Trashing the trashing of the big bang theory
A visitor called Frank Goodman requested the following image to be published in our group. I disallowed it, but for a reason that might not be as clear as the average member might think. I sat and thought for a while before making my decision. I wanted to allow it because even though Frank is making several clear mistakes in his trashing of the big bang theory his post is polite and expresses his position clearly. I believe that ideas, even ideas that I feel are very wrong should be given a soapbox – if they are clearly and politely stated.
The reason that I disallowed it is that I have seen a lot of bad behaviour from a certain vocal minority (I hope) of members. I would expect a large number of rather impolite answers that do not clearly and politely express their position. Because they believe that they are right and so do not have to explain themselves. Followed by a request that the post be removed.
Being right does not mean that you do not have to explain yourself any more than being innocent means that you do not need a lawyer. Being right means that you can clearly and politely express reasons why you are right. That is what makes you right.
In this case some of the issues are:
1. the big bang theory does not say that there was a hydrogen bomb sitting in the middle of empty space, which then exploded.
2. even if this was the case, a small part of the expanding cloud could in principle gravitate towards its own centre even as it sped outward away from the conflagration.
3. Hydrogen being the lightest element known is not in and of itself important here. The same arguments, at the level of technical detail given would apply to uranium.
4. there is a lot of observational support for the big bang theory.
This, of course is not the whole picture. But it is the kind of thing that should calmly come to your mind when you read the submission by Frank. Please keep this in mind. Thank you.
Ik geloof in een ‘big bang’
Maar niet zoals hier in het geel wordt aangenomen, dat dan als vanzelfsprekend alle uitkomende materie ergens samengedrukt aanwezig was. Ik denk dat die materie nergens aanwezig was.
Misschien was de gedachte aanwezig.
En hoe komt de gedachte er dan
Ik denk dat de big bang uit het niets komt en naar alle kanten uitspat, omdat het vreemd zou zijn als het één bepaalde kant op zou gaan…
Maar niet zoals hier in het geel wordt aangenomen, dat dan als vanzelfsprekend alle uitkomende materie ergens samengedrukt aanwezig was. Ik denk dat die materie nergens aanwezig was.
Misschien was de gedachte aanwezig.
En hoe komt de gedachte er dan
Ik denk dat de big bang uit het niets komt en naar alle kanten uitspat, omdat het vreemd zou zijn als het één bepaalde kant op zou gaan…
-
TopbijdragerThe very clear rebuttal to this is to point out the fact that the earth retains an atmosphere – despite there being a pressure differential between sea level and the vacuum of outer space. Ok, we don’t have much hydrogen, so consider the planet Jupiter that is largely hydrogen, with a much higher pressure differential. Shows that gravity gets awfully strong if you have enough matter.Ian Humphreys Good point.TopbijdragerIan Humphreys Even hydrogen lasts about a million years in Earth’s atmosphere, which seems enough to refute our illustrious contrarian’s intuition.
Obviously uneducated.I also think the Big Bang Theory can not possibly be true. The problem is that space curviture seems to be exactly 0. That is an issue. This either means the universe is endless and therefor had no beginning, at least not as recently as 13.8 B years ago. Or it means that in that area of the universe we can observe, no curviture becomes apparent because the universe is THAT massive. At least way bigger than our models support. Which would also rule out a big bang having happened this recently.Instead, it seems more likely that the universe actually has the shape of a Torus that cycles in and outwards indefinitely. Yes, a Torus is the shape of a donut.
flawlessly seeing the begiining of all thati is know in te universe has b the foudation of creation for the begigining was always a place to start, the energy us amans whitnessing this event is exxlant to say “where we there together”. we must not have been alive but it was created similer to host and expression to the Dark host abncencse in terminonlogy to look back and say yes this present of time was there in Order…for then the universe was in geometry to a 2nd host to shost shaps to the futiure lik spheres and venn diagrams for stars. in the begginging it looks lik aliens created it in a labratory of universal conscouness beyon huan systhtis working together…TopbijdragerI am reminded of my Flat Earth friend’s arguments why the ball-shaped Earth can’t be right. “Can you make water stick to a rotating basketball?” he says, as if this means the oceans could not stay attached to a ball-shaped Earth. Poor intuition about gravity happens to be shared by him and Mr. Goodman.Concentration of mass increases Force of gravity; F=GMm/r^2, causing an implosion not an explosion. Big Bang is debunked. It appears that all of this shows a higher probability of being non random event.A big problem with all those people trying to “trash the big bang theory” is that most of them have exactly no clue what the “big bang theory” really says.This Frank Goodman is unfortunately not an exception to this rule.The root cause may be, that there are too many overly simplistic narratives of what the big bang theory was. And those critics mostly refer to these over simplistic narratives but neither take the time and effort to dig into what the real ΛCDM model describes nor to find out on which observations this model is based.
Many commenters, consciously or unconsciously, seem to incorporate the idea that the Big Bang was an explosion of particles, light, etc outward into “space.” Of course this idea is incorrect, even acknowledging that it goes against our “common sense.”This article gives a reasonable explanation:“Although the Big Bang is often described as an “explosion”, that’s a misleading image. In an explosion, fragments are flung out from a central point into a pre-existing space. If you were at the central point, you’d see all the fragments moving away from you at roughly the same speed.But the Big Bang wasn’t like that. It was an expansion of space itself – a concept that comes out of Einstein’s equations of general relativity but has no counterpart in the classical physics of everyday life.”The opening sentence is a complete misrepresentation of the Big Bang. There was no concentration of mass at the very start of the universe and the rapid, faster than light speed expansion of the universe cannot in any way shape or form be described as an explosion. And by the time hydrogen atoms started to form the universe was absolutely colossal . What’s being missed here is the amazing size and weight of those hydrogen clouds which caused them to collapse into vast stellar nurseries under gravity. Making a comparison with pressure gradients on Earth is meaningless . And evidence for the Big Bang ? Try the cosmic microwave background radiation for a start and the observable ongoing expansion of the universe.I wonder if primordial black holes may have provided the “catalyst” to bring sufficient densities of hydrogen together to overcome entropy and form the first stars?
-
The Big Bang shattered the universe into billions of supermassive black holes, which each vented hydrogen and formed a spiral as it spun. There are still remnants of these black holes at the center of each galaxy.TopbijdragerSeems to me that Mr. Goodman is giving gravity short shrift. His “vacuum jar” analogy seems to me to be the antithesis of the theory in that it describes an artificial environment. The jar sits amid a gravitationally stable environment while the singularity that was the beginning of “stuff” was in itself a gravitationally unstable environment. When, for whatever reason(s), it expanded beyond its own gravitational influence the matter it contained did just as he describes and rushed outward into a gravitationally unstable environment. BUT that didn’t negate the effect of gravity on the outrushing particles, which, despite the violent outrush after the explosion, still had no choice but to follow the rules of gravity. As in the vacuum jar, the gases that rushed outward still had to come together at some point to fill that vacuum.Murray Bartley please review.Who cares Big Bang Theory is nothing but Religion created by Jesuit, Jesuits controls Science in this era since Science started with Jesuits, Jesuits covered every field of Science before anyone else, wasn’t Copernicas a Priest. Ppl be defending theories to death like it’s religion
Hey wait theories are religion 
Gravity does not work that way. Read more books.Jen Strande what are your thoughts on this ?TopbijdragerI would love to hear what the poster’s alternative theory was. Along the lines of Bruce’s admonitions, It’s pointless to tear down a widely accepted theory without having anything to offer in its place. That’s just mean-spirited kicking of sandcastles.TopbijdragerDuty noted. Refrain from open, unsupported mockery.Isn’t hydrogen key because it’s the simplest element? Hydrogen and helium had to be present first for fusion to do its business.“Eyes in the dark, one moon circles.” hehThe plantic era pretty much covers the time right after the big bang of which normal physics were undefined and are totally misunderstood. The assumption is that quantum gravitational effects dominated. This era has not been theoretically formulated nor can it be observed to establish how it evolved into the next era. The following era’s are also vague. So the debate here is awkwardly circular because current knowledge of the universe could be invalid at the point of the actual “Big Bang” -
How can you say is wrong…Maybe we all have been misleded in the school ”SYSTEM” we know…
___