1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Please debunk the main two arguments against Big Bang:

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by questfortruth, Apr 20, 2019.

  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    705
    Ratings:
    +124
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Argument 1

    Big Bang is disproved here: P. Herouni, Measured Parameters of Large Antenna of ROT-54/2.6 Tell about Absence of Big Bang Journal of Astrophysics: Reports. -- National Academy of Sciences of Armenia 2007, v. 107, no. 1. 73--78; P.M. Robitaille, The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4 K Reference Targets, Progr. Phys. 2010, v. 6, no. 3, 11--18; P.M. Robitaille, Water, Hydrogen Bonding and the Microwave Background, Progr. Phys. 2009, v. 5, no. 2,

    L5--L8; P.M. Robitaille, COBE: A Radiological Analysis, Progr. Phys. 2009, v. 5, no. 4, 17--42; P.M. Robitaille, WMAP: A Radiological Analysis, Progr. Phys. 2007, v. 3, no. 1, 3--18. Popular story in ``The Herouni Antenna – The Death of Big Bang''



    Indeed, when Cosmic Microwave Background's light was connected to matter (Universe "Dark Ages"), so there was no light prior to CMB release. If there was no light to release, then what was released then? There is always matter in Universe, why then the CMB release short period of time was so special? Was there special expansion or what?

    Argument 2

    The red-shift of galaxies can be attributed to the departure (from Earth) speed. Then the Earth is truly the symmetric center of Universe. That speed is not caused by expansion of spacetime, but by inertia law: very first law of Newton mechanics. Then the following math is true:
    scientific word for Biblical Firmament in Genesis 1:7. Universe in Nutshell

    DISCUSSION

    He:
    Sure, all the scientists and mathematicians are wrong, you with your Youtube clips and garbled semi-scientific terminology are correct.

    Me:
    It is simply reduculous! Nobody can debunk a paper by simply:

    1. trolling it,

    2. Presumption of Guilt,

    3. Burden of proof (there is no talks of burdens for a truth-seeker),

    4. appeal to authority (appeal to impact factor of the paper journal), because it is the Fallacy of Authority.

    He:
    Wrong. There was light before, but it strongly interacted with the matter, which meant it could travel freely. When the decoupling with matter occurred, the light could then move freely.

    Me:
    Man, the matter is always in Universe, thus light is always more or less interacting with matter. What is special at the single moment of CMB release?

    He:
    The temperature of the matter decreased to the point it became transparent. And it wasn't a single moment.It lasted probably a few thousand years, but that is a short time on a cosmic scale.

    Me:
    So, there was no light prior to light release?

    He:
    The expansion had to go large enough, to reduce the density of the energy, such that it became possible for matter to ``condense" or form from the energy. This initial formation of matter, is what created the initial burst of microwave radiation.

    Me:
    But the Grand Unified Theory (Strong+Electroweak forces) is not discovered. How then the CMB possible?!

    He:
    You are missing the point. Until the universe cooked sufficiently, and electrons were associated with specific atoms, the universe was effectively opaque. Yes, there was light but it could only travel very short distances. As it continued to expand it cooled to the point where electrons could permanently combine with atomic nuclei. When that happened the universe became transparent.

    Me:
    So, prior to CMB release the electrons were inside the atoms or maximum close to atoms, so the photons were unable to pass through? That means, that prior to CMB release the Universe was a gigantic neutron star? By the way, what about Pauli rule, that does not allow two electrons to be at same state? Talking about fairytale:



    LITERATURE:

    A. ``Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe'' July 27, 2010 The Geometry of the Universe

    Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

    B. Thomas Van Flandern, ``The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory'', Meta Research Bulletin 11, 6--13 (2002)

    The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern

    http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF
     
    #1 questfortruth, Apr 20, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2019
    • Funny Funny x 3
  2. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,044
    Ratings:
    +6,566
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Sure, all the scientists and mathematicians are wrong, you with your Youtube clips and garbled semi-scientific terminology are correct. Where do I send my cheque?


    ETA does this mean you're not trying to claim firmament is a mistranslation of fillament anymore?
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    41,501
    Ratings:
    +3,347
    and if you reverse the motion we see....
    would not the entire universe eventually collapse into one location?

    and matter as we know it would be.....void
     
  4. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    6,436
    Ratings:
    +3,989
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    The question is wrong on a fundamental level. The light was present prior to visible CMB, it was simply too high a frequency to detect. (one possible answer)

    Or the light was in a different form (another).

    According to the Big Bang model, all the universe was in the form of energy-- no matter of any kind existed, and then it began to expand. Until the formation of matter? The energy would not be in a visible form. The expansion had to go large enough, to reduce the density of the energy, such that it became possible for matter to "condense" or form from the energy. This initial formation of matter, is what created the initial burst of microwave radiation.

    The problem with your "question" is that it 100% ignores the FACT that Energy Frequently Changes Form: For example-- take potential chemical energy stored in a battery, convert it to electrical energy (electrons moving in a metal conductor) then pass it through just the right resistive material, and electric energy changes form into visible light energy: Viola! A flashlight.

    The photons created by the flashlight did not exist as photos prior to the release of chemical energy in the battery.

    Energy had to change form at least twice-- three times if you also factor in the energy of Entropy-- which escapes the flashlight in the form of unusable heat energy. Each step of conversion from potential chemical energy to electric energy to light energy, some is "lost" in the form of heat energy.

    YOUR INITIAL QUESTION 100% IGNORES THIS PHENOMENA: LIGHT IS BUT ONE TINY FRACTION OF POSSIBLE ENERGY FORMS.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  5. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    6,436
    Ratings:
    +3,989
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    False. Proof, you ask? The movement of galaxies (and other observational objects) do not move away from earth, symmetrically, as you would require if the earth was the starting point.

    That is to say, the pattern of separation would be obvious, and visible from earth-- in all directions, we would see a similar pattern-- think: Standing at the center of an explosion, in zero gravity, looking outward, all particles would be moving directly away from the center.

    Observational data proves this is not the case: we are not at the center of all the observed movements.

    Ooops!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    6,436
    Ratings:
    +3,989
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    Twenty-seven seconds. That's as far as I got, before the condescending commentator forced me to reach for the 'STOP THIS NONSENSE' button.

    Sorry, but I just could not listen to that guy's charlatan voice mode even one more second...

    ... I found I actually put my hand on my wallet and keys, to be sure they were still in their proper places on my person, after just a few seconds of listening to that guy ...

    And I was looking around, fully expecting to see a parking lot full of shiny used cars with giant signs portraying their dubious and uncertain qualities, with a "no money down" promise on each windshield...

    I was kind of relieved when I hit "stop", that I was simply sitting in front of my laptop, and that guy was no where near...
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    705
    Ratings:
    +124
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    It is simply reduculous! Nobody can debunk a paper by simply:
    1. trolling it,
    2. Presumption of Guilt,
    3. Burden of proof,
    4. appeal to authority (appeal to impact factor of the paper journal), because it is the Fallacy of Authority.
     
  8. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,026
    Ratings:
    +11,662
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Wrong. There was light before, but it strongly interacted with the matter, which meant it could travel freely. When the decoupling with matter occurred, the light could then move freely.

    No. The red shift is due to expansion effects, not to a doppler shift (an approximation for nearby galaxies). The Earth is NOT the symmetric center: our galaxy has a peculiar motion of about 200 km/sec. Furthermore, every location in the universe would see a similar 'expansion away' like what we see here. The nature of the expansion is such that all points are essentially equivalent.

    So, two major misunderstandings of what the BB model actually says.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  9. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,891
    Ratings:
    +712
    Religion:
    Christian
    Those are really not the main or only arguments.

    How the background radiation got so constant is an issue
    The clumpy nature of the structure of the universe is an issue
    Some things are very red shifted possibly because they are intrinsically re not because they are the farthest away.
    Most people agree there is expansion of space going on

    A secular big bang does require a cause and with no space no time and no matter to work with it's a bit like pulling a rabbit out of hat without a rabbit without a hat and without a magician. But I don't believe the Big Bang is a slam dunk anyhow.

    I do think a big bang is coming where heaven and earth flee away from the face of Him who sits on the great white throne
     
    #9 whirlingmerc, Apr 20, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2019
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,363
    Ratings:
    +15,203
    Religion:
    Atheist
    "God did it " is not an explanation. In fact it is one that is continuously shown to be wrong. That we do not have all of the answers on how the Big Bang worked is not evidence for God it is not an excuse to invoke a God. Why do creationists think that "God did it" gets them out of trouble?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  11. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,891
    Ratings:
    +712
    Religion:
    Christian
    God did it seems for more reasonable that the whole universe of space time and matter pooled into existence by itself.

    But there is not one single 'big bang' theory, there are many. It's like jello changing all over the place

    Here are 30 problems
    The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern

    And I don't agree with an eternal universe but another alternative
    Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    27,363
    Ratings:
    +15,203
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Really? When is "magic" every a better explanation than a natural observable process? God did it offers no more of an explanation than "Universe Farting Pixies" did it. And I am sure that you would not accept UFP's as a valid explanation. Why do you accept "God did it" as an explanation?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    705
    Ratings:
    +124
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Man, the matter is always in Universe, thus light is always more or less interacting with matter. What is special at the single moment of CMB release?
     
  14. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    6,436
    Ratings:
    +3,989
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    You used the word "reasonable" in a way that is not consistent with it's meaning.

    Ooops!
     
  15. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    705
    Ratings:
    +124
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    But the Grand Unified Theory (Strong+Electroweak forces) is not discovered. How then the CMB possible?!
     
  16. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,891
    Ratings:
    +712
    Religion:
    Christian
    There is a healthy skepticism that evaluates things
    There is an unhealthy cynicism... not the same
     
  17. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Hardline moderate

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,044
    Ratings:
    +6,566
    Religion:
    Catholic
    "Burden of proof"?

    ... that sound you just heard was the universe imploding from exposure to a total negative self awareness.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,026
    Ratings:
    +11,662
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    The temperature of the matter decreased to the point it became transparent. And it wasn't a single moment.It lasted probably a few thousand years, but that is a short time on a cosmic scale.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,026
    Ratings:
    +11,662
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    At the temperature of decoupling (around 10,000 K), it had cooled to the point that the nuclear reactions weren't important. So it was simply a matter of things cooling to the point that the matter became transparent.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  20. questfortruth

    questfortruth Active Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    705
    Ratings:
    +124
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    So, there was no light prior to light release?
     
Loading...