Big Bang theory is not valid.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm going to monologue this entire argument.

A: Hey guys, this scientist over here doesn't know something ergo God.
B: Actually we do know a little bit about that, which you can find here, here, and here.
A: Conspiracy!
B: Okay, well, do you have any evidence?
A: There's a conspiracy to suppress it!
B: Then how did you hear about it?
A: On this website (links creationist/nutball drivel)
B

(See Deist, I can make prophecy as well)

---

Cox, I thought of a great way to explain DM to you. It is the "Junk DNA" of physics. It attracts exactly the same kind of people.

[Anomalocaris]

Sure, I'm guess we'll all be thinking that when you've won the nobel prize for your wonderous works on dark matter eh?

Do you really think I have a chance?

No. They don't even give ignobel prizes for your style of overreaching rants, much less nobel prizes.

You are so pitiful you arn't even entertaining while wrong.

[CoxRox]

Cox, I thought of a great way to explain DM to you. It is the "Junk DNA" of physics. It attracts exactly the same kind of people.

Ha ha.

I admit I'm out of my depth here. I've been reading other comments from other articles on Amelia Fraser-McKelvie's discovery, and it seems most people who know about these things, are saying it doesn't effect the theory of DM. We'll see. It's all interesting stuff.

[Anomalocaris]

If we don't know what dark matter 'is', then how do we know it's not baryonic???

You don't know who most of the contributors here are, yet you know they most have some command of English, right?

We do not know what Baryonic matter is. But we do know a little bit about what property it must have, and what properties it can not have. It so happens the little bid we know about what properties it can not have also happen to be some of the same properties which baryonic matter must have. So we know it's not baryonic matter.

Because we know pretty well what properties baryonic matter has, and how it interacts with each other and with well know nuclear processes, Therefore we can deduce exactly what effects large amount of baryonic matter must have on many observed processes in the universe. We don not observe those effects, therefore we can deduce there is not a large surplus of unobserved baryonic matter in the observable universe.

However, we do observe effects throughout the universe which best fit a large surplus of mass in the universe. Therefore we are fairly convinced there is a large surplus of mass in the observable universe that consist mostly of non-baryonic matter.

This should give you some idea of how science can reach out with rigor to say with well founded conviction about far more than just what can be seen.

But as a matter of fact, you can even sort of directly observe why most of dark matter is not baryonic. We know galaxies consist of high percentage of hidden mass that can not yet be directly observed. We know this because we observe the effect of the gravity of the unseen matter on the stars which we can clearly observe.

However, from our very well tested understanding of gravity, as our rigorous observation of motions of stars in galaxies, we can not only deduce the total amount of unseen mass in a galaxy, we can also deduce its distribution.

As it turns out, the unseen matter is distributed quite differently in a galaxy compared to visible baryonic matter. Calculation shows that in order for baryonic matter to be distributed in the manner we found that unseen matters are distributed, it must be uniformly very hot. Hot baryonic matter would be visible. Unseen matter is not visible.

So the unseen matter, because it is neither hot and visible, nor distributed like cool and invisible baryonic matter ought, is probably not baryonic.

[Minimalist]

Wow, just wow ..... after all this you still don't get it, I know kids with learning disabilities who can comprehend more than you can.

If by that you mean that I am not buying the bullshit you are selling then congratulations. Its the first time you've been right all day.

[Diamond-Deist]

No. They don't even give ignobel prizes for your style of overreaching rants, much less nobel prizes.

You are so pitiful you arn't even entertaining while wrong.

Realllly?

Here lets try something, for the sake of oh I don't know the discussion why don't you try ..... oh I don't know, pointing out what exactly it is that I'm apparently wrong about?

Your talking like your so clever yet you have donated nothing to this discussion.

I'm going to have to put my foot down as this is getting side tracked, either refute what I have said about dark matter or STFU!!

---

If by that you mean that I am not buying the bullshit you are selling then congratulations. Its the first time you've been right all day.

No silly, that you still have not grasped I'm not a creationist so to speak and don't give a fluff about what your talking about.

Now do you actually have anything to add to the cosmology conversation? or is you life so crap you just enjoy trying to wind me up?

What have i said that's BS? I'm hearing a lot of oh your wrong yet you guy's are not saying anything ..... can't, won't?

Let's be grown ups or are you incapable of having a conversation without name calling like a toddler?

[The Grand Nudger]

No silly, that you still have not grasped I'm not a creationist so to speak

"So to speak" being the operative portion of your phrase. Do you have anything to add to cosmology?

[theVOID]

I have stated that I believe the Big Bang theory to be invalid, what do I mean in detail? I mean that I believe and will attempt to show that the Big Bang theory is no more relevant than other models of creation/universe origin.

Just to be clear, you are talking about any model of cosmogenesis? Could you please list these other models?

why? because as most can tell the Big Bang theory has been some what forced upon the general public as the answer!

What??? The 'public' are told little more than "this is where the evidence points"...

Now any scientists worth his salt will happily say "Well we believe it is the most provable and has the most credentials of all theories" yet it is not that nonchalant. As some of you here may have witnessed questioning this theory is met with hostility, not just here but all across the scientific community because whether they care to admit or not this is the model that A) has been invested in the most, careers, jobs, advancement is all attached to this theory above all others, these people (scientists) are in the business of knowing more than you, you can automatically see where a bias may arise B) Believe it or not this BB model is a reconciliation between science and biblical teachings, the Church has actually approved the BB theory as in their terms it points to an unexplainable singularity of origin so the 7 day creation has been pushed back somewhat, an ad hoc approach which you may see as a pattern as we move forward, C) Certain members of the general public who have a basic understanding have been given the "evidence" and they are happy to accept by those in the know that this is how things are ...... and with all this proof why should it be different, well!

A) Cosmologists wouldn't be scared for their jobs if some other model was shown to better describe the origins of the universe, they would either try and show that the new model was incorrect or they would change their field of study to focus on this model x. If it were to be shown that model x better explains the observed phenomenon or if new observations arose to support another theory it would not be the case that studying the new model would be a bad career move, quite the oposite, it is people who cling to discarded hypotheses that are more likely to find their careers in turmoil - This is precisely what happened when Hubble's observations ruled out the "Steady state" model - There was no conspiratorial effort to discard the BBT because people were studying SST, quite the oposite, SST lost most of it's proponents to the new and better supported theory.

B) The BBT has nothing to do with religion. The fact that some religious organisations have decided to adopt it says more about the strength of the evidence for the theory than anything else. Besides, most cosmologists are NOT religious and couldn't give a fuck about reconciliation with the church - They are concerned with doing science, regardless of what some old paedophiles think.

C) The public also has NOTHING to do with this. If you're going to argue the evidence and/or provide a model that you think better describes the observations then DO IT, but rambling about scientific/religious conspiracies is a waste of everyone's time.

Firstly to make my point I have to attempt to dismantle the BB theory, simply how can I convey it's flaws if i don't show/highlight or prove them? I will for the benefit of those who have admitted limited knowledge of cosmology and the lingo be speaking on occasion in layman's terms so for those with more technical know how don't try to shoot my child like examples down, I'm not doing it for your benefit.

Layman's terms don't cut it. Either provide a mathematical model and demonstrate how it better accounts for GR and the relevant observations, show a flaw in the reasoning behind the BBT or DON'T BOTHER.

---

So the points of interest will be the basis of the BB theory, the examples that if they don't hold up neither does the theory.

Cosmic Radiation Background or CRB.

Okay sure, if there is a better explanation for the WMAP CBR data then that would be a good argument against the BBT.

Dark Energy/Matter.

Both of these phenomenon, the "dark matter" inferred from the gravity between galaxy clusters, and the "Dark energy" inferred from the accelerating expansion of the universe existed AFTER the BBT was proposed, so NO, falsifying either of these DOES NOT necessarily impede BBT.

Inflation / Expansion of the universe.

This is pretty much as solid as any cosmological observation, the red-shifts on Type 1-a supernovae all show that every supernovae is getting further away from every other supernovae AND that the increase in distance over time is growing, this is EASILY best explained by a spatial expansion and the acceleration infers "Dark Energy".

Each of these components are needed for the BB theory to stand on two legs.

No, only one of them is, the CBR. As for the other two the existence of these phenomenon is solidly demonstrable, all that is lacking in either case is an explanation FOR the observations, the observations themselves are abundantly supported empirically.

For the purpose of this discussion regardless of belief I will be taking the stance of purely Anti BB theory and I would appreciate you act as an opposite, so no matter whether you fully believe in it or not for the purpose of getting the most out of this discussion please take the role of pro BB.

Fine.

At the end of this discussion I will explain possible alternatives, future direction and my personal thoughts, but as stated first the case must be made.

So first you're going to show that the three phenomenon you listed don't exist or are better explained by something else and THEN you're going to argue for an alternate explanation? Fine, Good luck, you'll need it.

Just a couple of rules, can we please stick to the three subjects of BB principal I have listed, one they are the most popular, two throwing around other principals like Deuterium Abundance although relevant is not something I want to address at this point in spite of the three previous principals, we can possibly address that later.

You're confused. Dark Matter is NOT a feature of the big bang, it is a material substance that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force carrying photon, inferred by observations of gravitational interactions between galaxies, disproving DM wouldn't make a shit-bit of difference to the BBT, it would simply mean there is some other force linking the galaxies and many other causes have already been proposed from entanglement between horizons to modified gravity due to quantum effects, all the ones I know of are likewise compatible with BBT.

[theVOID]

So, 'missing mass' won't make most people think 'dark matter'? Or am I misunderstanding you?

If your misunderstanding then it's definitely dark matter, remember when in doubt the answer is dark matter .... how far away is the Moon = dark matter, how hot is the sun? = dark matter, how many sugars shall I have in my coffee? = dark matter.

God element of science, yes I think so.

10 years from now Rythm will be banging his bunny ears against the wall thinking "why did I not listen to that Deist guy?"

When I've finished with you on this .... I'm going take care of you on this Goddit crap as well, now go forth and pray to Jesus for salvation.

I've spotted another conundrum... If quantified would your ego be bigger than your stupidity? Hard to tell. What's clear is you rank highly in both categories.

[Welsh cake]

The BB could be wrong, too.....doesn't mean "goddidit."

He's arguing "goddidn'tdoit" as retarded as that sounds. When I read Diamond's posts I now know there's a worst argument theists can use than "X is valid because my god did it!", and that's "X isn't valid because my god didn't do it!", at least with the former they'll accept scientific findings on the basis that "goddidit" and are at least willing to learn and listen to some degree. With the latter its simply a downward spiral into intellectual oblivion and it doesn't stop with appeals to conspiracy - it can be dismissed as simply an excuse not to think.