Is the Big Bang Dead?

[onefour1]

read an article on line about the problems with the Big Bang theory. Here is the link

The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique

Appraently there are some problems with the theory. What do you think about this? Is the Big Bang theory dead?

[technomage]

read an article on line about the problems with the Big Bang theory. Here is the link

The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique

Appraently there are some problems with the theory. What do you think about this? Is the Big Bang theory dead?

This would be better suited to the Natural Science forum, as this forum is for discussing "issues of origins, science, and how such subjects relate to theology." If we were to relate the article to theology, then we would be forced to note, first and foremost, that Bert Thompson, the primary author of this article, was fired for long-running "sexual misconduct": I personally would be forced to point out that if someone is unfaithful in something so important as marital fidelity, how can they be trusted in any endeavor of their life?

[Spacefoetus]

Tell that to John Loftus.

[seanD]

read an article on line about the problems with the Big Bang theory. Here is the link

The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique

Appraently there are some problems with the theory. What do you think about this? Is the Big Bang theory dead?

Was it ever really a theory that was widely and firmly accepted?

[shunyadragon]

This would be better suited to the Natural Science forum, as this forum is for discussing "issues of origins, science, and how such subjects relate to theology." If we were to relate the article to theology, then we would be forced to note, first and foremost, that Bert Thompson, the primary author of this article, was fired for long-running "sexual misconduct": I personally would be forced to point out that if someone is unfaithful in something so important as marital fidelity, how can they be trusted in any endeavor of their life?

It depends on what you describe as the Big Bang theory. The theories of the origins of our universe and its fate along with the various theories of many if not infinite possible universe changes over time as we gather more knowledge of our cosmology.

The concept to a Big Bang is actually a misnomer. It was called that as sarcastic quip by a scientist who was studying the concept. There in reality no bang in the beginning ot our universe.

If I am around in five years the picture may be a nit more clearer. Right know there are many theories and math models being developed in cosmology to explain the origins and nature of our universe among the infinite possible universes.

[franktalk]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Why is it that people who don't know jack attack the messenger? Many people through out history have made critical contributions to man without a degree. I have no degree in astrophysics but I read many new articles that deal with the subject. Are you telling me that I can't have an opinion because I did not take some class by some "expert". Get a life.

The big bang theory was based on the red shift and many assumptions. Over time the theory had to be propped up with all kinds of new assumptions. I think it is time for a ground up redo. I like many of the new theories about the creation of the universe. One of my favorites is the White Hole expansion. But it is just a theory like all the rest. I also like what Arp says about the universe.

[FreezBee]

read an article on line about the problems with the Big Bang theory. Here is the link

The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique

Appraently there are some problems with the theory. What do you think about this? Is the Big Bang theory dead?

Not quite dead yet, and this article certainly isn't going to take it to the grave.

link above

Yes, it certainly would. But it gets worse. In his critique of the standard Big Bang Theory in Scientific American, Andrei Linde listed as number four in his list of six “highly suspicious underlying assumptions” (as he called them)—“the expansion problem.”

The fourth problem deals with the timing of the expansion. In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. But how could the different parts of the universe synchronize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command? (1994, 271[5]:49, emp. added).

Who indeed? George Lemaître, who originally postulated the idea of the Big Bang, suggested that the Universe started out in a highly contracted state and initially expanded at a rapid rate. The expansion slowed down and ultimately came to a halt, during which time, galaxies formed and gave rise to a new expansion phase that then continued indefinitely.

© source where applicable

Will this even begin to make sense? The universe may or may not be expanding, but if the universe is expanding, that doesn't mean that every part of the universe is expanding. What is that even supposed to mean?

Did the forming of the galaxies halt the expansion? I am not sure, what this is referring to, if anything. Does anybody else have an idea?


- FreezBee

[JimL]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: T-Shirt Ninja

This is theist only area.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[franktalk]

• Edited by a Moderator •

I too sat on a pedestal. A tall one in which I could look out and see the world as I knew it was. And yes, people flocked around me to get my opinion on the world and how it worked. I passed along the lie which I was taught, it was sweet in the mouth but sour in the belly. Then one day real truth knocked down my pedestal, real truth burned the lie from my brain. From the view of the world I am but a shell of my former self. But what I lost in the world I gained in spirit. For you see that the spirit controls and plans and creates. Real truth comes from what made all of this. This thing we call the universe is just stuff. It is here for you to embrace if you choose to.

[shunyadragon]

I too sat on a pedestal. A tall one in which I could look out and see the world as I knew it was. And yes, people flocked around me to get my opinion on the world and how it worked. I passed along the lie which I was taught, it was sweet in the mouth but sour in the belly. Then one day real truth knocked down my pedestal, real truth burned the lie from my brain. From the view of the world I am but a shell of my former self. But what I lost in the world I gained in spirit. For you see that the spirit controls and plans and creates. Real truth comes from what made all of this. This thing we call the universe is just stuff. It is here for you to embrace if you choose to.

What does this have to do with the thread?

[justsumguy]

The "big bang" theory has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. It never did and it still doesn't.

The "big bang" theory has nothing to do with a big bang and is a theory regarding the EXPANSION of this observable universe. There are theories regarding how the universe came into being, but up to this date, they have little practical use. On the other hand, the pursuit of knowledge regarding the expansion of the observable universe has resulted in some of the most remarkable achievements known to humans.

I don't even consider this universe to have anything to do with anything that really matters but that doesn't take away from the fact that I use and benefit from technology everyday.

While what we know of the universe is constantly changing, the very notion of treating the study of universal expansion as if it is some sort of threat to creation is absurd.

The expansion of the universe is a fact. How and why it is expanding and whether or not it will continue to expand or collapse in on itself or collide with another universe is still up in the air.

[obnosticus]

I liked the fact that you correctly pointed out that most cosmology has little affect on our daily life, particularly because things that happen over thousands, millions or billions of years are interesting from a curiosity standpoint. It matters little if the universe is expanding or contracting, although I like the latest theory I've heard which is that the universe expands and contracts on a cyclical basis such that the "big bang was just the next reversal of the cycle. Eventually it will start contracting again until, bang, it starts expanding again. This satisfies my need to have something from something, and not something from nothing.

[justsumguy]

I liked the fact that you correctly pointed out that most cosmology has little affect on our daily life, particularly because things that happen over thousands, millions or billions of years are interesting from a curiosity standpoint. It matters little if the universe is expanding or contracting, although I like the latest theory I've heard which is that the universe expands and contracts on a cyclical basis such that the "big bang was just the next reversal of the cycle. Eventually it will start contracting again until, bang, it starts expanding again. This satisfies my need to have something from something, and not something from nothing.

I think you misunderstood me. The quest of knowledge regarding the big bang theory has resulted in major advances in technology. I said the theories relating to how the universe came into existence have not yet seen much practical use.

Right, there is the perpetual expansion/contraction theory but it results in the good old which came first, the chicken or the egg? You're still left with how it came to be in the first place. There is even some thought now that it could have come from nothing. I like that one because that's where I think it came from.

I also like the big rip theory. The universe continues to expand until it rips itself apart down to the last atom and then to nothing.

Then again, there could be trillions of universes, each with a different set of "laws" that wouldn't be recognizable unless one was in a particular universe.

The main point is, science will never be able to prove there is or is not a creator because it would have to say it knew how the very first other than nothing came to be. The only possible answer would be from nothing. If it came from nothing...it could still have come from a creator. Contrary to some popular opinion, science is not trying to find out anything about a creator. Science is studying the observable universe. It's some of the spiritual people who have it wrong...

They are trying to prove a creator by pointing to the observable universe instead of their person.
And nobody can prove there is a creator by pointing to a beautiful sunset. The proof of a creator is within the person who is recognizing the link between the beautiful sunset and the creator.

[KBertsche]

read an article on line about the problems with the Big Bang theory. Here is the link

The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique

Appraently there are some problems with the theory. What do you think about this? Is the Big Bang theory dead?

This article doesn't make much sense.
1) The Big Bang theory describes the expansion of the universe from a singularity (or near-singularity), not the original cause of this event. The article stresses that we can't explain the original cause of the expansion. But this is irrelevant to the theory. It's almost as if the authors don't even understand what the Big Bang theory really is?
2) The article rests heavily on Arp, who is NOT a cosmologist and who has strange, unaccepted theories. He is not taken very seriously in cosmology, so why do the authors of this article take him so seriously? I suspect they are not cosmologists, and are far out of their field.
3) The article seems to be written by YECs who have a prior faith commitment against the Big Bang, irrespective of any evidence.

There are many, many unanswered questions in cosmology. This is the nature of science and is what makes it interesting. This is not a negative for the theory. The Big Bang theory is NOT dead, not by a long shot.