I was just curious to know that if we had to point out the single most concrete proof that the origin of the universe was a Big-Bang what would it be ? I mean a definite proof which could not be countered...
QUOTE (saikat.prabhakar+Jul 22 2011, 10:10 AM)
I was just curious to know that if we had to point out the single most concrete proof that the origin of the universe was a Big-Bang what would it be ? I mean a definite proof which could not be countered...
Thirdly, detailed measurements of primordial element abundances.
Fourthly, the detailed successes of the physical theories of the Standard Model and General Relativity
Fifthly, the three-way match between the details of CMB radiation anisotropies, element abundances and measures of expansion to select a very narrow region of model parameter space. If these three lines of evidence didn't point to the same set of initial conditions, it would be like the fingerprints, hair samples and blood samples of a purported murderer pointing to three different people and be very confusing.
But since all three lines of evidence intersect, the accused is having a hard time coming up with a different story about what happened 13.7 billion years ago.
Fourthly, the detailed successes of the physical theories of the Standard Model and General Relativity
Fifthly, the three-way match between the details of CMB radiation anisotropies, element abundances and measures of expansion to select a very narrow region of model parameter space. If these three lines of evidence didn't point to the same set of initial conditions, it would be like the fingerprints, hair samples and blood samples of a purported murderer pointing to three different people and be very confusing.
But since all three lines of evidence intersect, the accused is having a hard time coming up with a different story about what happened 13.7 billion years ago.
You know what bugs me about the redshift? They use the distant Type I supernovas to measure it, right? The light curve of the supernova act like a clock and can be used to test the expansion. Time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation. A supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. However, those friggin little quasars do not show any time dilation at all. What’s up with that? 
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 22 2011, 03:38 PM)
Thirdly, detailed measurements of primordial element abundances.
Fourthly, the detailed successes of the physical theories of the Standard Model and General Relativity
Fifthly, the three-way match between the details of CMB radiation anisotropies, element abundances and measures of expansion to select a very narrow region of model parameter space. If these three lines of evidence didn't point to the same set of initial conditions, it would be like the fingerprints, hair samples and blood samples of a purported murderer pointing to three different people and be very confusing.
But since all three lines of evidence intersect, the accused is having a hard time coming up with a different story about what happened 13.7 billion years ago.
Yes indeed Rpenner....I believe so too that all these years the suspect is being narrowed down....but time and again you stumble upon such observations which tend to dissapprove whats been established.
http://community-2.webtv.net/hotmail.com/p...gBangDisproven/
Fourthly, the detailed successes of the physical theories of the Standard Model and General Relativity
Fifthly, the three-way match between the details of CMB radiation anisotropies, element abundances and measures of expansion to select a very narrow region of model parameter space. If these three lines of evidence didn't point to the same set of initial conditions, it would be like the fingerprints, hair samples and blood samples of a purported murderer pointing to three different people and be very confusing.
But since all three lines of evidence intersect, the accused is having a hard time coming up with a different story about what happened 13.7 billion years ago.
Yes indeed Rpenner....I believe so too that all these years the suspect is being narrowed down....but time and again you stumble upon such observations which tend to dissapprove whats been established.
http://community-2.webtv.net/hotmail.com/p...gBangDisproven/
QUOTE (saikat.prabhakar+Jul 22 2011, 01:03 PM)
Yes indeed Rpenner....I believe so too that all these years the suspect is being narrowed down....but time and again you stumble upon such observations which tend to dissapprove whats been established.
Please elaborate. Linking to your terrible website is not a substitute for argument.
Please elaborate. Linking to your terrible website is not a substitute for argument.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 22 2011, 05:06 PM)
Please elaborate. Linking to your terrible website is not a substitute for argument.
Well the website is not mine...but what I wanted to pointed out was the fact that the Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is evidence that there were fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at the time...The link hints towards this following journal.....you may read on if you like
http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html
Well the website is not mine...but what I wanted to pointed out was the fact that the Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is evidence that there were fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at the time...The link hints towards this following journal.....you may read on if you like
http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html
“Schild is a proponent of "magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects" (MECOs), an alternative to black holes. These results are often published in Journal of Cosmology, an astronomy journal edited by Schild.
Neither ECOs nor MECOs have gained wide acceptance among scientists; Gerry Gilmore of the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Cambridge has stated that the concept is "almost certainly wrong," and Chris Hillman has stated that it is "flat out wrong".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Schild
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetospheri...llapsing_object
Neither ECOs nor MECOs have gained wide acceptance among scientists; Gerry Gilmore of the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Cambridge has stated that the concept is "almost certainly wrong," and Chris Hillman has stated that it is "flat out wrong".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Schild
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetospheri...llapsing_object
QUOTE (saikat.prabhakar+Jul 23 2011, 01:17 PM)
Well the website is not mine...but what I wanted to pointed out was the fact that the Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is evidence that there were fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at the time...The link hints towards this following journal.....you may read on if you like
I took a look, and both the authors and you have completely misunderstood the meaning of "Metric Expansion of the Universe." It's not explosive. Matter is not expanding, space is expanding.
I took a look, and both the authors and you have completely misunderstood the meaning of "Metric Expansion of the Universe." It's not explosive. Matter is not expanding, space is expanding.
QUOTE (saikat.prabhakar+Jul 23 2011, 05:17 PM)
Well the website is not mine...but what I wanted to pointed out was the fact that the Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is evidence that there were fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at the time...The link hints towards this following journal.....you may read on if you like
http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html
I read the first paragraph in 'the constancy of the speed of light' and realized 'Those folks are a bunch of clueless knuckleheads'. So if you like reading stuff written by clueless knuckleheads go for it. The problem with uninformed folks is they'll believe anything published on the internet on subjects they're not conversant with. They referenced another crackpot in Van Flandern. I hate calling him a crackpot just because he's deceased. They're stringing together a bunch of nonsense and calling it cosmology. What else is new.
http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html
I read the first paragraph in 'the constancy of the speed of light' and realized 'Those folks are a bunch of clueless knuckleheads'. So if you like reading stuff written by clueless knuckleheads go for it. The problem with uninformed folks is they'll believe anything published on the internet on subjects they're not conversant with. They referenced another crackpot in Van Flandern. I hate calling him a crackpot just because he's deceased. They're stringing together a bunch of nonsense and calling it cosmology. What else is new.
QUOTE (saikat.prabhakar+Jul 22 2011, 05:03 PM)
Yes indeed Rpenner....I believe so too that all these years the suspect is being narrowed down....but time and again you stumble upon such observations which tend to dissapprove whats been established.
http://community-2.webtv.net/hotmail.com/p...gBangDisproven/
Maybe you should quit looking at the bottom of the dumpster and review something that is part of the scientific literature.
http://community-2.webtv.net/hotmail.com/p...gBangDisproven/
Maybe you should quit looking at the bottom of the dumpster and review something that is part of the scientific literature.
jacob barnet has a very good argument against the big bang.
QUOTE
Jacob explained his rationale to the Indianapolis Star. "There are two different types of when stars end," Jacob said. "When the little stars die, it’s just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova. What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it’s more dense."
Jacob continued:
So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.
So, um, in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it’s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don’t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn’t there have to be some sort of carbon?
Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn’t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn’t gonna happen.
Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We’d have to be 21 billion years old ... and that would just screw everything up.
Jacob continued:
So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.
So, um, in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it’s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, um, I don’t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn’t there have to be some sort of carbon?
Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn’t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn’t gonna happen.
Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We’d have to be 21 billion years old ... and that would just screw everything up.
QUOTE (bar_room_physist+Jul 23 2011, 07:46 PM)
jacob barnet has a very good argument against the big bang.
It's a shame he doesn't appear to have a good grasp of nucleosynthesis.
It's a shame he doesn't appear to have a good grasp of nucleosynthesis.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 24 2011, 03:13 AM)
It's a shame he doesn't appear to have a good grasp of nucleosynthesis.
could you give a more detailed rebuttal? I couldn't claim to be able to.
could you give a more detailed rebuttal? I couldn't claim to be able to.
The relative abundance of hydrogen, deuterium, and lithium in the observable universe exactly matches the calculated values one gets from the BB.
Hydrogen is not made in stars AT ALL. All hydrogen is primordial. There is NO nuclear reaction which makes hydrogen. This statement alone completely discredits anything Jacob says.
QUOTE
Jacob continued:
So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium
So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium
Hydrogen is not made in stars AT ALL. All hydrogen is primordial. There is NO nuclear reaction which makes hydrogen. This statement alone completely discredits anything Jacob says.
Basics of stellar cores and how even red giants can produce and eject material all the way past iron. This is pretty basic cosmology.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 24 2011, 05:01 AM)
Hydrogen is not made in stars AT ALL. All hydrogen is primordial. There is NO nuclear reaction which makes hydrogen. This statement alone completely discredits anything Jacob says.
fair enough. Thank you.
fair enough. Thank you.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.