Big Bang theory is not valid.

[CoxRox]

Read his qualifications I don't need to say any more and no i will not be sharing with you the info i compiled from the others either ...... that ship has sailed.

Whaaaaat? This is like walking in on someone's birthday with a big fat fucking cake and then eating it right in front of them without giving them a piece.

I'm hoping Diamond does decide to continue. I for one want a piece of the cake please....

[Diamond-Deist]

Well obviously the debate descended into a farce so I don't have any interest in continuing it along those lines but I'll give you a hollow summary as to what my aims were when I started.

In some way's I am more atheist than you guys, you dismiss the bible well I decided because so much of my religious beliefs rely on nature and science I decided to test the status quo of the BB theory, mainly because it just smacked of a bottled answer for a number of reasons, but hey how am I supposed to know compared to the God's of science ..... so i decided to some research.

I looked at certain alternatives and why they would think that in opposition to the BB, discovered a host of issues with it and then to learn more started making some contacts with qualified scientists/cosmologists from all walks of BB beliefs pro and anti to get a fuller non biased picture.

What I discovered through them and my own research is how little can actually be proved true, they tell you expansion is real ..... is it? they tell you they know the age of the universe ...... do they? they tell you the universe was once in a condensed state proving the BB ...... was it?.

I cross examined all of this through multiple channels and was amazed and how much were told is fact is actually fiction and why other alternatives do not get the funding they need to progress.

I originally came here to see if there were any arguments pro BB that I could use to complete my Q&A with the scientists I was speaking with ...... you did a good job ish in the beginning, I already knew about the bullet cluster etc .

I was going to show you my conversations, excerpts of what scientists say about the BB theory and share with you the alternatives which do not rely on magical explosions out of nothing some I found very interesting but my patients wore thin at this forum because it was not contributing and as my conversations with the scientists concluded and I felt satisfied with my own knowledge that I did not need this part of it any longer.

There all laid out for you, if you felt I was playing games I hope you can see the reason for it now.

[frankiej]

share with you the alternatives which do not rely on magical explosions out of nothing

I would be happy to have a nice discussion with you on the subject if you stop using words like "magical"... Because, I can only assume from this that you don't fully understand the subject. I only suggest this for your own well being, as I want to have a civil discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Each of those points have already been addressed. The BB theory is scrutinized continually. It isn't the fault of science that it's the best we have, or that the alternatives are no longer considered. It is the "fault" of our observations, predictions, and results. The alternatives are lacking in one or more categories. If you'd like to discuss your model, do it. But it will get ripped apart. The underlaying mechanics of using the FRW to calculate expansion can be found in the Doppler effect. Which was first proposed in 1842 and has since shown to be so reliable that we make heavy use of this little gem of a discovery. It works, everyday, in everyday things, and has for over 100 years. Observed red-shift as a product of a known mechanic leads us to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. This isn't even controversial (regardless of your claims of conspiracy). Some explanations of observed effect are so well documented, so well understood, and so integral to our body of knowledge as a whole that it would be simply ridiculous to deny that they even exist. The proper question is "why (and how) is the universe expanding".

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC
(a cosmology FAQ)

[Diamond-Deist]

It is in fact moving, but expanding from where? for something to expand it needs a point of origin, there is no suggestion it is expanding, the universe is in constant motion that has been obvious from day one considering our solar system.

frankiej I will use whatever words I want, I find the proposition that there was nothing then a hot dense mist like state to an explosion emanating matter as magical, also I find the primeval atom theory a magical conception also, the universe fitted into an atom? also the idea if this is the case of multiplying matter then it took 13.7 Billion years? ..... I understand the concept excuse me if I find it mythical, we have stars that are that old.

I will share some bits of conversation I have had when I asked these types of questions ......

---

Two points when I asked similar questions .... I'll try to find the others if I still have them, please feel free to refute them I am interested if you have an answer these guy's with careers in the subject have missed, i don't mean that sarcastically either I'm genuinely interested.

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.

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.

http://iopscience.io...f/56860.web.pdf
http://www.marmet.or.../mechanisms.pdf

[popeyespappy]

It is in fact moving, but expanding from where? for something to expand it needs a point of origin, there is no suggestion it is expanding, the universe is in constant motion that has been obvious from day one considering our solar system.

Once again, your misunderstanding of the Big Bang has led you to making false assumptions. According to the Big Bang model the universe does not in fact need a point of origin. According to the Big Bang model expansion is happening everywhere. Space is expanding everywhere in all directions. This is why the distances between the galaxies are increasing. This is supported by our observations.

Now before you go off on a tangent and explain to us that this is obviously false because the Earth, our solar system and galaxy are not expanding there is something else you need to understand. Locally gravity has overcome expansion and is holding this matter together relative to the matter around it. With some localized exceptions the distances between galaxies and groups of galaxies is growing.

The exceptions are instances where objects are moving towards each other at velocities greater than the rate of expansion. We are part of one of these exceptions. The Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies are moving toward each other and will one day collide. If I could choose how long or when in time I would live, I would choose to be around to watch the night sky as we approached Andromeda and the galaxies collide. That would make for quite the show.

[The Grand Nudger]

There will be a profound effect before this collision is ever visible. I think I'd pass (but I understand the fixation..it would be cool to watch)

[popeyespappy]

There will be a profound effect before this collision is ever visible. I think I'd pass (but I understand the fixation..it would be cool to watch)

I don’t know how long before the collision Andromada would be visible in the night sky, but it would be at least millions perhaps hundreds of millions of years before the shit hit the fan. It would be plenty of time to enjoy the show.

As far as profound effects go….

Based on current calculations they predict a 50% chance that in a merged galaxy the solar system will be swept out three times farther from the galactic core than it is currently located.[1] They also predict a 12% chance that the Solar System will be ejected from the new galaxy some time during the collision.[6] Such an event would have no adverse effect on the system and chances of any sort of disturbance to the Sun or planets themselves may be remote.[6][7]

Without intervention, by the time that the two galaxies collide, the surface of the Earth will have already become far too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life, which is currently estimated to occur in about 1.4 billion years due to gradually increasing warmth of the Sun.[8][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E...lar_System

ETA: I know it’s counter intuitive, but if we were around when the galaxies collide chances are we wouldn’t be negatively affected by it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Counter-intuitive indeed, you learn something new every day. Good link.

[Shell B]

Welsh Cake, can you send me your address so I can send you a large tub of vaseline so you can remove that pole out of your as*, stop being pathetic, I am at work because I have a life off the net ..... I will begin with an opening when I get home in the next few hours.

I am aware that this was waaay back in the thread and that it may have been addressed, though it doesn't seem it has. Forgive me if I am wrong. At any rate, calling people pathetic is not okay. Calling their ideas pathetic is tolerable. As for poles in asses, some people like that, so let's not knock things. We're here to discuss, not piss on each other when we disagree.

The above goes for everyone. I'm checking the rest of this thread now. Please refrain from belittling each other and stick to the topic or the thread gets closed.