Quote:
On 2002-11-21 13:44, heusdens wrote:
The reason I think the Big Bang theory is wrong is the following:
1. The BB theory can be seen as explaining how the universe came into being out of merely nothing. As a matter of fact, there is no need to explain why the universe exists, because of the simple fact the universe has always existed and will always exist. Plain physics shows that matter can't be created out of nothing, nor motion can arise out of a state without motion. Which leads to the simple conclusion that time has no begin or end.
|
I think you don't have a good understanding of physics. 1) matter is not conserved. 2) all motion is relative. 3) time doesn't care about matter at all and only cares about motion due to the laws of Special Relavity.
Quote:
|
2. The cosmological model BB theory is based on, assumes there was a finite amount of matter. As a consequence such models predict either there be expansion or contraction. But space is just unlimited and filled with matter in infinte extent, so such a model doesn't need to be assumed.
|
Then you have to work out why we see a finite amount of matter and not an infinite amount. You may not like the observational evidence for the expansion of the universe, but it is still there and can't be simply dismissed by saying there's an infinite amount of matter. Even the steadystaters of yore admitted there was an expansion going on.
Quote:
|
3. BB theory is based on an explenation of the redshift of starlight from far away galaxies as being a doppler redshift. There is a far more simply theory, that explain why there is a distance - redshift relation, which is simply based on the fact that the light during the long travel looses some of it's energy (gets redder) because of the interactions with the intergalactic matter.
|
A theory which has been shown to be untenable. Why? Because you need a scale invariant field that takes EXACTLY the right amount of energy away to preserve the cosmological distance scale and NOT BE OBSERVED IN ANY OTHER WAY. Space is very UNdense, and as such, any interactions with intervening material would have to be VERY STRONG. It is not a simple problem in the least and one that has not had an adequate solution presented. Indeed, the simplest explanation is a differential velocity field.
Quote:
|
4. Olbers` paradox states that if the universe were unlimited in extent and homogenously filled with luminous matter, and without a beginning, would lead to a sky being luminated in all directions. This is indeed the case, but because of the redhsift, the remnants of all the light from all the stars in an infinite universe, can only be seen as the 3 K radiation, and not as visible light.
|
Unfortunately, the steady state model has been discounted by the fact that the integrated starlight at 3 K could not have a blackbody curve that was equal in precision to the one observed from ALL PARTS OF THE SKY. This is the nail in the coffin for the steadystaters.
Quote:
|
5. BB theory can't explain how out of literally nothing, all matter came into existence, without a meta-physical explenation.
|
Nor does it have to. All the Big Bang model does at this point is posit a solution to the overall structure of the universe. At one time the universe was hotter and denser than it is today. It is a simple matter of measuring the time dependence of these factors that establishes the big bang. Primal cause is left to speculation.
Quote:
|
In ordinary physics, matter can't be created out of nothing,
|
Untrue. I can create virtual particles out of the vacuum, and given the proper interactions, create matter out of "nothing".
Quote:
|
and no motion can arise out of a motionless state.
|
All motion is relative.
Quote:
|
Physics can't help to understand or explain that (there is no need for that either) without turning into meta-physcis. I could just well asume that a superbeing did it.
|
Well, you do have a interesting point here (though your examples are bad). Feynman stated it in the metaphor of a chessboard. Physics asks "What are the rules of the game?" You learn that a bishop moves only on colored squares. Later on you learn the bishop moves on diagonals. Physics refines the rules. It does not, however, speak to the purpose or the reason BEHIND the game.
Quote:
|
6. And there are a lot more things wrong with the BB theory. That's why it is fixed everytime new observations are made, that can't be explained with the existent BB theory.
|
That's the hallmark of any good theory in science. All scientific theories are constantly being modified and tested to their limits to determine how good they really are. So far, the Big Bang has stood up well to a lot of scrutiny and has been embraced by the vast majority of the astronomical community. You don't have to take my word for it. Read all about it in the published journal literature yourself!
Quote:
|
Big Bang theory is just plain wrong, because it needs the help of meta-physics to explain the universe, and it tries to explain things, that don't need explenation at all.
|
You haven't demonstrated this in the least.
Quote:
|
The universe simply exists (although it is constantly and eternally changing) and has no begin or end (not in time and not in space).
|
The Big Bang could still be right and the universe could still be constantly and eternally changing without beginning or end. This is one of the possible model fits for our Big Bang observations.
Be careful what and how you criticise. There is a lot more to science than simply grandstanding statements about the way the "universe is" and then laughing at everybody who questions this supposition. No, science is built on critical thinking skills that encourage everyone to ask questions about the universe. Many of the points you brought up are ones that were already dealt with, some of them need some reworking. On the whole, they represent an excellent attempt to get at the heart of the matter. Now it's up to you to really research these issues and figure out what the theory really says and not just what you
think it says. Good luck!