The Big Bang never happened ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-01-2013, 07:10 PM
The Big Bang never happened ?
I hesitated about putting this in the Science thread, but in the end I decided that would have been too provocative !

Can anyone with more knowledge of the subject adequately refute what this guy is claiming ?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php

I'm not talking about YEC here. He seems to raise some valid discussion points based on the science, although I admit to being unqualified to judge their merits.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 08:40 AM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
(12-01-2013 07:10 PM)Idlecuriosity Wrote:  I hesitated about putting this in the Science thread, but in the end I decided that would have been too provocative !

Can anyone with more knowledge of the subject adequately refute what this guy is claiming ?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php

I'm not talking about YEC here. He seems to raise some valid discussion points based on the science, although I admit to being unqualified to judge their merits.


The problem with this is that "quantized red shift" is non-existent. His argument is based on false premise.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
13-01-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
(13-01-2013 08:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  The problem with this is that "quantized red shift" is non-existent. His argument is based on false premise.
OK, if you say so.
More than one study suggest that it does exist, so who to believe ?

Do you consider his other "proofs" equally unfounded ?

- The estimated mass of the singularity would require an escape velocity exceeding the speed of light. The Universe would therefore have collapsed back into its own gravity well
- Population II stars
- Relative position of objects vs. estimated age of the Universe

I really have no way of judging the merits of this person's claims, although a little research shows he's not alone in making them.
What it comes down to in essence is the underlying "accusation" that (some) scientists practice data-fitting in order to reinforce mainstream theories, thereby securing further research funding and access to facilities, as well as to facilitate publication of their work. [An accusation also made with regards to climate change...]

Put otherwise, are scientists infallible ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 10:52 AM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
(13-01-2013 10:38 AM)Idlecuriosity Wrote:  
(13-01-2013 08:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  The problem with this is that "quantized red shift" is non-existent. His argument is based on false premise.
OK, if you say so.
More than one study suggest that it does exist, so who to believe ?

Do you consider his other "proofs" equally unfounded ?

- The estimated mass of the singularity would require an escape velocity exceeding the speed of light. The Universe would therefore have collapsed back into its own gravity well
- Population II stars
- Relative position of objects vs. estimated age of the Universe

I really have no way of judging the merits of this person's claims, although a little research shows he's not alone in making them.
What it comes down to in essence is the underlying "accusation" that (some) scientists practice data-fitting in order to reinforce mainstream theories, thereby securing further research funding and access to facilities, as well as to facilitate publication of their work. [An accusation also made with regards to climate change...]

Put otherwise, are scientists infallible ?
When Hawking took quantum mechanics into account, he said there was no singularity. His original theory was based solely on General Relativity.

I'll think about the others.


Actually, no I won't. The red shift was key to the argument, so I'm done here.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
13-01-2013, 10:53 AM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
(12-01-2013 07:10 PM)Idlecuriosity Wrote:  I hesitated about putting this in the Science thread, but in the end I decided that would have been too provocative !

Can anyone with more knowledge of the subject adequately refute what this guy is claiming ?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php

I'm not talking about YEC here. He seems to raise some valid discussion points based on the science, although I admit to being unqualified to judge their merits.
There was an update in 2011 toward the end, it says higgs boson doesn't exist. I don't know how much the original article relied on the fact it wouldn't be discovered. I find anything on that website difficult to believe and avoid it specifically for that reason.


Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
13-01-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
Thanks for the link. Will read more tomorrow (bedtime now).

I confess I'm not a fan of the Big Bang theory... the rapid expansion bit has always struck me as special pleading.

I like the Big Ripple Theory.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 11:40 AM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
Well its all hypothetical isnt it, we can only observe from the current measurements we can take.

Its like dark matter, consensus has changed more than once on how much dark matter they think exists, even dark matter is just a convenient solution to fill in the missing gaps.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 11:59 AM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
(13-01-2013 10:38 AM)Idlecuriosity Wrote:  I really have no way of judging the merits of this person's claims, although a little research shows he's not alone in making them.
I wouldn't worry about his claims, he doesn't seem to have taken into account Special Relativity. Had he done so, he would have found it covered time dilation; time slows at higher speeds of the reference frame relative to another reference frame. The duration of time can therefore vary according to events and reference frames.
Also, a spacetime itself can be viewed as the union of all events, like the way a line is the union of all of its points - the big bang was everywhere at once. Boom.
(13-01-2013 10:38 AM)Idlecuriosity Wrote:  Put otherwise, are scientists infallible ?
Sure, all the time. Science is a step forward and then a step back to confirm, a step in another direction and a step back to confirm that. Science and scientists are continually asking new and relevant questions, measuring answers, and when the answers change, they find new and more relevant questions. It's a continuous process.

(13-01-2013 10:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  When Hawking took quantum mechanics into account, he said there was no singularity. His original theory was based solely on General Relativity.

I'll think about the others.

Actually, no I won't. The red shift was key to the argument, so I'm done here.

Yes. ^That.^

Boom.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
13-01-2013, 01:23 PM
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
(13-01-2013 10:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-01-2013 10:38 AM)Idlecuriosity Wrote:  OK, if you say so.
More than one study suggest that it does exist, so who to believe ?

Do you consider his other "proofs" equally unfounded ?

- The estimated mass of the singularity would require an escape velocity exceeding the speed of light. The Universe would therefore have collapsed back into its own gravity well
- Population II stars
- Relative position of objects vs. estimated age of the Universe

I really have no way of judging the merits of this person's claims, although a little research shows he's not alone in making them.
What it comes down to in essence is the underlying "accusation" that (some) scientists practice data-fitting in order to reinforce mainstream theories, thereby securing further research funding and access to facilities, as well as to facilitate publication of their work. [An accusation also made with regards to climate change...]

Put otherwise, are scientists infallible ?
When Hawking took quantum mechanics into account, he said there was no singularity. His original theory was based solely on General Relativity.

I'll think about the others.


Actually, no I won't. The red shift was key to the argument, so I'm done here.
Hawing states that he would expect a singularity in real time, but goes on to state that quantum effects do not remove the singularity, proposing the hypothesis of an absence of singularity in the imaginary time direction within the no boundary proposal : http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

For what it's worth, NASA's site also talks about a singularity : http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/foc...-big-bang/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2013, 01:40 PM (This post was last modified: 13-01-2013 02:53 PM by cufflink.)
RE: The Big Bang never happened ?
If the vast majority of scientists say A, but some maverick says B, then it's up to the maverick to prove his point to the satisfaction of the majority of the A guys. This has happened a number of times in the history of science. For example, Einstein overturned the Newtonian conception of space and time and changed how we look at gravitation. He convinced the establishment by getting his results published in professional, peer-reviewed journals, where the pros could weigh the evidence. And his new theories made empirically verifiable predictions that turned out to be correct. As a result, the vast majority of scientists changed their minds.

The Big Bang Theory is accepted as fact by the vast majority of working astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists. If the contrary guy says it never happened, let him write up a paper cogent enough to pass muster with the editorial board of a recognized scientific journal. Once the article is published, the scientific community will examine the evidence. If the majority, or even a significant minority, conclude he's right, or that he's come up with a legitimate challenge to the accepted theory that merits further examination, I'm willing to suspend my belief in the Big Bang. Otherwise he's just another wannabe scientist with specious arguments that sound valid to non-experts.

That's how science works. And it works well. We can't all be experts in everything; for most things we need to rely on the expertise of professionals. If the majority of professionals with the background and knowledge to know what they're talking about say one thing, that's the default which we non-professionals need to accept unless there's good reason not to. If you someone think thinks that the HIV virus is not the cause of AIDS, or that man-made global warming doesn't exist, or that the Big Bang never happened, then that person should first convince the professionals you're he or she is right. If they buy it, I will too. Otherwise, you that person have has nothing of interest to say to an educated audience.

Edited to eliminate the ambiguity of the "you" pronoun in the last paragraph.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cufflink's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: