[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Creationism/Evolution Title: Questioning the Big Bang The Big Bang dominates current thinking in cosmology. But the experimental evidence that backs it up is surprisingly thin. In fact there are only two pieces of evidence: the galactic redshift and the cosmic background radiation. The Big Bang explains these observations but only by introducing problems of their own. So are there any alternative hypotheses that do a better job? Robert Soberman and Maurice Dubin have developed an idea that they say better explains the observations. They also make some testable predictions which should be able to tell which theory is right. The main problem with the Big Bang theory is that the cosmic background radiation does not have the characteristics you’d expect to see from a Big Bang-type event. For a start, the radiation curve has the distinct whiff of a black body about it, something that can only be produced by ordinary matter radiating at a specific temperature (according to quantum mechanics, anyway). Most theorist do not imagine the Big Bang like this. Next, the cosmic background seems to cover the sky smoothly in all directions, unlike the matter we see which is clumped into galaxies. Even the microvariations discovered by satellites such as COBE and WMAP bear no relation to the distribution of visible matter. So what is Soberman and Dubin’s alternative? They hypothesize that interstellar space is filled with tiny clumps of hydrogen and helium atoms called cosmoids (short for cosmic meteroids). The pair have calculated that cosmoids ought to radiate at 2.735K which is exactly the temperature of the cosmic microwave background and this explains the blackbody curve (they say these cosmoids could be easily created and tested in the lab). This radiation need only be produced by a locally smooth distribution of cosmoids for it to look the same in all directions to us. The cosmoid idea also explains the galactic redshift. Soberman and Dubin say that cosmoids absorbing and re-emitting light from distant galaxies should redshift the light albeit in a way that is subtely different from a doppler redshift generated by an expanding universe. That subtle difference shuld be relatively easy to spot with a few observations, they say. The pair add that evidence that cosmoids exist has already been found by experiments onboard the Pioneer and Helios spacecraft. Oh, and as a by product, the cosmoids make up the missing mass that astronomers call dark matter. A cracking idea! I’m looking forward to seeing how the cosmologists dismantle it. Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0803.3604: Was There A Big Bang?rman and Dubin’s tests reveal. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Another possibility, which is also potentially proven by the "great red shift" is that the speed of light has slowed parabolically over time. It is constant for any given time reference, meaning that the slowing is undetectable, and yet is does slow over oceans of time. This, then, would be reflected in what we see, so the universe is not necessarily expanding, light itself could be slowing. This, then, opens the possibility that the universe is not nearly as old as it would appear to be if we assume a constant speed of light.
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1) I read in some science magazine years ago that to put in layman's terms things are moving in different directions also. The big bang is an atheist's fantasy to discredit Gods word.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1) (Edited) Supernovas show the universe expands at the same rate in all directions www.sciencenews.org/artic...va-show-universe-expands- same-rate-all-directions The expansion rate of the universe appears to vary from place to place, a new study reports. www.space.com/universe-expansion-rate-may-vary.html
Which is it? These scientists aren't scientists. They contradict each other. The Big bang is a religion. The worship of the white lab coats. Kind of like worshipping a rag.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#3) Yes, science conflicts with itself. So does the Bible, the Koran, all "Holy Scripture" of each respective faith. Everything conflicts, and ultimate "Truth" is not fully known, and probably not knowable to us. And yet we go on. What choice do we have?
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4) Yes, science conflicts with itself. So does the Bible, True science never conflicts with itself. Bullshit pseudo science like "evolution" does all the time. Because it is obviously bullshit and only week minded idiots believe stupid shit like that. You tried to prove the Bible contradicted itself the other day. When I presented proof you were wrong. You went silent and abandoned the thread. So until you can come up with something concrete you should close your pie hole. Or should I say quit wiggling your fingers in a stupid manner.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5) I didn't go silent because of your "proof". I ignored the proof. I focused on the fact that you are an abusive ass in the way you speak to me. I'm not interested in what is in your mind, don't read it, don't even consider it, BECAUSE you are a vicious asshole. Your assholery eliminates you getting a hearing in my court. If you cannot speak to me respectfully, I won't even read your posts. You're like the dog that shits on the rug. You might be a great dog, but the fact you shit on the rug leaves you outside with the coyotes. I don't care about your ideas, and don't read them. Your persistent personal attacks and crudeness towards me simply end the dicussion. I don't take you seriously. I think of you as an old man with Tourettes, nothing more. If you actually want to have a discussion with me again, then APOLOGIZE for all the verbal shit and don't do it again. I will not accept any of your personal abuse because I don't think like you. None of it. Not one word. I don't do it to you, and I demand exactly the same courtesy. Apologize and speak civilly and we can go forward. Or don't, and we can go on like this forever. But don't kid yourself that you proved anything. I didn't even read it. And won't. Unless you stop being an ass.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6) I didn't go silent because of your "proof". I ignored the proof. You regularly ignore proof you can't refute. Par for the course. As for the rest of your post. Pot meet kettle.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#6) No apology will be coming. You cried because I said you must F monkeys. Well scientists say that is what happened. Since you think you're great great great.....grandparents were apes or gorillas. That means you F them. It is the only logical conclusion.
#9. To: A K A Stone (#8) Of course no apology will be coming. I know that. There is nothing for us to discuss any further. Goodbye.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|