Problems with the Big Bang Theory

[Yttrium]

Yes a limit may be understood as you have said above. But a limit may also be understood as a relative limit, whereby limit is determined relative to an act. When something expands, it initially has a distance, which has an end. The end of the distance is the limit of the distance. When the distance changes, then the expansion moves past the initial limit to another limit.

That's not a limit, that's a position.

The galaxies cannot be the end of the universe is space is expanding between the galaxies.

Your assertion is unsupported.

Potency is what can be, or can do. Potency as can be, is the cause of limit and change.

[JohnMartin]

13) Problem of the Information Paradox and the Standard Model (SM)

It is well known from the history of science that the once simple explanations of physical reality as contained in old theories eventually give way to more sophisticated theories as more information is available to the science academy. Hence, as time goes by and more information is at hand, the old theories that seemed to explain physical phenomena must be either altered or abandoned in favor of newer, and more detailed/complex theories to account for the data. The universal law of ever increasingly available information inherent within the inductive method means that the assumptions made to derive equations within cosmological theory mean the data must always be interpreted through the lens of assumptions, which seem reasonable to the scientists of the day. Yet, frequently as witnessed by the history of science, such assumptions have been overturned, in favor of contrary assumptions.

So the astronomer, who wants to calculate the distance to a galaxy, does so, by making some assumptions concerning the nature of space, light, the source of light, and what has occurred between the galaxy and the observer. These assumptions seem reasonable to the astronomer at the time of making the calculations, yet such assumptions are only ever as good as the information available. Hence, due to the inherent instability within the inductive method, whereby assumptions can and are overturned, the apparently simple calculations, may and eventually will be overturned, in favour of contrary assumptions and contrary calculations.

Hence, because the standard model is founded upon assumptions concerning the nature of light, motion, space, etc, the SM is ultimately doomed to be replaced by another model and so on. Hence the apparent certitude of the science academy concerning the SM is largely unfounded. Therefore we should not entrust our judgement to a model that is historically demonstrated to be based upon a method that is intrinsically unstable, and will eventually lead to the current model being removed, in favor of another model.

14) The Problem of the moving Milky Way and Comets

The Milky Way is said to be moving through space at about 500 km/s and the local solar system is orbiting the galaxy at about 483,000 miles/hr (134 miles/s)
When a comet such as Haley’s comet is observed to have a tail of about 100 million kilometers into space caused by the pressure from the solar wind acting on the comet. The tail is directed behind the comet, whereby the comet moves towards the sun and the tail is directed away from the sun. The tail direction is dictated by the direction of the solar wind in relation to the motion of the comet. Yet the comet tail does not reflect the two motions of the Milky Way through space at about 500 km/s and the local solar system's motion around the galaxy of about 134 miles/s. The comet tail direction is only dictated by the solar wind in relation to the comet, whereby, the velocities of the sun at 500km/s and 134 miles/s in space are ignored and consequently, the comet tail direction is derived by assuming the sun is stationary relative to space. In short, the comet tail direction must ignore the supposed motions of the local galaxy through space and the local solar system in space around the local galaxy.

It seems that the observed comet tails are a direct violation of the motions of the galaxy and solar system through space, as assumed within the standard Heliocentric, and big bang models. The comet tail directions invalidate the two models.

15) The formation of Galaxies within the Standard Model (SM) is Unknown

According to J Binney - The problem of galaxy formation remains a real problem. The greatest difficulty is that we really have no idea what induced the formation of the first bound objects in an expanding universe. See, Nature 255:275-76, 1975, and J Binney, 1981b, The Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, Cambridge University Press, 399.

Also the formation of large galaxies is predicted to occur later in the standard model, yet large galaxies have been observed to occur beyond 9 billion years ago. The observation of such galaxies contradicts the predictions within the standard model. See Sky and Telescope, Old Galaxies in the Young Universe, January 6, 2004.

The lack of a known mechanism for the formation of galaxies and the observation that old, well formed, large galaxies exist, where they should not exist, is strong evidence that the standard model is not realistic and must be abandoned. Creationists should expect such invalidation within the model, for God has revealed that the universe was created around the stationary earth. The observation of apparently large and old galaxies is more consistent with a creation event whereby God created all the galaxies within the creation event. The observed galaxies are strong evidence to invalidate the standard model, and are seemingly consistent with a creation event.

16) The Problem of the Standard Model (SM) and the Naturalist Origin of Man

The Standard Model (SM) implies a naturalist origin of man, whereby the natural elements contained within the human body are said to originate from stars. See Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, 243.
The implied origin of man from the stars is a fallacy of the non-sequitur, whereby elements in stars does not necessitate those same elements in man have their origin in the stars. The implied origin of elements from the stars as contained within the SM mean the SM is used to prop up a naturalist understanding of the origin of man which is fallacious. As the conclusion concerning the origin of man is fallacious, then the part of the SM, which draws out this conclusion, is also in some manner, also fallacious.

17) The Problem of the assumed naturalism within the Standard Model (SM)

Natural is says only nature exists, therefore a super nature does not exist.
Yet naturalism cannot prove the non-existence of the supernatural, nor can it prove/account for its own worldview, whereby only natures exist, when natures need not exist.
As the SM is based upon the false principle of naturalism, and therefore proposes a naturalist origin of the universe, then the SM is in principle false.
What is in principle false, is false.
Therefore the SM is false.

JM

[Yttrium]

It is well known from the history of science that the once simple explanations of physical reality as contained in old theories eventually give way to more sophisticated theories as more information is available to the science academy. Hence, as time goes by and more information is at hand, the old theories that seemed to explain physical phenomena must be either altered or abandoned in favor of newer, and more detailed/complex theories to account for the data. The universal law of ever increasingly available information inherent within the inductive method means that the assumptions made to derive equations within cosmological theory mean the data must always be interpreted through the lens of assumptions, which seem reasonable to the scientists of the day. Yet, frequently as witnessed by the history of science, such assumptions have been overturned, in favor of contrary assumptions.

So the astronomer, who wants to calculate the distance to a galaxy, does so, by making some assumptions concerning the nature of space, light, the source of light, and what has occurred between the galaxy and the observer. These assumptions seem reasonable to the astronomer at the time of making the calculations, yet such assumptions are only ever as good as the information available. Hence, due to the inherent instability within the inductive method, whereby assumptions can and are overturned, the apparently simple calculations, may and eventually will be overturned, in favour of contrary assumptions and contrary calculations.

Whoa. That's actually true. Did you write that yourself, or did you copy paste that from someplace?

Hence, because the standard model is founded upon assumptions concerning the nature of light, motion, space, etc, the SM is ultimately doomed to be replaced by a another model and so on. Hence the apparent certitude of the science academy concerning the SM is largely unfounded. Therefore we should not entrust our judgement to a model that is historically demonstrated to be based upon a method that is intrinsically unstable, and will eventually lead to the current model being removed, in favor of another model.

There is no certitude That's why we call it "theory". There's always room for improvement. However, if the model works consistently with the information at hand, then we continue to use it, while constantly trying to improve or replace it.

[JohnMartin]

Whoa. That's actually true. Did you write that yourself, or did you copy paste that from someplace?

Its from my research and experience.

There is no certitude That's why we call it "theory". There's always room for improvement. However, if the model works consistently with the information at hand, then we continue to use it, while constantly trying to improve or replace it.

The model doesn't work consistently, that's why it should be abandoned.

JM

[Yttrium]

The model doesn't work consistently, that's why it should be abandoned.

Frankly, I've lost track of what you mean by "standard model". You were using it for a weird collection of things, including the origin of man, which doesn't make sense. Now, if you were just talking about relativity, then there is indeed a consistency problem, namely with quantum mechanics. That's a problem that needs to be worked out. The other "problems" that you list are due to your own misunderstandings, and aren't actually problems.

[HMS_Beagle]

The model doesn't work consistently, that's why it should be abandoned.

JM

All you have to do is come up with one that works better and it will be. No one is holding their breath.

[Roy]

I'm making a distinction to highlight that this:

"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."

is complete rubbish because it depends on red-shift being caused by the actual expansion, not by the consequent relative velocity of galaxies.

So what is the experimental evidence that expanding space actually causes light to redshift, when according to relativity theory, space is a vacuum?

For the third and final time, redshift is caused by the relative motion of galaxies, not by expanding space.

[oxmixmudd]

For the third and final time, redshift is caused by the relative motion of galaxies, not by expanding space.

Technically, the Doppler and the 'expansion of space stretches the light' are equivalent explanations of what we observe:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...GR/hubble.html

I've seen both explanations used in the popular literature from which John likely gets his information.


Jim

[Cerebrum123]

That's not a limit, that's a position.






Your assertion is unsupported.

When he refers to stuff like "potency" he's referring to Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle type metaphysics. I tried reading some of the stuff, and all I get is .

[Leonhard]

When he refers to stuff like "potency" he's referring to Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle type metaphysics. I tried reading some of the stuff, and all I get is .

As a thomist (someone subscribing to that kind of metaphysics), he rarely knows what he's talking about. He barely makes more sense there, than when he's talking about physics.

[Cerebrum123]

As a thomist (someone subscribing to that kind of metaphysics), he rarely knows what he's talking about. He barely makes more sense there, than when he's talking about physics.

I figured as much, but the latter part of the post wasn't about JM's posts, but about the Thomistic metaphysics material I've seen.

[JohnMartin]

As a thomist (someone subscribing to that kind of metaphysics), he rarely knows what he's talking about. He barely makes more sense there, than when he's talking about physics.

So go to the thread and show us all where I'm wrong. Otherwise you should retract your statement.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I figured as much, but the latter part of the post wasn't about JM's posts, but about the Thomistic metaphysics material I've seen.

You figured as much without knowing anything about what I was talking about. Does that make any sense? No.

JM

[JohnMartin]

For the third and final time, redshift is caused by the relative motion of galaxies, not by expanding space.

According to Swinburne University -

Although cosmological redshift at first appears to be a similar effect to the more familiar Doppler shift, there is a distinction. In Doppler Shift, the wavelength of the emitted radiation depends on the motion of the object at the instant the photons are emitted. If the object is travelling towards us, the wavelength is shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum, if the object is travelling away from us, the wavelength is shifted towards the red end. In cosmological redshift, the wavelength at which the radiation is originally emitted is lengthened as it travels through (expanding) space. Cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself and not from the motion of an individual body.

For example, in a distant binary system it is theoretically possible to measure both a Doppler shift and a cosmological redshift. The Doppler shift would be determined by the motions of the individual stars in the binary – whether they were approaching or receding at the time the photons were emitted. The cosmological redshift would be determined by how far away the system was when the photons were emitted. The larger the distance to the system, the longer the emitted photons have travelled through expanding space and the higher the measured cosmological redshift.

So either Roy is wrong, or Swinburne university is wrong, or the standard model is so poorly thought out that nobody really knows what is going on. I'm running with Swinburn on this one until there is better evidence to overturn what they say above. Therefore the problem of redshift in expanding space remains. Roy's version of cosmological redshift is really doppler redshift.

Can anyone find any experimental evidence for the expansion of space as required for cosmological redshift? No. Because such expansion is impossible to imitate experimentally. An experiment that has moving bodies emit light would only imitate doppler redshift. An experiment that imitates expanding space, would itself have to imitate the expansion of space between the bodies to produce cosmological redshift, and not the motion of bodies, to produce doppler redshift. Such an experiment cannot be done, for nobody can make a mechanism to expand space. As there is no way to experimentally verify the expansion of space and the cosmological redshift, the standard model is sadly lacking any experimental verification. Hence the standard model is really only a maths fiction, unrelated to anything we observe in the universe.

As there will never be any experimental verification of at leas two fundamental notions within the standard model, of expanding space and cosmological redshift, the standard model should not be taken seriously by the science academy. Why then does the academy take the model seriously when other alternate explanations can be offered for what we observe?

JM

[JohnMartin]

18) The Problem of inherent instability within the Standard model (SM).

The model proposes multiple accelerations in all directions throughout the universe under the theme of expanding space.
These multiple accelerations are in all directions, which must cause the universe to tend to chaos, rather than stability.
For multiple accelerations are in all directions will only lead to disorder, and instability within the universe, rather than order and stability.
What is observed is order and stability within the universe and the local system, hence the theory of multiple expansions of space must be false.
As the expanding space theory is false, then the Standard model is also false.

19) Problem of an unknown mechanism for the expanding space.

The expansion of space is not verified by any experimental evidence.
Also the expansion of space has no verifiable mechanism.
As the expansion of space has no experimental evidence, and no workable mechanism, then the expansion of space is merely a maths fiction associated with GR, which is itself another maths fiction derived from a thought experiment.
As the standard model is based in principle upon maths and thought experiments, and has no experimental evidence, nor physical mechanism for one of its central claims in the expansion of space, then the standard model (SM), is itself a fiction.
As the SM is a fiction, it should be abandoned.

20) Problem of all physical matter originating from a small volume.

The SM posits the entire universe is expanding in all directions, and the matter within the universe has its origin in a small volume of matter.
As all matter is said to come from a small volume then the model must account for the mechanism by which all matter can be contained within such a small volume.
Yet the model does not have any mechanism to account for such a phenomena.
Further, the model has no recourse to any reasoned arguments as to why anyone should take such a claim seriously.
Hence the model assumes the vacuous explanatory nature of the model can be replaced by a belief in the ability of physical matter to do what physical matter is not known, and not observed to do.
In effect the SM assumes a form of physical alchemy, whereby all the matter of the universe was once something else , contained within a small volume.
Then something we don't understand happened, which is analogous to the alchemy process of the middle ages.
Now the universe is composed of many elements, which originated from the primordial matter at the beginning of the universe.
Evidently the SM requires large leaps of faith, whereby such leaps are beyond what observational science can verify.
Hence the SM should be abandoned.


21) The Problem of expansion of space in all directions and one origin.

The SM posits the entire universe is expanding in all directions.
The SM also posits the universe has its origin in a small volume of matter.
That small volume of matter then acted to produce what we observe.
Yet such an action is adverse to expansion in all directions.
For to expand in all directions, between all galaxies is to expand in a way contrary to that of a bang from one point.
As the expansion of space is contrary to the expansion of matter from a single volume, then the theory is inconsistent with itself.
The inconsistency within the theory means the theory is illogical and must be abandoned.

22) The Problem of multiple interpretations of redshift.

The SM assumes redshift is caused by the motion of galaxies and the expansion of space.
Yet there are multiple interpretations of the redshift.
Hence the SM must assume that only its interpretation of the redshift data accounts for what is observed.
Or the SM assumes that its interpretation of the redshift data is the best interpretation of the data.
Yet such is never proven within the SM.
Hence the SM is proposed as only one understanding of the redshift data, among many.
As the SM is only one among many, then the SM has no special claims from which it can be distinguished from any other model.
Hence we should be permitted to reject the model in favour of any number of other models that propose to explain redshift.

23) The Problem of the Model going beyond the evidence available within the inductive method

The SM assumes too much within the model.
The SM assumes that a model of the origin of the universe can be constructed within the inductive method.
Yet the inductive method requires that evidence be observable.
But the origin of the universe, expansion of space, cosmological redshift, dark energy and dark matter are not observable.
In fact, the relative motion, length contraction, and time dilation within relativity theory are not observable either, and GR forms the theoretical basis for the SM.
Hence, because several concepts within the theory have no observable evidence as support, and there is no means by which a singular volume of matter as the origin of all physical matter can be observed, then the SM is a model that goes beyond the evidence available within the inductive method.
As such the SM is merely a hypothetical model, more aligned with the fictional characters of pagan religions, than it is with empirical science.
Hence the SM should be abandoned in favour of a method that arrives at certitude concerning the origin of the universe.
Such a model must be based upon data obtained from the author of the universe, who has told mankind that the universe was created around a stationary earth.

24) The Problem of the expansion of space and the composition of the Galaxies.

The composition of the galaxies is known by observing light from the galaxies.
Yet light from galaxies is said to be redshifted by the expansion of space.
But if the expansion of space is wrong, then the redshift may well be a false indicator of the composition of the galaxies.
As the mechanism of redshift is unknown, or the expansion of space is false, then the composition of the galaxies may also be unknown.
The SM proposes a mechanism which is false, and the expansion of space which is beyond the experimental method.
Therefore our current knowledge of the universe, including the composition of galaxies may also be false.
As the SM is false it should be abandoned to promote a better understanding of the universe.

JM