Other *scientific* alternative theories to the big bang, or before the big bang?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2011, 07:05 PM
RE: Other *scientific* alternative theories to the big bang, or before the big bang?
(22-01-2011 06:08 PM)No J. Wrote:  If Arp is right, then the evidence will be found to support his theories, but what if he is just plain wrong, and what if he is a crack-pot?

Then nothing changes.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2011, 03:29 AM
RE: Other *scientific* alternative theories to the big bang, or before the big bang?
No offense Star k, but you lost me here :
Quote:Most astronomical theory is arrived at in personal meetings between members of an influential elite.

It's like I'm reading about the Illuminati or something and as I have already mentioned on a different thread , I bought into conspiracies and statements like that flare up my allergies.

Is there any proper evidence ? You know , peer-reviewed article published in a respectable journal , empirical evidence to support a hypothesis.
I accept any new idea , even if it turns my world inside out , as long as there is evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2011, 09:02 AM
RE: Other *scientific* alternative theories to the big bang, or before the big bang?
You are quoting someone else, and saying I've lost you. Remember, I didn't post the link and say, "Hey guys, here's what I believe is the truth." I found it interesting is all.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2011, 09:16 AM
RE: Other *scientific* alternative theories to the big bang, or before the big bang?
(21-01-2011 07:06 AM)Free_Thinker Wrote:  I find it a little fascinating that most scientists seem to accept the big bang as factual evidence of the beginning of everything. Yes I agree, it's a pretty good theory, but aside from some facts (such as the universe is continuously expanding) i find it a little hard to believe that this is 100% solid proof of the beginning of time and matter.

First, most science is not based on "100% solid proof". Most theories are simply the best explanation for the facts as we know them. Second, there is far more evidence then just the expansion of the universe.

For example, in the 1940s a small group of scientists decided to assume the Big Bang theory was correct and they postulated on what the early universe would have looked like. They took what they knew about the known universe and eventually theorized that at around 200,000 years the universe would have cooled enough that the first light would have originated. They came up with a way of figuring out what frequency this light would have originated on and then postulated how the light would have changed as the universe expanded. They theorized that eventually this light would have expanded to a bandwidth where we could not see it or hear it (with instruments that existed at the time) but that it would be there and constant throughout the universe. This was basically the equivalent of a "fossil" of the early universe. They called this fossilized light the "Cosmic Background Radiation". They published their paper, and it was met with a giant shrug. No one strongly disagreed with it, but there was no way to prove it.

Cut to the mid 1960s and the farm country of central New Jersey, specifically Holmdel, New Jersey, where Bell Labs was located (and roughly 5 miles away from what I would go to live and grow up a little over 10 years later). Back in the 60s when AT&T was monopoly and had money to burn, they actually paid scientists to just sit and think of stuff that had no relevance to their bottom line. Two young astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, started working with a radio telescope that Bell Labs had in the farm country. I don't recall what they were even looking for now.

While pointing the radio telescope to the sky, they found there was some kind of "static". At first they thought it was coming from close bye New York City. So, they pointed it another direction. Static was still there. In fact, the static was there regardless of where they pointed the telescope. So, they went to check the thing out and they found a family of pigeons had nested there. So, they removed the pigeons, but they flew back. So, they moved them again and drove them far away but the pigeons flew back. So, they killed the pigeons finally (true story). They eliminated every possible source on Earth for that static and ultimately concluded that the static was a signal in space, and it was everywhere.

So, they publish this paper about this radiation that surrounds the universe and guess what? Someone remember that 15 or so years early there was this paper that theorized the Cosmic Radiation Background and the frequency it would occur at. I'll give you 1 guess as to what frequency the static that Penzias Wilson occurred at. That's right, by accident they had discovered, and proved, the CMB.

It would be arrogant to assume we understand all aspects of the origins of the universe and that there is not something new to learn, but I think to say that we've not fairly definitively proved the Big Bang theory is essentially correct is just not right. This story is just a small piece of the puzzle.

Rather than youtube videos, I'd highly recommend a book called "Big Bang" by Simon Singh. It is an excellent, easy to read account about the history of the science and discovery that got us to where we are now in our understanding.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2011, 01:08 PM
RE: Other *scientific* alternative theories to the big bang, or before the big bang?
(23-01-2011 09:16 AM)BnW Wrote:  Rather than youtube videos, I'd highly recommend a book called "Big Bang" by Simon Singh. It is an excellent, easy to read account about the history of the science and discovery that got us to where we are now in our understanding.

You know , you could just provide the link to the papers you got this from ... that would be a great start for one's education. I'm guessing you also looked at some peer-reviewed studies also ?
But yeah - you nailed this topic spot on, good show Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2011, 08:03 PM
RE: Other *scientific* alternative theories to the big bang, or before the big bang?
Actually, I read the book I recommended and that is where I learned most of this from so that is probably my best citation. I had heard some of the stuff elsewhere but that one book provided me with the most comprehensive overview of the history of the Big Bang as a scientific study.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2011, 04:59 AM
RE: Other *scientific* alternative theories to the big bang, or before the big bang?
(21-01-2011 07:06 AM)Free_Thinker Wrote:  I find it a little fascinating that most scientists seem to accept the big bang as factual evidence of the beginning of everything. Yes I agree, it's a pretty good theory, but aside from some facts (such as the universe is continuously expanding) i find it a little hard to believe that this is 100% solid proof of the beginning of time and matter.

I don't believe that God popped out of nowhere and waved a magic wand and created shit in 7 days though, that is nonsense.

I'd be interested to watch any videos, read articles, or hear YOUR ideas of alternative ideas as to the beginning of the universe. Or if the big bang did happen (which is simple enough), what may have triggered it. I like the idea of Multiverse/parallel universes, even though I can only wrap my head around so much. Tongue

First; No one said anything about it being 100% It is the best theory so far.; Second; "The big Bang" is Not the Evidence; or fact as of yet. You are mixing up words. "The big bang" is the theory, One example of "Evidence" is the "Fact" the the Universe is Expanding. There is other evidence to which I would refer you to Google searches..
As for videos, The Science Channel has a new show call "How the Universe Works".Idea

The Beauty of The Scientific Method , is the Anticipation of a Better Explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: