Big Bang theory is not valid.

[Diamond-Deist]

I'm already having this conversation with actual scientists pro and anti BB who behave a lot more dignified than you lot.

No worries, bye.

And I'm skydiving with Richard Branson and Scooby Doo right now.

See how I can play this full of shit game too?

Not that I'd risk much against a master such as yourself.

Have a nice day.

Hmmm amusing, for those others of you here is a conversation between myself and a cosmologist with over 30+ years experience who has written papers on this subject .... this is just one of them mind you, other than that see you guy's who were worth talking to later unlike the above clown.

Diamond,

Quote
Is the CRB analysed from the WMAP proof the universe was once condensed or is there other explanations for this?

Not at all! There is no evidence at all that the universe has ever been more condensed than it presently is. All cosmological models have always asserted that the inter-galactic medium has a temperature to it. This temperature is based upon galactic radiation. Such temperatures have been accurately estimated for more than a hundred years concerning the interstellar medium temperature of our own galaxy. This was also in the video. Some of these estimates are very close to what has been observed concerning the microwave background radiation temperature, what is presently called the CMBR.

Here's two links which give what might be called standard alternative explanations of the observed microwave background radiation.

Diamond,

Quote
One question I have is, is there any evidence to suggest where the proposed expansion is emanating from within the Universe?

There is no conclusive evidence the universe is expanding. The primary evidence according to the BB model and many other models is the observed galactic redshifts. There is also much evidence to support the assertion that there is a direct correlation between a galaxy's brightness and its redshift. This would mean that we accordingly can calculate galactic distances based upon their observed redshifts. As to determining the expansion of the universe, an assumption must first be made. This assumption is that the redshifts of galaxies are caused by their relative recession velocities away from us and each other. If this assumption is wrong then the observable universe is not necessarily expanding. All of the cosmological models mentioned in the video, along with the Big Bang model, make this same assumption that redshifts indicate a recession velocity and related to the Doppler effect. For my own cosmological model I make a different assumption and otherwise explain galactic redshifts having a different cause, so in my model the observable universe is not expanding.

In the BB model the expansion of the universe is generally associated with the expansion of space. Reasons for this expansion of space seem to be hypothetical since there is no consensus of opinion concerning why space accordingly should expand. In most Steady State models the expansion of the universe is due to the continuous creation of new matter which accordingly would expand the space that encompasses this new-creation process. In the Plasma Cosmology model the universe's expansion is proposed to be created by a continuous matter creation mechanism at the centers of galaxies which result in the creation of both matter and anti-matter which upon their interaction and anti-matter's annihilation, would accordingly cause the expansion of galaxies and ultimately the expansion of the universe.

Quote
I'm assuming that as we are supposed to be observing expansion due to the BB model the reversing of time must show or give an indication of a starting point in space?

In a totally flat universe this might be true, flat meaning Euclidean geometry. But according to the BB model based upon General Relativity, space "warps" (bends). This means that it does not follow Euclidean geometry which is common-sense to our senses, but instead follows another kind of geometry called Riemann Geometry. If the universe curves around on itself as many BBers propose, then the universe however large it may be, would have no edge since when traveling far enough in a straight line one eventually would move in a three dimensional circular path. In this model the universe also would have no center to it.

Quote
If some time down the road we discover the Universe is much larger than anticipated and that it could be twice maybe more so as big would that not completely destroy the notion that we are in the vicinity of that starting BB point because surely we could not be the centre point of something that large?

According to the BB model the size of the universe must remain unknown because of the Inflation hypothesis which has a number of different versions. Accordingly the universe could be almost countless time larger than we can presently observe. According to the BB model, everywhere was the center of the BB since space has expanded everywhere since the proposed initial expansion.

---

Problems with the proposed age of the universe and Big Bang calculations.

Globular cluster age

In the mid-1990s, observations of globular clusters appeared to be inconsistent with the Big Bang. Computer simulations that matched the observations of the stellar populations of globular clusters suggested that they were about 15 billion years old, which conflicted with the 13.7 billion year age of the Universe. This issue was generally resolved in the late 1990s when new computer simulations, which included the effects of mass loss due to stellar winds, indicated a much younger age for globular clusters.There still remain some questions as to how accurately the ages of the clusters are measured, but it is clear that these objects are some of the oldest in the Universe.
Obvious problem after the James telescope goes up if we see any older clusters they will be older than the universe is accepted to be according to the BB, this imo is very likely.

There are 80 billion galaxies with 30 Sextillion stars ….. but the universe is only 13.7 Billion years old see the problem? how many stars would be generated per year to fit this theory? To justify this to suit the status quo modification after modification has taken place, now to the point where we have the final coup de grace, Dark Matter …. Why not? With a made up theoretical substance you can make adjustments for anything.

---

** I had a lot, lot more of very interesting info but you've proven with your behaviour and limited maturity that you are not worth discussing it with .... I thought Atheists would be open minded?

I had a lot more to talk about including my religious stance and a whole series of other views on how science shapes my beliefs so it's a shame.

Goodbye.