There are some slight problems with the Big Bang theory, which states that all matter in the universe exploded from a small point about twenty billion years ago.

For example, there is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that unless energy is introduced into a particular state, the energy of that state will always be less than the initial state. This is known as entropy.

Thus, in order to explode, any original matter (wherever it came from) would have had to create energy in some way. To form planets, suns and entire galaxies, which is entropy running backwards, it would in effect need to create vast amounts of energy from nowhere, as well as vast amounts of matter (which is also impossible).

Where did that original cosmic egg come from? Where did its energy come from? Why did it suddenly explode? Where did it get sufficient matter for hundreds of thousands of galaxies from?

Also note: if the universe originated from a big bang, matter should be evenly spread out. It isn't. We note large densities of matter in some places, and virtually empty spaces between galaxies in others.

In my view of it, the energy and matter did not come from "nowhere". It has always been there. Could be from very long periods of self-tuning and balancing.

Note: This may or may not be the accepted theory, but some points were given possibility by other BABB members.

I think the Universe has always existed in one form or another. How did the Big Bang come to be? As others have pointed out, the BB wasn't so much a "bang" as it was a rapid exspansion. Kinda like black holes...they're not holes, but super-dense and super-massive stars.

I theorize that the BB at t-1 was a universal black hole. All the matter and energy was pulled into the singularity. Somehow it went critical. The matter expanded from the black hole.

I have to reference it later, but there are possibilities of primordial black holes. This could explain why there might be large gaps between galaxies. Also, take into consideration that a lot of the empty space could be because the galactic accretion disk simply accreted all of it.

As far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned...the entire energy state of the Universe is exactly 0, IMO. It's perfectly balanced. It may have taken several BB's to reach that point. It's all one universal cycle.

Energy: You can't create it. You can't destroy it. But sure as hullahuup, you can transform it.

You say that the Big Bang may have originated from a black hole.

A black hole, as you say, is a super-dense and super-massive star.

Stars require energy and matter.

Where did that come from?

Any theory of creation is going to suffer the same problems as the Big Bang.

You basically have two main "impossiblities".

1: Where did the matter/energy come from to create the universe (for a big bang type creation)

2: Of if you say the universe has existed forever, where did the matter come from to begin with? And why hasn't entropy caused a heat death yet?

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Christian, can I ask what creation you would propose that doesn't face the same problem? If God created the Universe, where di God come from? If he has always just been around, then why can't the energy that caused the Big Bang have just been around too?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Christian, your misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory stems from not understanding the timeframe. What happened "before" the Big Bang is not part of the theory and therefore irrelevant to the theory itself.

This is very similar to the religious misunderstanding of evolution, where creationists think that evolution claims life originated from nothing. It doesn't. Nor does the Big Bang claim the universe originated from nothing. The Big Bang theory makes no claim at all about what happened to cause it.

There are however OTHER theories (or maybe just speculations) that tackle the ultimate origin of the universe. I say "speculations" because one part of the Big Bang theory is that since the universe including time began at the Big Bang, anything happening "before" the big bang happened outside the observable universe and is therefore not bound by the normal rules of science.

If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck; what may we infer it is?

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

A crow, of course! Or, was that a horse of course?

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Love it!

ljbrs =D>

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

A duck! Very small rocks?

Ah, shes's till a WITCH! Burn the witch, burn her!

pinemarten wrote:

If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck; what may we infer it is?

cyreks reply:

A Platypus?.....Ha Ha.

All kidding aside though, I would place the 'big bang' in the same catagory as the 'geocentric theory'. Fabricated!

It was born with the Hubble apparent recessional observations of the galaxies.

The expansion of the light waves by an intrinsic repulsion is the most logical conclusion.
This conclusion answers four questions.

1 - It makes us appear to be in the center of the Universe.
2 - It explains the 'Olbers parradox' adaquately.
3 - It explains Arp's redshift anomoly.
4 - It explains the 'dark energy' problem.

I have presented the last two solutions on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the 'Against the Mainstream' segment of the BABB.
I started it out with 'Big Bang Reputiation' and followed with other articles.
Read them to get an idea of a 'steady state Universe'.

:roll:

Wait a minute! The Big Bang was based upon an observation (many actually)? Then how can it be fabricated?

Actually, the Premeival fireball idea did come from Hubble's work, but it wasn't until the CMB was discovered in 1965 that the Big Bang really took hold as the favored theory. If you'll recall there was also the Steady State cosmology.

The "expansion of light waves" concept would need to be put on firm mathematical grounds consistent with known physics and then shown to be consistent with the observations before it could be considered a "logical" conclusion.

Einstein's relativity allows for that reference frame so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Can you explain how?

According to current models based upon WMAP CMB measurements the universe is about 13.5 billion years old. This is actually younger than some of the oldest ages determined for globular clusters, but those cluster ages might simply be wrong.

Entropy is a measure of the degree of randomness within a system. By definition, the greater the randomness or disorder, the greater the entropy.

E=Mc^2. Matter can be converted into energy. This happens in stars via nuclear fusion. In the Sun the proton-proton chain produces most of the energy. The first step of this process is for two hydrogens to form a deuterium (a hydrogen with a neutron). In the process two positrons (positive electrons) are produced which collide with normal electrons and anhilate themselves producing Gamma Rays. About 30 million years later after working their way out through absorption and re-emission these gamma rays are now mostly in the form of visible light rays which we receive from the Sun.

Now some have claimed that the evolutionary process violates the 2nd law. It does not. The second law of thermodynamics says this:

In any spontaneous process, there is an increase in the entropy of the universe.

Here is the subtle point that must be understood. A non-spontaneous process can be forced to occur by an input of outside energy. On Earth that energy is the Sunlight we receive from the Sun. If the Sun shut down right now, non-spontaneous reactions (life) would quickly stop and the Earth would move toward greater entropy.

Good questions. There are plenty of sources available to hear what astronomers say about them. Do you agree with the answers given in those sources?

Certainly one of the biggest challenges facing the Big Bang is to explain how large superclusters can form so rapidly in a universe that is expanding. Dark matter is the traditional explanation.

A couple of preliminary points to consider:

Big Bang theory does not state this. There are several theories going back to Lemaitre, but the central theory does not address the moment of creation. It is concerned with the subequent inflationary period and expansion of the universe. You also may be confusing the expansion of all matter that we can detect with the universe beyond it.

This applies to a conventional explosion. The Big Bang was apparently not an explosion.

The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was also a series of interconnected processes by which energy and eventually matter were created. It is different from the middle dimentional physical processes common on earth, and initially exists outside the physical and dimentional processes you are trying to apply to it.

Asking these questions does not mean that the tenents of the Big Bang theory are wrong. Also keep in mind the a theory is not a fact nor a belief, but can be modified, trusted via testing or observation, or dropped if replaced by improved data.

This uneveness is a dynamic that allows for us to exist. The theory does not forbid uneveness. The uneveness is also homogeneous and isotropic on the largest cosmic scales.

Check out these questions from astronomer Ned Wright's website. You may find them helpful: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Another way to state the 2nd law is to say that the entropy of a closed system increases. How do we know that the universe was a closed system during the first few milliseconds after the big bang

Also, you say, "the energy of that state will always be less than the initial state." This is false (unless some of the energy is converted into mass, but let's ignore E=Mc^2 for just a moment.) Actually there will always be less useable energy. The unuseable energy is dissopated as heat, and thus contributes to the evolution of the early universe anyway.
Again: E=Mc^2. Fusion, mostly.
A: We don't know if matter was created in the Big Bang, or not. We don't know if it originated in the another "multiverse", or weather another universe appeared at parallel to ours, full of "Negative mass" and "Negative energy", to cancel out the mass/energy in our universe. Besides, the origin of the mass is not part of the BB theory.
B: At such high levels of gravitational distortion of spacetime, high energies, high densities, etc... we don't know if any of the laws of physics worked at that time. Since the universe was still forming, the laws of physics may not have formed yet.
One theory I have heard: False vacuums, causing some sort of antigravity

Also, time itself is thought to have originated from the big bang, as the time dimension(as well as space dimensions) would have been distorted to the point that they were not recognizable as time and space. So, It's not like the big bang black hole sat there in a chunk for many billions of years and then decided to explode, because it was tired of doing nothing.
I found info about a book that explains this. It's called Wrinkles in Time (not A Wrinkle in Time.) Basically, there are small quantum fluctuations (called quantum foam) , small, subatomic warps in spacetime affecting distance, time, gravity, and such, which "bumped" a few particles around soon after the big bang. The small changes in the density of the universe caused a cascade. The "lumps" got bigger, and started attracting more matter, to become bigger "lumps" because of gravity, and became galaxies, and clusters. Also, the non-uniform density of the universe may have something to do with dark matter, but I don't know what.

From a ice-detrium dealer from the gamma quadrant of the 5th dimension who threw the an empty wrapper out the window of his sirius plymouth fury-star as he was passing thru to visit his great Aunt Hagrid Potter.

Well bet you $1000000000 grand republic Pungas that i have as much proof of this occurance as you do for your creationist theory.

You don't have any proof until you get a testimony from the ice-deuterium dealer.

However, luckily for you, you don't need to have him actually write it, all you have to do is have him call you and tell you what to write. Nor do you need proof that he actually told you what to write or a singature or anything.

Although, if you could get the shroud, I mean empty wrapper, it would help a lot.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Wow, RickNZ. I think you nailed it. Apparently the ice-deuterium dealer swung by a bar on Zeta Reticulum on the way back home and told the whole story to the locals. They've channelled it back through Nancy L, who has pretty much confirmed every detail.

Gee, the whole of the universe explained, just like that, huh.... Well, I guess that that's one mystery less, then!

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

Christian, there are some really fascinating speculations around the questions you ask (as others note, most of them are not really concerned with big bang theory).

The smoothness problem, the unevenness of the distribution of matter in the universe, is understood: quantum fluctuations in energy density, which are as far as we can tell completely unavoidable, provided the initial irregularities. What I find fascinating is that the size and 'spectrum' of these irregularities, as recorded some 300,000 years after the bang by the cosmic background radiation, matches the theoretical prediction for what these quantum fluctuations should look like.

As someone else mentioned, the total mass/energy of the universe may well be precisely zero: the birth of the universe may have not required anything but a momentary hiccup in no-space, no-time. The deal is, the gravitational energy of the universe is understood to be a negative quantity and this negative quantity is suspected to precisely balance the total positive mass/energy of the universe. But although the understanding of the negative and positive nature of mass/energy and gravity is well-accepted, the exact ratio between these quantities in the universe isn't well-defined, I believe. (I could be wrong on that.)

As far as before-the-big-bang, there are several speculations. Perhaps there was something akin to a quantum fluctuation which caused an unimaginably tiny space to fall into an exponentially-expanding state called the false vacuum; perhaps colliding structures in a previously existing multi-dimensional plenum created the bang; perhaps an imploding black hole in another universe created the initial spacetime point which created our universe (and perhaps black holes in our universe create new universes which are dimensionally unconnected to ours); or perhaps our universe is a bubble of conventional spacetime in an eternally-existing, exponentially expanding super-universe of false vacuum.

These speculations all have some plausibility when cast in the form of mathematical physics, but there's no hard evidence supporting any of them over the others, I think. What we do have is hard evidence supporting the big bang scenario.

I presume from the name Christian and the other references made to the 'Answers in Genesis' site that you have a point you are trying to make. The problem is, the scientific community has already seen the claims made by, for lack of a better term, the evangelical community. They supposedly offer scientific challenges to major scientific theories that challenge the Bible's account of how we all got to this point in time.

There are four major themes in the challenges. One is the pseudo-science route. Many claims made are patently incorrect. The persons who think the challenges make sense are only those who do not have a thorough command of the science being challenged. Challenges to some dating techniques are examples.

The second theme is to challenge pieces of evidence and disregard supporting evidence. An example would be challenging a dating technique while ignoring the fact that there are many dating techniques, as well as an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence like the geological record.

The third theme has been referred to as the 'god of the gaps' argument. If there are any places in the theory that have not been accounted for, the evangelical community, (not every individual), claim that makes the theory invalid. Gaps in data do not invalidate theories. Unexplained data does not invalidate a theory. It merely makes the theory incomplete. There is a big difference between incomplete and incorrect.

The fourth theme is to use the argument that sceintific conclusions and theories have been shown to be incorrect in the past. Therefore they are unreliable now. This again, is only convincing if you have a poor understanding of science. There is no expectation that scientific conclusions are in their final form. The amount of supporting evidence is on a continuum from possibly to overwhelmingly concluded.

So back to the big bang model, what happened before is not yet known and some say cannot ever be known. There is overwhelming evidence the Universe is expanding but many of the details are not yet known. If the Universe is expanding, then one should be able to calculate where all the matter and energy was at least to a certain point in the past. Beyond that we have a very small fraction of a second where the calculations cannot tell us enough to describe what the Universe was like in that first tiny fraction of a second nor earlier.

None of the uncertainty negates the big bang model. The evidence supporting the model is pretty strong. There are some alternative models but they are not very popular.

You may think when reading or hearing arguments based on the four themes I described above that you have learned how major scientific theories that do not support the Bible's description of creation are fallible. But the reality is the evangelical community's attempts to challenge science are just not valid. And, the scientific community has addressed the challenges fully.

Again I say, unless you take the time to learn more about the scientific theories you are challenging, you will continue to be vulnerable to believing that you have learned some magical thing that makes the whole scientific community wrong and a few undereducated believers right.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

I'm homeschooled and live in Missouri, the buckle of the Bible belt, so I hardly know any evolutionists! And I have heard much on how evolution is evil and impossible from the least educated of the bunch! And, in my experience, the willingness to refute the commonly accepted theories varies inversly to the education of the refuter.

Before? If time originated at the big bang, how can you say "before"? I think that there are still causes for the BB, but they could not be said to be "before".

Thats why most people use quotes when they say "before." He didn't, but let it go.

Not sure I understand if you are agreeing or think I meant one should never challenge an accepted theory. If you think the latter, you misunderstood my point. I was only referring to baseless challenges, not those with merrit.

Before? If time originated at the big bang, how can you say "before"? I think that there are still causes for the BB, but they could not be said to be "before".[/quote]

So if it wasn't 'before' time or the BB, how would you label it for communication's sake?

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

I'm saying, that those least prepared and educated to challenge esablished theories are the most willing to do just that! And, it get's pretty annoying. :roll:
"Resulting from." :wink:

Oh, now I get it. I was reading your statement backwards. I thought you were saying educated persons don't challenge accepted theories. ops:

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

How do we know that time originated at the Big Bang, if there is no established theory for "before" the BB?

Well ain't this a fun thread! If one plots the four dimensions all of us experience every day, we have to say that what we feel is real. Furthermore, if something is real it has a place in the universe---it moves through time and it extends. If it does exist in space and time it has to have a start---right/. But the existence of all starts from nothing---right? Therefore we are nothing! Or: we are something which can not be defined. Is that so bad? What if what we are is not the question, but what we are not?

Because time, very soon after the BB would be so distorted, that it could not be recognized as time at all. So, if there was time in a "mother" universe, or a big crunch that caused our BB, it could not be called before, as time had broken down at the BB.

Quote:
cyrek1 wrote: It was born with the Hubble apparent recessional observations of the galaxies.

dgruss23 wrote:

Wait a minute! The Big Bang was based upon an observation (many actually)? Then how can it be fabricated?

Actually, the Premeival fireball idea did come from Hubble's work, but it wasn't until the CMB was discovered in 1965 that the Big Bang really took hold as the favored theory. If you'll recall there was also the Steady State cosmology.


cyreks reply:

The CMBR can be explained in other ways.
It can be the average temperature radiated by all bodies in space from stars to dust particles in space and molecules of various kinds. .
Another explanation is the heliosphere of dust particles blown out of the Sun with a slight positive charge that keeps them in suspension by their even distribution that counteracts the gravitational attraction of the Sun. These particles are about one millimeter in size plus antenna like extensions that can radiate the 1 – 2 mm wavelength of the CMBR (See J Pasachoffs book entitled Contemporary Astronomy, c. 1977 by W. B. Saunders. On page 297 is an illustration, figure 11-7 of this particle) Although the author claims these particles are of Moon origin, I believe they come from the solar eruptions.

According to Dr. John Hartnetts website quoting Dennis Overbye,
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...osmologies.asp
It states that Gamow predicted a CMBR temperature of 5K, later revised to 10K.
On the other hand, McKeller predicted a temperature of 2.3K in 1941 from observing interstellar molecules.

Regarding a mathematical proof of light wave intrinsic forces causing the expansion, this would take a mathematical expert to do this.

Regarding the last three questions,

dgruss23 wrote:

Can you explain how?

Reply:

2 – Since the distant sources of light waves expand into the infra red, they become invisible to the naked eye. This should explain Olbers parradox.
3 – Quasars are high temperature objects and these light waves would have greater intrinsic expansions per unit distance to cause the Arp redshift anomaly.
4 – As the light waves expanded, the intrinsic force would weaken as per the inverse square law per unit distance.
This then would create the illusion that space is expanding.
For a more detailed explanation, see my post on ‘Dark Matter and Dark Energy’ on a previous page of the BABB.