Jump to content
Science Forums

Big Troubles for the Big Bang

nick33

By nick33
in Astronomy and Space

 Share

Recommended Posts

Freethinker Newbie

Freethinker

Posted
Posted

Originally posted by: nick33

The galaxies at the edge of the observable universe bring big troubles to the big bang.

 

In what way does the discovery of more details of the Universe "bring big troubles to the big bang"?

Here are some links on the subject

 

http://www.world-mysteries.com/toi_esavov.htm

 

1) this is specifically a New Age, Postmodernistic oriented site. NOT a Science site. In fact, if you go to the author of the materials this site uses, you will find the comment:

 

http://www.eugenesavov.com/

 

"The creation of atoms in the centers of stars, planets and planetary like moons keeps the interiors of these space bodies very hot."

 

Any wonder why this guy is NOT a peer reviewed, credible resource? That, as his stuff is not accepted for peer reviewed publications, he self publishes retail books?

 

What CREDIBLE scientist thinks that our moon and the Earth CREATE atoms?

 

2) the links at this site, do NOT support your claim of "bring big troubles to the big bang". Here are some comments from the sites this site use as reference:

 

Astronomers find evidence of Milky Way-sized galaxies in the early universe.

http://www.astronomy.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/001/185qtocj.asp

"But our model, combined with observations by other researchers, provides clear evidence that massive galaxies existed within a relatively short time after the Big Bang."

 

Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies

http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/survey/hubbledev/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/text/index.html

"Called the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), the million-second-long exposure reveals the first galaxies to emerge from the so-called "dark ages," the time shortly after the big bang "

 

GIANT GALAXY STRING DEFIES MODELS OF HOW UNIVERSE EVOLVED

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0107filament.html

"we are looking back four-fifths of the way to the beginning of the Universe as a result of the Big Bang."

 

These do NOT say ANYWHERE that this discovery REFUTES the BB. In fact they ALL confirm the concept of the BB.

 

Yet you FALSELY suggest:

 

Can the big bang survive the discoveries at the edge of the universe?

 

And your other supposed reference source?

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305a.htm

 

The name says it all.... But let's let the site speak for itself (from the site)

 

"For more than twenty years Apologetics Press has published and disseminated materials for self study, group study, or evangelistic purposes."

 

This makes it a legitimate SCIENCE resource HOW? But I started to read it anyway. I wanted to find out how CREDIBLE this site is. I was looking for reference soruces. One of the first names I ran across RE source material for the article they are writing on this topic, was ...

 

"as we were in the process of researching and writing this material, physicist Andrew Repp of Hawaii authored a fascinating, up-to-date article on the nature of redshifts."

 

So I did a search for this claimed physicist Guess what I found out! This was the ONLY reference I could find that gave ANY credentials for Mr Repp!

 

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/OhioPoll.htm

 

"Andrew Repp, PhD, Mathematics, Highschool Teacher"

 

Once more (I am no longer suprosed to find this when these claims are made) we find that there is not a single CREDIBLE source used. When they pull quotes from those with CREDIBLE positions in an APPROPRAITE field, they always twist them out of context.

 

So we find your claim

 

The galaxies at the edge of the observable universe bring big troubles to the big bang.

nick33 Newbie

nick33

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here is a proper source that casts doubt at the big bang

 

Maddox, J., Big bang not yet dead but in decline. - Nature, Vol.377, 99, 1995.

 

How many assumoptions we should make to keep the big alive and kicking

 

What about the Occam's razor in big bang universe born from nothing.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

 

“HBJ General Science” 1989 Edition Textbook.

“In the realm of the universe nothing really means nothing. Not only would matter and energy disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion 16.6 billion years ago.”

 

I think we should not take seriously any theory that goes beyond what we can test.

Freethinker Newbie

Freethinker

Posted
Posted

Originally posted by: nick33

Here is a proper source that casts doubt at the big bang

 

Maddox, J., Big bang not yet dead but in decline. - Nature, Vol.377, 99, 1995.

 

Thanks, very good source.

 

This also shows the beauty of the Scientific Process. It shows how open and self correcting it is. Those that wish to reject Scientific finds and theories of one type or another, such as Creationists, often claim, as been made on this site, that certain "Scientific" views or theories are rediculed or rejected and supressed. Yet what we see from this is that disagreement is open and active in the scientific community. We see that subgroups that dispute even some of the most strongly held theories are given open welcome and review.

 

However it also shows that these sources, regardless of which side of the fense they are on, MUST stick to the rigors of the Scientific Method.

 

I think we should not take seriously any theory that goes beyond what we can test.

 

"Causality" is the basic theory that all of science is based on. The Theory that when something happens, we will get consistant results. Yet this can not by ultimately proven 100%. We can never test anything in totallity. We can theorize, based on causality, that if you hold a brick out and let go, it will drop to the floor (or if you prefer, the distance between the brick and the floor will diminish until they make contact). However we can not test every block that was/ is/ or will be made.

 

So based on your assertion, we should reject everything that is based on the THEORY of Causality.

Freethinker Newbie

Freethinker

Posted
Posted

Originally posted by: nick33

What about the Occam's razor in big bang universe born from nothing.

 

1st, a singularity is NOT "nothing". There is nothing in the BB theory that specifies what was BEFORE it. Thus to claim "nothing" is to use a straw man.

 

2nd Yes Ockham's Razor is one of the strong supports for the BB, especially when used with a Creator proposition. Ockham's Razor is NOT a "PROOF". It is a way of comparing one proposition to another to determin which is more likely to be the right one.

 

If we are evaluating the existence of "nature", the BB uses Nature as the causal agent. Thus there is not any additional agents needed to provide an explanation. Using Nature to explain Nature does not require the addition of an additional agent. We get ONE entity.

 

While inventing a god as the causal agent for nature requires multiplying the number of entities involved. We add a god to nature and have TWO entities.

 

Thus when we apply Ockham's Razor, we see that we can reject any Creationist efforts. It multiplies the number of agents.

nick33 Newbie

nick33

Posted
  • Author
Posted

From your arguments it is seen that causality and Occam’s razor are essential for understanding of nature, which is usually packed in a theory. Anyway in the point of the BB beginning these requirements break because we will never know what was the universe before the BB unless we make extra assumption that are likely to be shaved by the Occam’s razor.

Freethinker Newbie

Freethinker

Posted
Posted

Originally posted by: rileyj

god is one of those "extra assumptions"

 

No, I said NEED to be made.

 

Or perhaps I misunderstand your intent and that you are acknowledging that a god myth IS an:

 

"extra assumption"

 

Which, as such, would be shaved away by Ockham's Razor.

  • 3 weeks later...
Tormod Newbie

Tormod

Posted
Posted

nick33, perhaps you would care to enlighten us "BB people" as to why that page is perplexing in any way?

 

Please read out FAQ regarding posting of links as part of discussions.

 

Tormod

  • 2 weeks later...
Freethinker Newbie

Freethinker

Posted
Posted

Originally posted by: nick33

Space-time cannot account for this symmetry breaking.

 

http://www.cc.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/aniso.html

 

Hence there has to be something wrong with the big bang created space-time.

 

I went to the site you show, spent some time there did not find anything that supports your assertion that this is problematic to the BB.

 

Please give specific quotes and whyit supports your assertion.

wepe Newbie

wepe

Posted
Posted

rileyj,

How could god be an "extra assumption" if god is the basis of all creation, and dont make the mistake of assuming that god is an entity of, for god is not of anything, nor, an entity. and applying god to the laws of physics would be another grave mistake. correct me if im wrong but, in order to have a re-action you must have an action, proving there was a creator.

Freethinker Newbie

Freethinker

Posted
Posted

Originally posted by: wepe

rileyj,

 

How could god be an "extra assumption" if god is the basis of all creation,

 

Simple, until you can PROVE there is a god, we have no reason to allow it into the discussion. Thus it is an unneeded, irrelevant "extra assumption"

 

and dont make the mistake of assuming that god is an entity

 

I would NEVER assume something so absurd. That last thing I ever would assume is a god.

 

correct me if im wrong but, in order to have a re-action you must have an action, proving there was a creator.

 

OK, your WRONG. You have been corrected,

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...