Two main points concur with the Bible : 1. The universe had a beginning back some time ago, and 2. It formed by an initial expansion, or , as the bible puts it , it was stretched out.
But besides these two main facts, that converge with the bible, there are many unanswered and open questions.
The proof of the failure of the Big Bang theory
1. There are many problems with the Big Bang theory as explanation for the moons, stars, and planets.
2. That such a large structure could form so quickly calls into question some of the traditional theories of how the universe evolved, Williger said, since it is difficult to explain how gravity could pull together such an immense cluster in a relatively short time . . . . “A successful theory has to explain the extremes,” said Williger. (Discovery News Online, Gerard Williger of NOAO, 01/09/2001)
3. Using the Hubble Space Telescope astronomers detected a new galaxy bright with stars almost as old as the big bang. In the Science Daily magazine this galaxy, with redshift 7.6, was called the “strong contender for the galaxy distance record.”
According to theory, stars did not form till the end of the “dark ages” about 400,000 years after the big bang. Young galaxies emerging from the fog of particles might have had enough energy to evaporate the fog and bring the first stars to light, the article says. Still, to see a galaxy so soon after the dark ages was unexpected. An astronomer from UC Santa Cruz said, “We certainly were surprised to find such a bright young galaxy 13 billion years in the past.” The current age estimate for the whole universe is 13.7 billion years. (Feb. 13, 2008 — The NASA/ESA)
4. In the June 2001 issue of Astronomy Magazine, astrophysicist Mark Sincell lists “The Eight Greatest Mysteries of Cosmology:”
a. How multidimensional is the universe? (We don’t understand gravity.)
b. How did the universe begin? (How did an explosion produce such smoothness?)
c. Why does matter fill the universe? (There should be an equal part of antimatter.)
d. How did galaxies form? (“The details are devilishly difficult to understand.”)
e. What is cold dark matter ? (What is the other 95% of stuff that must be out there?)
f. Are all the baryons assembled in galaxies? (Astronomers have only found a tiny fraction of what they expect.)
g. What is the dark energy? “Physicists have tried to calculate the observed dark-energy density from accepted theories of physics, but their results don’t jibe with reality. So far, the computed value is roughly 10^60 times greater than the observed value. (Others say the number could be off by a factor of up to 10^130, but let’s not quibble over the details.)”
h. What is the destiny of the universe?
Some answers are known but mostly cosmologists really don’t know very much at all.
a. For instance, inflation is still the rage, but the author says: “What drove inflation? Nobody knows. Physicists have suggested different models to describe the inflating universe, but all the solutions are mathematical conveniences with no particular physical basis.”
b. Regarding dark energy, “The biggest problem with this idea is that no one has any idea what dark energy is. ‘So far, all we’ve been able to do is name it,’ says [Michael] Turner. ‘It could be the energy associated with nothing [sic!], or the influence of hidden spatial dimensions.’”
5. The only sound and logical theory of cosmic creation, a cosmos that works perfectly like a huge Swiss watch, is intelligent design. When there is intelligent design there must have been an intelligent designer with an ability of thinking, feeling and willing. That person all men call God. He did it by emanating the atoms, somewhat similar to a Big Bang or Outflow, and controlling these atoms into their specific places in the cosmos.
6. Just as an engineer is rather at home or on holiday then in his office, similarly God transcendent is at home in heaven and God immanent is on duty creating or evolving the cosmic prison house or the material world for us, spirit souls.
7. – Max Planck, theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918
1. Antimatter is material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but have opposite charge.
2. A baryon is a composite subatomic particle made up of three quarks (as distinct from mesons, which comprise one quark and one antiquark).
3. Cold dark matter (or CDM) is a hypothetical form of matter that interacts very weakly with electromagnetic radiation (dark) and most of whose particles move slowly compared to the speed of light (cold). It is believed that approximately 80% of matter in the Universe is dark matter, with only a small fraction being the ordinary "baryonic" matter that composes stars and planets.
The Big Bang theory is maybe the most successful and well accepted fairy tale story of science. Its full of just so made up stories, the only thing that is probably true of it, is the fact that it predicts a absolute beginning of the universe, and inflation. Dark matter, etc. was invented to explain the flatness problem etc.
Credit to Bill Holbert
A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (Cosmology statement) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article on www.rense.com titled ‘Big bang theory busted by 33 top scientists’ (27 May 2004) says, ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’
The open letter includes statements such as:
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.
‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’
‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]
‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’
‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.
David Hitzfelder : Physics tells us that our current understanding is wrong. Cosmologists would rather invent dark matter than admit they're wrong. A survey of the motion of stars near us has determined that there is no dark matter in our vicinity (In spite of the fact we are in one of those spiral galaxies).
And then there's dark energy to explain why the universe is observed to be accelerating in expanding, which physics doesn't account for. More likely, everything cosmologists think they know is wrong.
As far as big bang predicting the relative abundance of elements, that is a lie. It doesn't predict it, the numbers have been carefully selected to match what is observed. But there's still a problem... there should be 3 times as much lithium as observed. Or, more likely, the Big Bang is simply wrong.
The big bang assumes homogeneity and the cosmological constant. Every year, it seems, a larger superclusters or larger void is discovered, forcing homogeneity to larger and larger extremes. Meanwhile, in the Cosmic microwave background, major areas of variation in temperature (called lobes) align perfectly with the Earth's orbital plane, and equinoxes, which defies the cosmological principle. Once again, it is more likely they got it wrong.
Physics is telling astronomers and cosmologists they're wrong about these things, but instead of listening, they're making up new forces and new terms (inflation is another one) to try and force it to fit.