Big Bang theory is not valid.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm absolutely expecting a "thank you for participating in this test" at the end of this whole miserable thread. I clicked the damned thing expecting headline news of some unimaginable scientific breakthrough. But no, it's this.

[CoxRox]

If Diamond doesn't come back then I'm out of here as well.

[Anomalocaris]

If Diamond doesn't come back then I'm out of here as well.

If that's what you want. But if I were you, I would take my cue from someone with higher intellectual integrity than diamond, who thinks truth is whatever he could dream up that other people do not care to debate on terms he could understand.

[Jaysyn]

---

Chuck just broke it down for you, in baby steps. If you can't understand what he typed, then you probably aren't going to find the discussion you hoped for here. You may want to try a different forum.

If you can take your tongue out of Chucks as* for a second ....... WTF did he explain to me exactly that was so enlightening to this conversation?

Jaysyn your arrival is a new low in this thread ..... now we have groupies.

Put your heels and panties back on and if all your going to contribute is to back up your "man" then don't bother.

If you guy's are so pathetic that you are incapable of having a debate (because having a discussion takes opinions from two sides) then sure I will leave this forum if that's what you want?

If you find me questioning the BB makes you insecure then that's fine.

---

If you speak so much about "debate" why don't you argue for your position instead of bitching about the way people mock you? If you have evidence for your case, DO IT NOW!

I wasn't mocking him. I was actually being polite.

---

If you can take your tongue out of Chucks as* for a second .......

Very mature response.

WTF did he explain to me exactly that was so enlightening to this conversation?

Try actually reading post #114.

Jaysyn your arrival is a new low in this thread ..... now we have groupies.

Put your heels and panties back on and if all your going to contribute is to back up your "man" then don't bother.

If you guy's are so pathetic that you are incapable of having a debate (because having a discussion takes opinions from two sides) then sure I will leave this forum if that's what you want?

That wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit, we have enough trolls here already & I'm sure another will show up tomorrow to take your place.

If you find me questioning the BB makes you insecure then that's fine.

Yes, I'm very insecure about some random Internet non-astronomer with a laughable grasp on science questioning years & years of study & data that have gone into forming the Big Bang theory. You figured me out.

[Diamond-Deist]

If that's what you want. But if I were you, I would take my cue from someone with higher intellectual integrity than diamond, who thinks truth is whatever he could dream up that other people do not care to debate on terms he could understand.

Right maybe I should clear something up for you.

You can question my intellectual integrity if you like that does not change the fact that what I am telling you is with the advice of cosmologists with 30+ years of experience who are at a level where they can actually write their own thesis papers from start to finish ..... all in scientific lingo you would not understand, equations included.

You doubting the integrity of my information is like me claiming the same scientists who propose the BB are of low intelligence, now just because I don't agree with them I would never be that ignorant ..... they are more clever than I, however I am speaking with people who are either at their level or beyond in certain fields.

...... so can you now see how pathetic I have found your disdain and petty dismissal's of my claims when I know who's work and merit you are insulting?

For the sake of others who would like me to share what I have researched I will move this on because it's taken a lot of time compiling this .... I may as well share it, those of you who have annoyed me to the point that I'm now abandoning the debate are going to be ignored.

---

Dark matter / energy debate = I believe I have demonstrated that it does not exist and no matter what you hear in this forum no scientist and I mean NO scientist no matter how many qualifications they have can tell you otherwise.

I will if anyone wants me to, show you what scientists actually say about dark matter out of the public eye.

Principals of the BB theory.

EXPANSION / INFLATION =

DARK MATTER / ENERGY = X

COSMIC RADIATION BACKGROUND =

One down two to go, oh and I'll make it brief no debate just the proof.

[Autumnlicious]

You can question my intellectual integrity if you like that does not change the fact that what I am telling you is with the advice of cosmologists with 30+ years of experience who are at a level where they can actually write their own thesis papers from start to finish ..... all in scientific lingo you would not understand, equations included.

Your attempts to beguile us with your connections is completely useless.

Were we to get into a pissing match, I would bring up papers (preferably from the arxiv) to prove my point. I wouldn't wallow in the personal opinions of very smart people, instead I'd bring up their papers as evidence for a reasoned discussion.

You doubting the integrity of my information is like me claiming the same scientists who propose the BB are of low intelligence, now just because I don't agree with them I would never be that ignorant ..... they are more clever than I, however I am speaking with people who are either at their level or beyond in certain fields.

Nobody cares. For all we know, you're really a fifteen year old with a penchant for imagining your opposition in drag*.

...... so can you now see how pathetic I have found your disdain and petty dismissal's of my claims when I know who's work and merit you are insulting?

Yawn.

For the sake of others who would like me to share what I have researched I will move this on because it's taken a lot of time compiling this .... I may as well share it, those of you who have annoyed me to the point that I'm now abandoning the debate are going to be ignored.

Take your ball home then. No one is stopping you from storming out.

*(I do wonder, by the way, why you did that, as it did little to harm the image of a long standing community member (Jaysyn) but certainly made you look like a mere vulgar juvenile)

[Diamond-Deist]

Oooooook.

I know I said I wouldn't but I've been insulted a bit too much for my liking (by too many), not that it bothers me in the main but I don't see the point of sharing this information I've worked hard to get with you .... your simply not worthy of it, if you want to remain ignorant then so be it, not my knowledge but from qualified cosmologists.

Irony is, is that I'm like the atheist telling the Christians their bible is wrong and because they are too scared to detach themselves from their comfort zone I'm being demonized like some sort of heretic.

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.

[Autumnlicious]

I know I said I wouldn't but I've been insulted a bit too much for my liking (by too many), not that it bothers me in the main but I don't see the point of sharing this information I've worked hard to get with you .... your simply not worthy of it, if you want to remain ignorant then so be it, not my knowledge but from qualified cosmologists.

I don't fucking care. You open that pie hole of a mouth, you fucking put out some evidence. All else is mere posturing.

Irony is, is that I'm like the atheist telling the Christians their bible is wrong and because they are too scared to detach themselves from their comfort zone I'm being demonized like some sort of heretic.

No, you're the self-important tool who spouts out bullshit, and thinks "that" is knowledge. It isn't.

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.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

CMBR

---

"With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. But a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[2] was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned them the 1978 Nobel Prize.
Cosmic background radiation is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was smaller, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from its white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, stable atoms could form. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. The photons that existed at that time have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since exactly the same photons fill a larger and larger universe. This is the source for the alternate term relic radiation.
Precise measurements of cosmic background radiation are critical to cosmology, since any proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K, thus the spectrum peaks in the microwave range frequency of 160.2 GHz, corresponding to a 1.9 mm wavelength. This holds if you measure the intensity per unit frequency, as in Planck's law. If instead you measure it per unit wavelength, using Wien's law, the peak will be at 1.06 mm corresponding to a frequency of 283 GHz.
The glow is highly uniform in all directions, but shows a very specific pattern equal to that expected if a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas is expanded to the current size of the universe. In particular, the spatial power spectrum (how much difference is observed versus how far apart the regions are on the sky) contains small anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today. This is still a very active field of study, with scientists seeking both better data (for example, the Planck spacecraft) and better interpretations of the initial conditions of expansion.
Although many different processes might produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMBR."

---

I'd love to see those two links, so we now which alternative you're proposing.
[ space for links ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_micr..._radiation

FRW (the metric expansion of space)

---

The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric is an exact solution of Einstein's field equations of general relativity; it describes a homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe that may be simply connected or multiply connected.[1][2][3] (If multiply connected, then each event in spacetime will be represented by more than one tuple of coordinates.) The general form of the metric follows from the geometric properties of homogeneity and isotropy; Einstein's field equations are only needed to derive the scale factor of the universe as a function of time. Depending on geographical or historical preferences, a subset of the four scientists — Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, Howard Percy Robertson and Arthur Geoffrey Walker — may be named (e.g., Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) or Robertson–Walker (RW) or Friedmann–Lemaître (FL)). This model is sometimes called the Standard Model of modern cosmology.[4] It was developed independently by the named authors in the 1920s and 1930s.

---

[ space for your rebuttal ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E...ker_metric

(For the purpose of comparison I'll link the alternatives you put forward. I won a bet when you mentioned plasma cosmology btw)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

I'm not entirely certain what you're attempting to criticize with the last two "quotes" So I'm just going to link you another wiki
[ space for your alternative ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

DM has been addressed elsewhere, obviously. So, there we have a semi-organized debate. Those two links that are missing in the text would be great, also, re: your claim that we have no evidence for an expanding universe, links to the contrary? I suppose until then we could talk about the three models under consideration. BB, SS, and Plasma. These links all have a great reference list. So, you have more than "Some guy says", yes? Who is this by the way, link a paper so we can have a look.

(all courtesy of this wonderful link, took 10 minutes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

As far as your beliefs go. You have a model of universe in which you invoke miracles? Exactly how do you feel that this squares with science in general, empiricism specifically. I wasn't aware that magic was considered a reputable field of science.