Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Problems with the Big Bang Theory

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Problems with the Big Bang Theory

    Some Problems Posed with Regard to the Big Bang Model.

    I have presented below some problems with the standard model.

    1) Problem - The expanding universe model is self contradictory.

    1) If the universe is infinite then it is without limit.
    2) To expand means to go beyond a limit.
    3) Hence, for a body to expand infers the body has limit.
    4) Therefore an infinite, expanding universe is not possible, for the universe cannot go beyond that which does not have a limit.

    5) If the universe is finite, then it has limit.
    6) What exists beyond the universes limit is either a being or a non being.
    7) If it is a being, then it must be part of the universe, for the universe itself is a being.
    8) If it is a non being, then there is nothing beyond the limit of the universe.

    9) But, nothing (non being) has no potency (can be) and therefore is not receptive of any perfection.
    10) But for a limited universe to expand, means the universe must grow in size into the “void” of nothing.
    11) But this means nothing (non being) is receptive of a perfection, and therefore nothing (non being) has potency.
    12) Therefore, because 9) contradicts 11), an inflating universe is self contradictory.

    2) Problem of Universal, uniform expansion.

    If the Universe is uniformly expanding (as an acceleration) in all directions, then there is a force acting in all directions as the cause of acceleration.
    If the force is acting within a universe, uniformly in all directions, then such a force, in accord with Newtons third law, must have an equal and opposite reaction.
    But the force of expansion is universal, hence the reaction must also be, proportional to the force and hence universal.
    Hence a universal force of expansion, will always be countered by a universal reaction force, acting equally against the expansion.
    Hence the universe is either 1) expanding in contradiction of Newtons third law of motion, or 2) not expanding contrary to the Standard Model.

    3) Problem of Universal, non-uniform expansion.

    If the Universe is not uniformly expanding (as a series of accelerations) in all directions, then there are forces acting in all directions as the cause of the accelerations.
    If the forces are acting within a universe, not uniformly in all directions, then such forces, in accord with Newtons third law, must have equal and opposite reactions.
    But the forces of expansion are universal, hence the reactions must also be, proportional to the forces of expansion and hence universal.
    Hence universal forces of expansion, will always be countered by universal reaction forces, acting equally against the expansion.
    Hence the universe is either 1) expanding in contradiction of Newtons third law of motion, or 2) not expanding contrary to the Standard Model.

    4) Problem of universal expansion and the stability of galaxies.

    The Standard model concludes that the universe is expanding in all directions.
    The cause of the universal expansion is dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM).
    DE and DM are said to permeate the entire universe.
    Yet if DE and DM existed within the local Milky Way, or indeed all of the many galaxies observed, DE and DM would also cause those galaxies to also expand.
    Yet such expansion of the galaxies has not been observed.
    Hence DE and DM are the mechanism for universal expansion, but are ignored when local stability is observed in the galaxies.
    Such means DE and DM have enough force to move all the galaxies and the space between the galaxies, but not enough force to move the bodies within the galaxies, to expand those same galaxies.
    DE and DM are then the mechanism which has a force greater than any one galaxy to move said galaxy, but not enough force to spread the parts of the galaxy.
    Hence the standard model requires a mechanism that is both stronger than all the galaxies, yet weaker than any parts of the galaxies.

    5) Problem of the Assumed Copernican Principle.

    The standard model is based upon the Copernican principle, which states there is no preferred place in the universe.
    Therefore when red shifted galaxies are observed from the earth, the standard model assumes the Copernican principle applies to the red shift observations.
    The standard model then concludes that such red shift would be observed from from any point in the universe.
    Therefore the universe is expanding in all directions.
    Yet such a universe is only a model derived from the Copernican principle (CP).
    Therefore, because red shifted galaxies interpreted as galaxy motion away from the earth and space expansion between the earth and the observed galaxy may either indicate 1) the earth is in a special location in the universe, or 2) according to the CP, the earth cannot be in a special place, then the universe must be expanding in all directions.
    Yet because the CP is only a principle, which cannot be proven, but can only be invalidated, there is no certitude that the universe is expanding, as required by the Standard model.

    6) Problem of Hubble's Law.

    Hubble's Law is derived from the observations galaxy red shift and the correspondent relationship between galaxy redshift and distance from the observer.
    Yet the relationship between red shift and galaxy location is 1) only in relation to observations on/near earth, and 2) assume redshift indicates velocity, as interpreted according to the doppler effect of light.
    But 1) only means red shift is observed from one reference frame, and hence the one reference frame should not be the normative guide for the same shift to be observed from all reference frames, as required by the standard model.
    And but 2) redshift may not indicate velocity as quasars do not correspond to the same redshifts as galaxies. Hence the Hubble law cannot also apply to quasars along with galaxies with diverse red shifts.
    As 1) and 2) correspondingly do not establish Hubble's law and are contrary to Hubble's law, then the Standard model has insufficient evidence for universal expansion according to Hubble's law.

    7) Problem of Hubble's Law and the Copernican Principle (CP).

    If the universe expands in accord with Hubble's law, then it does so in accord with the CP.
    Hubble's law says the universe is expanding in all directions.
    The CP says the universes expansion in all directions is in accord with laws of physics that are universally homogeneous (no preferred place).
    Yet the local solar system does not expand.
    Hence the local system does not conform to the physical laws of expansion said to exist throughout the universe.
    Therefore because the local laws of physics are not that of the universal laws of physics, then locally the CP does not hold.
    Hence locally, the Milky Way, and solar system are in a special place within the universe, contrary to the CP.
    Hence for the Standard model to hold, the model must both universally apply the CP, but locally deny the CP, wherever there is a stable galaxy observed (pretty much everywhere).
    Hence the CP is embraced universally under the theme of universal expansion, but denied everywhere under the theme of locally stable galaxies, located all over the universe.

    8) Problem of Well formed Distant Galaxies.

    The Standard Model (SM) assumes an expanding universe, whereby the most distant galaxies are the oldest.
    But the most distant galaxies are observed to be no more or less formed than more local galaxies.
    Hence the SM requires an observation of galaxy formation, which is diverse over distance from the observer, that is universally not found in observation.

    9) Problem of the Assumed Starting Point.

    The Standard Model (SM) assumes the most distant galaxies, are the most red shifted, and hence are moving away from the earth based observer at the greatest velocity.
    Hence, because the most distant galaxies are assumed to have the greatest recessional velocity, the universe must be expanding.
    Yet such reasoning cannot exclude the possibility that the galaxies began at divergent points and began to move from those points.
    Hence the most distant galaxy may not have the greatest velocity, but may only have an unknowable velocity, for the starting point of the galaxy motion is unknown.
    Hence the SM is based upon an unsupported assumption of the beginning galaxy motion.
    Hence the SM is logically not well supported.

    10) Problem of the Light at c.

    If light is always at c, then the galaxies we observe that are said to be several, or even many light years away are only the light that enters the local telescope.
    Hence what is observed about very distant galaxies is only that which is said to have occurred many years ago.
    So, if the light is not an indicator of what exists now in the universe, then nobody can be sure what is actually existing now in the universe.
    Yet the Standard Model (SM) requires that man have a knowledge of what exists now in the universe.
    For the SM claims that the Hubble constant and several other constants are known to act now in the universe.
    As we can never know what is occurring now in the universe, but only what occurred in the distant past, then the laws of the universe, now, can never be known.
    The constancy of light at c then conflicts with the notion that the constants within the universe can be known and applied within the SM.
    Hence the SM is based upon poorly founded knowledge of the universe.
    As the principle of light at c conflicts with certitude of knowing what actually exists now in the universe, then the constants within the SM cannot be known with certitude either.
    Hence the SM is a most uncertain model.

    JM

  • #2
    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
    Some Problems Posed with Regard to the Big Bang Model.

    I have presented below some problems with the standard model.

    2) To expand means to go beyond a limit.

    JM
    I stopped reading at this bit of stupidity. To expand merely means to get larger. It has nothing to do with reaching any limit.

    Classic Moonbat.

    3395571.gif

    Comment


    • #3
      I never liked the Big Bang Theory. I don't think Sheldon Cooper is funny.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        I never liked the Big Bang Theory. I don't think Sheldon Cooper is funny.
        Personally I think it is hilarious although I kinda burned out on it after semi-binge watching it over the course of a month.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          Some Problems Posed with Regard to the Big Bang Model.

          I have presented below some problems with the standard model.

          1) Problem - The expanding universe model is self contradictory.

          1) If the universe is infinite then it is without limit.
          2) To expand means to go beyond a limit.
          No, it doesn't.

          Everything beyond this point is therefore built on a false premise, and can be ignored.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • #6
            Why are you responding to, and why am I reading, posts from someone who clearly has no understanding of what he is posting?
            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              Why are you responding to, and why am I reading, posts from someone who clearly has no understanding of what he is posting?
              Then why are you on the internet???????
              "The Lord loves a working man, don't trust whitey, see a doctor and get rid of it."

              Navin R. Johnson

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                No, it doesn't.

                Everything beyond this point is therefore built on a false premise, and can be ignored.
                I thought about trying to explain it to him ...



                Then I remembered all the other times I tried to explain simple things to him ...



                Then I sighed and decided just to watch the show this time around.



                Jim
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • #9
                  It's impressive the lengths he will go to completely misunderstand scientific theories.

                  He really puts a lot of effort into it.
                  Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                    I stopped reading at this bit of stupidity. To expand merely means to get larger. It has nothing to do with reaching any limit.
                    And to get larger means to act beyond the previous limit. What is small has a limit, such as a small lump of dough, which is an act limited by the surface. Then the dough rises and becomes larger, by an ct which changes the surface area, and hence changes the previous limit of the small dough. To expand, infers to act beyond the prior limit.

                    The problems remain unanswered.

                    JM

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      I thought about trying to explain it to him ...



                      Then I remembered all the other times I tried to explain simple things to him ...



                      Then I sighed and decided just to watch the show this time around.



                      Jim
                      I also remember the many times you were corrected and you persisted in your beliefs to the contrary. You still have no more mechanism to explain the motion of satellites around the moving earth, other than hand waving and some basic calculations that only show the Heliocentric model is naive.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        11) Problem of the Standard Models reliance upon speculation without verification via the inductive method

                        The Standard Model concludes that the galaxies are expanding in all directions, along with space expanding between the galaxies.
                        The expansion of space is posited to account for red-shifted light, which is thought to be a Doppler effect on light.
                        Yet there is no inductive experimental evidence to support light shift dependence upon the expansion of space.
                        In fact, if SR and GR posit that space is a vacuum, then there cannot be any effect on light from the expansion of space.
                        Hence the Standard model requires that redshift be included in the model, without any verification via the inductive method.
                        Hence the model is based upon an unsupported hypothesis of the expansion of space affecting red-shifted light.

                        12) The Problem of the Quadrupoles and Octopoles in the CBR

                        The Standard model does not predict any preferred frame within the universe as required by SR and GR theory.
                        The Quadrupole and Octopole components in the CBR are aligned along a cosmic equator (so says Max Tegmark of WMAP - from MIT).
                        The cosmic equator of the CBR is noted to be along the sun-earth ecliptic and may also be aligned with the Earth's equinoxes (See - Dominik Swarz, Glen Starkman, Craig Copi, Is the low-Ll Microwave Background Cosmic?, Physical Review Letters, Nov 26, 2004, ??)
                        Such a universal alignment of the CBR with the ecliptic is not predicted by the Standard model. The alignment infers the universe is designed around the sun-earth system, contrary to the Copernican principle.
                        As the CBR alignment does not conform to the Standard model, the model has been invalidated.

                        JM

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                          11) Problem of the Standard Models reliance upon speculation without verification via the inductive method

                          The Standard Model concludes that the galaxies are expanding in all directions, along with space expanding between the galaxies.
                          The expansion of space is posited to account for red-shifted light, ...
                          No, it isn't. The relative motion of galaxies (due to expansion of space) is posited to account for red-shifted light.

                          Subsequent baseless stuff deleted.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Roy View Post
                            No, it isn't. The relative motion of galaxies (due to expansion of space) is posited to account for red-shifted light.

                            Subsequent baseless stuff deleted.
                            Roy seems to be making a distinction without a difference here. He says the galaxy motion is caused by the space expansion. I say the expansion of space is posited to account for red-shifted light, which is associated with the motion of the galaxies. Roy seems to be making a distinction to avoid the problem of a lack of evidence for expanding space causing light red-shift.

                            JM

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                              It's impressive the lengths he will go to completely misunderstand scientific theories.

                              He really puts a lot of effort into it.
                              That explains John exactly. Nobody can get so much wrong without a serious effort. That is why I think he is a troll.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              48 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X