Big Bang theory is not valid.

[theVOID]

Well actually I believe they do not exist at all it would be the equivalent of me saying I believe in fairy dust and then going to search for it.

Great, now you have to account for the observed red-shifts of type 1-a supernovae, please present your math. As it stands, 'Dark energy', some anti-gravitational force leading to spatial expansion, is our best explanation - If you think you've got a better way to account for the observed phenomenon it's up to you to show that this explanation is more plausible.

This is my issue when you try to prove something you do so on evidence, what you do not do is have an idea then seek to find evidence which is not there to back your wrong idea ..... myself and a number of scientists believe this is exactly what is happening with the BB theory.

Dark Energy was proposed to explain an observation, the evidence is for some phenomenon that is causing the accelerated expansion of space, for now that is all we know and we have extremely good evidence supporting the existence of this phenomenon.

Also, there WAS a big bang theory prior to the proposal of Dark Energy, so even there is some other better explanation for the observations it DOES NOT rule out a big bang - It might change the age of the universe and give us a different picture of the total percent of components of the universe but that's about it.

[Diamond-Deist]

Convinced as in; Given the evidence there is a high probability that the universe started off in a small, highly condensed state and expanded?

That's about as convinced as I am.

Hello, most members of the public are convinced because like myself we are told by leading scientists that this has been covered as well as it can be however there is a lot of evidence to show that this is not the case .... by fellow scientists.

What we are not being told is that the proof they say they have as far as their equations is incomplete or at worst made up.

It's my birthday I'm at the tale end of a hangover and have been partying all weekend, I will get back to this tomorrow and if some of you watch the short video segment you will get a good idea of where I'm going with this whether you agree or not .... I'm here for discussion not to be a smart arse or talk about Sky Daddy's.

[The Grand Nudger]

No seriously are we done? If all you have is that video, the argument put forward is 50 years beyond its best-by date.

[popeyespappy]

That's correct, "dark matter" and "dark energy" have not been proven to exist. I don't see the problem yet. Some promising data, but nothing set in stone.

Well actually I believe they do not exist at all

So you lack belief in dark matter despite the rather large body of evidence that it does indeed exist? Please explain the gravitational lensing effect.

We review progress in understanding dark matter by astrophysics, and particularly via the effect of gravitational lensing. Evidence from many different directions now all imply that five sixths of the material content of the universe is in this mysterious form, separate from and beyond the ordinary “baryonic” particles in the standard model of particle physics. Dark matter appears not to interact via the electromagnetic force, and therefore neither emits nor reflects light. However, it definitely does interact via gravity, and has played the most important role in shaping the Universe on large scales. The most successful technique with which to investigate it has so far been the effect of gravitational lensing. The curvature of space-time near any gravitating mass (including dark matter) deflects passing rays of light – observably shifting, distorting and magnifying the images of background galaxies. Measurements of such effects currently provide constraints on the mean density of dark matter, and its density relative to baryonic matter; the size and mass of individual dark matter particles; and its cross section under various fundamental forces.

Linky

it would be the equivalent of me saying I believe in fairy dust and then going to search for it.

Actually pretty funny coming from a deist.

This is my issue when you try to prove something you do so on evidence, what you do not do is have an idea then seek to find evidence which is not there to back your wrong idea ..... myself and a number of scientists believe this is exactly what is happening with the BB theory.

Big Bang theory was originally formulated to explain direct observations. These observations are evidence of the Big Bang. If the shoe fits, and The Big Bang model does fit the available evidence, you wear it until either new evidence that refutes the theory becomes available or find a new shoe that fits even better.

[Diamond-Deist]

Great, now you have to account for the observed red-shifts of type 1-a supernovae, please present your math. As it stands, 'Dark energy', some anti-gravitational force leading to spatial expansion, is our best explanation - If you think you've got a better way to account for the observed phenomenon it's up to you to show that this explanation is more plausible.

Dark Energy was proposed to explain an observation, the evidence is for some phenomenon that is causing the accelerated expansion of space, for now that is all we know and we have extremely good evidence supporting the existence of this phenomenon.

Also, there WAS a big bang theory prior to the proposal of Dark Energy, so even there is some other better explanation for the observations it DOES NOT rule out a big bang - It might change the age of the universe and give us a different picture of the total percent of components of the universe but that's about it.

Ok one more, it is 4:30am where I am lol.

Once again of course BB came before Dark energy, dark energy was never needed before the issues arose around the BB theory now all of a sudden we apparently have dark energy ..... don't get me started on red shifts because that too has it's problems.

These are good questions so I will address them properly tomorrow but I would like to leave you with one more thing ....

The "age" of the Universe keeps being proposed according to the BB theory as its base platform on when to start judging it.
My issue is this it currently is being based on the observable universe and has several times been altered to fit with new discoveries i.e we now arrive at post dark energy era, however it has been raised that the probability of the Universe being larger than we suspect (a lot larger) is problematic for the BB model.
If the Universe is nigh on infinite then it is impossible for a singular point of creation simply because it cannot be possible that in 14 billion years the entire universe was created ..... simply its far to big.

Let me know what you think of the vid.

[theVOID]

Hello, most members of the public are convinced because like myself we are told by leading scientists that this has been covered as well as it can be however there is a lot of evidence to show that this is not the case .... by fellow scientists.

Please, go and find me a single cosmologist who believes that this subject "has been covered as well as it ever can be"... Oh, wait, you won't be able to, because it's complete bullshit - Not only are all conclusions in science 'tentative', meaning they are contingent upon the best/latest evidence, cosmogenesis is EASILY one of the least well understood of ANY branch of science, no scientist in their right mind would say it "has been covered as well as it ever can be".

What we are not being told is that the proof they say they have as far as their equations is incomplete or at worst made up.

Incomplete? YES. Made up? NO.

Are you truly this ignorant of what science is or how we determined that the universe was at one point probably extremely small or dense? The big bang idea comes as a result of extrapolating back the expansion of space according the principles in General Relativity, it's nothing more controversial than our best understanding of the history of the universe at the current time.

It's my birthday I'm at the tale end of a hangover and have been partying all weekend, I will get back to this tomorrow and if some of you watch the short video segment you will get a good idea of where I'm going with this whether you agree or not .... I'm here for discussion not to be a smart arse or talk about Sky Daddy's.

I couldn't care less about what you believe about a god, just make sure when you come back you actually bring your arguments with you...

[Diamond-Deist]

Actually pretty funny coming from a deist.

Really? if you knew anything about Deism you would know you know less than nothing about my beliefs until I've stated them.

theVoid your hostility is unwarranted and pretty ignorant, who says I will not address all your points and why are you getting mad because someone has a different view considering neither are provable ..... bit silly isn't it.

Also lets not nit pick over my choice of words, when I said "has been covered as well as it ever can be" I mean't to date not to conclusion .... it only side tracks the conversation try reading between the lines somewhat, thanks.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're absolutely right, of course, you beliefs are irrelevant to the discussion. Do you have something else? Oh, I don't know....evidence?

[theVOID]

Once again of course BB came before Dark energy, dark energy was never needed before the issues arose around the BB theory now all of a sudden we apparently have dark energy ..... don't get me started on red shifts because that too has it's problems.

Please, explain to me in your own words what you think the concept of 'dark energy' is about and why it was proposed.

The "age" of the Universe keeps being proposed according to the BB theory as its base platform on when to start judging it.

No, the age of the universe is proposed due to the observations about spatial expansion and the reversibility of physical law, we can use GR to predict prior states in a system given that which has come later, due to the rigidity of GR and it's astounding accuracy we can form a rather detailed picture about the history of the cosmos, all of which points to a period of rapid inflation from a spatially small region.

My issue is this it currently is being based on the observable universe and has several times been altered to fit with new discoveries i.e we now arrive at post dark energy era, however it has been raised that the probability of the Universe being larger than we suspect (a lot larger) is problematic for the BB model.

That's the ENTIRE POINT of doing science.

Initial Belief + New Data -> Improved Belief.

If the Universe is nigh on infinite then it is impossible for a singular point of creation simply because it cannot be possible that in 14 billion years the entire universe was created ..... simply its far to big.

1. We have no evidence that the universe is spatially infinite.
2. Show me the math that proves that the universe is "too big" to have expanded to it's current size in 14 billion years.

[Diamond-Deist]

No seriously are we done? If all you have is that video, the argument put forward is 50 years beyond its best-by date.

Well seriously do you have counter arguments for what these accomplished scientists claim, if you have I'd love to hear them?

I'm a seeker of truth not of I told you so's, if what they claim is invalid I'd love to hear it.

The video is old? the BB theory is older??