born based on a universe in dynamical equilibrium without expansion. They predicted the 2.7 degree K background temperature prior to and better than models based on the Big Bang. See "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" by A. K. T. Assis and M. C. D. Neves in Aperion Vol.2, Nr. 3, page 79f, July 1995. See also their other paper: "Redshift revisited" (Unfortunately, their second paper misses the greater number of collisions a longer wavelength photon has when the red shift is comprised of multiple Compton interactions.)

There are many other discrepancies in redshift observations that are much better explained by non-Doppler shifts. Hubble, of course, didn't agree that the redshift was Doppler (see his book "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" or Allan Sandage's discussion of Hubble's beliefs).* There were several difficulties with this interpretation that he pointed out.* Not the least of which is that if it were Doppler, then not only should each photon be stretched out by the Doppler effect, but also the distance between each photon.** Because the photon flux is reduced, this causes the object undergoing a Doppler redshift to appear less bright than a corresponding object undergoing a non-doppler redshift.* Hubble knew his observations were not in agreement with this brightness correction.* He also knew that a simpler, non-curved-space cosmology resulted from a non-Doppler interpretation, and he felt that simpler was better.* He didn't know what causes the photons to lose energy as they travel through space, but he felt that it is some "new principle of nature" that I think is the Compton effect.

As big bang theorists attempt to solve the age problem by making the time to the big bang longer, they exacerbate the quasar problem. Quasars become even farther away and intrinsically brighter. Yet their temperature remains that of ordinary stars as exhibited by emission spectra of metallic ions that can only exist at a limited range of temperature. They are known to be about stellar size since they vary in brightness on a scale of a few minutes to seconds. How do they stay so bright at such a low temperature in such a small volume? They can't. They must have an intrinsic non-Doppler redshift and be nearby to be explained.

If neutrinos have mass about 1 ten millionth the mass of the electron, their Compton Effect red shift would be 10 million times that of that of the electron. The probability of a neutrino Compton Effect remains to be determined.

Paul Marmet has presented ideas very similar to the idea that the Compton effect causes the red shift and presents additional evidence against the big bang at his web site.

The stability of a static universe with a Compton Effect cosmological red shift is explained here and another paper can be found here. A paper showing no time dilation in quasar variability can be found here. Time dilation would be required if the quasar red shift were Doppler, so this result indicates an intrinsic non-Doppler quasar red shift such as a Compton effect red shift.

I certainly do not have the credentials to say definitively one way or the other. To be honest I don't know enough to have an opinion on this. I have read articles from both sides, and both are very convincing to my non-physicist mind.

Anyhow, all the estimates I've heard of the universe's age by the BB theorists is around 13-15 billion years old, instead of the 10 you mentioned here.

As for your question about how galaxies are colliding in an expanding universe, the way that it was explained to me was the "balloon explanation."
If you drew dots on a balloon, and then started blowing it up, the distance between the dots would become greater as the surface of the balloon expanded. Now imagine the dots are moving across the surface of the balloon. While the space between them is still expanding, it is still possible for them to collide.

Interesting view point though. Do you support an alternative theory? Also, have you read The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking? He does a very good job of putting this stuff in layman's terms.

Delenda est Roma · June 15th, 2012, 06:36 PM

The site itself posted quite a few links.

Recusant · June 15th, 2012, 06:36 PM

comment deleted

Delenda est Roma · June 15th, 2012, 06:45 PM

Comment deleted?

**Rasta** · June 15th, 2012, 07:09 PM

Saying there are problems is one thing. There probably are problems that need to be resolved. Though in order to supplant an accepted scientific theory, one needs to provide a better explanation for what we observe.

I see no alternate explanations.

Delenda est Roma · June 15th, 2012, 07:14 PM

New Theory Provides Alternative to Big Bang