Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worldview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » Problems of the Big Bang Theory

Problems of the Big Bang Theory

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Problems of the Big Bang Theory Empty Problems of the Big Bang Theory Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:25 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Problems of the Big Bang Theory

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1963-problems-of-the-big-bang-theory

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 Big Bang theory is maybe the most successful and well-accepted fairy tale story of science. It's 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.  

Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic: Antimatter gravity and the Universe 2019
Our current understanding of the Universe is both, a fascinating intellectual achievement and the source of the greatest crisis in the history of physics. We do not know the nature of what we call an inflation field, dark matter and dark energy; we do not know why matter dominates antimatter in the Universe and what the root of the cosmological constant problem is. 
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1911/1911.10942.pdf

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang
1) Light elements: Lithium and Helium
Prediction: Any superhot explosion throughout the universe, like the Big Bang, would have generated a certain small amount of the light element lithium and a large amount of helium.
Observation: Yet as astronomers have observed older and older stars, the amount of lithium observed has gotten less and less, and, in the oldest stars is less than one tenth of the predicted level. The oldest stars near to us have less than half the amount of helium predicted. However, well-understood fusion processes in stars and reactions initiated by cosmic rays have accurately predicted the correct amounts of these and other light elements.
2) Antimatter-matter annihilation
Prediction: Since the intense radiation of the Big Bang would produce matter and antimatter in equal amounts, mutual annulation of particle-antiparticle pairs would reduce the surviving matter density to around    10 -17 protons/cm3.
Observation:  the matter density in the universe is observed to be at least 10 -7 ions /cm3 more than 10 billion times higher than the Big Bang prediction.
Big Bang fix to prediction: To try to fix this well-known vast gap, Big Bang theorists have proposed some unknown asymmetry between matter and antimatter which would lead to more production of matter. This has never been observed in laboratory experiments. A consequence of this predicted imbalance is the decays of the proton, initially predicted to decay with a lifetime of 1030 years. Large scale experiments have contradicted this prediction was well, with no evidence of decay at all.
3) Surface-Brightness
Prediction:  In any expanding universe, an optical illusion makes objects at high redshift appear larger and dimmer, so their surface brightness—the ratio of apparent brightness to apparent area—declines sharply with redshift.
Observation:  Based on observations of thousands of galaxies, surface brightness is completely constant with distance, as expected in a universe that is NOT expanding.
Big Bang fix to Prediction: After observations showed that the surface brightness dimming did not occur, Big Bang theorists hypothesized that galaxies were much smaller in the distant past and have grown greatly. But observations have contradicted this fix as well, showing that there have not been enough galaxy mergers for the growth rates needed. In addition, the ultra-small galaxies hypothesized would have to have more mass in stars than total mass, an obvious impossibility.
4) Too Large Structures
Prediction:  In the Big Bang theory, the universe is supposed to start off completely smooth and homogenous. Structure starts small and grows over time
Observation:  As telescopes have peered farther into space, huger and huger structures of galaxies have been discovered, which are too large to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang.
5) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) and its Anisotropies
Prediction: (Initial): The CMB is a smooth relic of the initial radiation of the Big Bang
Observation:  The CMB is smooth on such large scales that , in a Big Bang there would be too little time for regions that we now see in different parts of the sky to reach equilibrium with each other, or even to receive energy from each other at the speed of light. Big Bang fix to prediction: An unknown force, dubbed ”inflation” generated an exponential phase of the Big Bang that blew up the universe so rapidly that all asymmetries were smoothed away.
Additional observations: The actual very small anisotropies in the CMB were much smaller than those predicted by Big Bang theorists and additional fixes had to be added to the theory each time the observations became more precise, so that at present seven free variables—the density of dark matter, of ordinary matter, of dark energy and four additional fitting parameters—are needed to fit the observations. They still badly fail with some of the largest-scale anisotropies The latest crisis: Based on the data from the Planck satellite, the best fit to the CMB predicts a Hubble constant (the ratio of redshift to distance) in conflict with observations based on Supernovae. The best fits imply a curved universe, in conflict with the predictions of inflation for a flat universe. And they predict a density of dark matter far greater than any measurements derived from the motion of galaxies.
In contrast to the multiple contradictions of the Big Bang theory of the CMB with its “ultra precise” but wrong predictions, non-Big Bang processes provide a better explanation. The energy that was released in producing the observed helium in the universe equal the energy in the CMB. Any radiation become isotropized if it travels in a medium that scatters it. There is abundant observational evidence that microwave-frequency radiation is scattered in the intergalactic medium.
6) Dark Matter
Prediction: The Big Bang theory requires the existence of dark matter—mysterious particles that have never been observed in the laboratory, despite huge experiments to find them.
Observation: Multiple lines of evidence, especially observations of the motions of galaxies, show that this dark matter does not exist. Extremely sensitive experiments on earth have failed to detect dark matter particles. In addition, dark matter, if it existed would create a viscosity effect on galaxies that would prevent the existence of the many long-lived groups of galaxies that are observed.
The response of most cosmologists to this growing body of evidence has, unfortunately, not been to decide the Big Bang theory has been falsified, but to add new “parameters” and hypotheses, like dark energy. The theory is now far more complex and speculative than the Ptolemaic epicycles that were destroyed by the Scientific Revolution. Each contradiction with observation is taken as a mere “anomaly” that does not undermine the theory as a whole. Strong peer pressure is applied against many of those who question the theory.
“It’s as if researchers are saying ‘I can see the Emperor’s elbow through his New Clothes,’ ‘I can see the Emperor’s knee though his New Clothes’ and so on,” says Lerner. “It is time to say: ‘The Emperor is not wearing any clothes.’ This theory has no correct predictions.” To replace the Big Bang, other researchers have elaborated, in peer-reviewed publications, alternative explanations of the generation of light elements and of the energy in the CBR by ordinary stars, and of the development of large-scale structures through the interaction of gravity and electromagnetic processes. “No one would claim that all the problems in cosmology have been resolved,” agrees Lerner, “but the evidence is consistent with an evolving, but non-expanding universe, which had no beginning in time and no Big Bang.”
https://lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/

Chronology of the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#The_very_early_universe

Cosmology and the Beginning of Time
The eras of the universe, from the time of the Big Bang, are listed below.  
1. Planck Era     (All four known forces are unified.)
2. GUT (Grand Unified Theory) Era    (Gravity "freezes out" and becomes distinct.)
3. Electroweak Era    (The nuclear strong force "freezes out" and becomes distinct.)
4. Particle Era    (particles begin to form)
5. Era of Nucleosynthesis    (nuclear fusion creates Helium, and tiny amount of heavier elements)
6. Era of Nuclei   (electrons are not yet bound to nuclei)
7. Era of Atoms   (electrons recombine to form neutral atoms, and the first stars are born)
8. Era of Galaxies   (Galaxies begin to form, leading up to the present)
https://web.njit.edu/~gary/202/Lecture26.html

The very early universe
The first picosecond (10−12) of cosmic time. It includes the Planck epoch, during which currently established laws of physics may not apply; the emergence in stages of the four known fundamental interactions or forces—first gravitation, and later the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions; and the expansion of space itself and supercooling of the still immensely hot universe due to cosmic inflation.

The numerical value of tp (≈10−43s) is taken as the smallest physically meaningful quantity with respect to time. The distance corresponding to one Planck time unit is the Planck length lp= (ℏG/c3)½≈ 10−33cm, which also is taken as the smallest physically meaningful quantity with respect to length. 1

Inflation
Mike Wall The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth? October 21, 2011
Scientists think they can pick the story up at about 10 to the minus 36 seconds — one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second — after the Big Bang. At that point, they believe, the universe underwent an extremely brief and dramatic period of inflation, expanding faster than the speed of light. It doubled in size perhaps 100 times or more, all within the span of a few tiny fractions of a second.
https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

Ethan Siegel Why Cosmic Inflation's Last Great Prediction May Fail Jan 7, 2016
If the measured value for ns stays what it's thought to be right now, and after a decade we've constrained r < 10-3, then the simplest models for inflation are all wrong. It doesn't mean inflation is wrong, but it means inflation is something more complicated than we first thought, and perhaps not even a scalar field at all.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/01/07/why-cosmic-inflations-last-great-prediction-may-fail/?sh=64422b7c7227

Steve Nerlich Cosmic coincidence SEPTEMBER 5, 2011
Inflationary era – a huge whoomp of volume growth driven by something or other. This is a very quick era lasting from 10-35 to 10-32 of the first second after the Big Bang.

Problems with the cosmic inflation hypothesis at the beginning of the universe
1. The Big Bang was the first and most precisely fine-tuned event in all of the history of the universe. It had it to be adjusted to permit the right expansion rate, a balance between attraction and repulsion, between contraction and expansion, or it would have expanded too fast, and produced an unlimited expansion, and a void, lifeless universe, or it would have recollapsed back to a singularity, a Big Crunch. But also many different parameters had to be set just right in the first instants, right after the first nanosecond or two, in order to form stable atoms, or it would also be void of stars, planets, chemicals, and life. 
2.  The Lambda-CDM model, composed of six parameters, is a parameterization of the Big Bang. The standard model of particle physics contains 26 fundamental constants. A variety of physical phenomena, atomic, gravitational, and cosmological, must combine in the right way in order to produce a life-permitting universe.
3. Inflation is supposed to provide a dynamical explanation for the seemingly very fine-tuned initial conditions of the standard model of cosmology. It faces however ist own problems. There would have to be an inflation field with negative pressure,  dominating the total energy density of the universe, dictating its dynamic, and so, starting inflation. It would have to last for the right period of time.  And once inflation takes over, there must be some special reason for it to stop; otherwise, the universe would maintain its exponential expansion and no complex structure would form. It would also have to be ensured that the post-inflation field would not possess a large, negative potential energy, which would cause the universe to recollapse altogether. Inflation would also have to guarantee a homogeneous, but not perfectly homogeneous universe. Inhomogeneities had to be there for gravitational instability to form cosmic structures like stars, galaxies, and planets. Inflation would require an astonishing sequence of correlations and coincidences, to suddenly and coherently convert all its matter into a scalar field with just enough kinetic energy to roll to the top of its potential and remain perfectly balanced there for long enough to cause a substantial era of “deflation”.  It would be far more likely, that the inflation field would drop its energy rather than be converted into baryons and ordinary matter, dump its energy into radiation.  The odds to have a successful, finely adjusted inflaton field are maximally one in a thousand at its peak and drop rapidly. There is no physical model of inflation, and the necessary coupling between inflation and ordinary matter/radiation is just an unsupported hypothesis. 
4. Designed setup is the best explanation for the life-permitting conditions at the beginning of the universe. 

Problems of the Big Bang Theory 1-cosmiccoinci
The four eras of the universe mapped over a logarithmic time scale. Note that "Now" occurs as the decline in matter density and the acceleration in cosmic expansion cross over. 
https://phys.org/news/2011-09-cosmic-coincidence.html

Problems of the Big Bang Theory Inflat10
The period of inflation, during which time the Universe increased in size by a factor of ~1050 is not predicted by Big Bang theory. Without it, however, the Universe would have had to have been relatively large just after the Big Bang.
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/b/big+bang

Paul Davies The Goldilocks Enigma: why is the universe just right for life?  page 76 2006
Inflation is a very attractive idea, and most cosmologists are sold on it. However, a crucial issue is how it came to an end. How would the universe have extricated itself from stupendously rapid runaway expansion? Guth suggested that the inflaton field was inherently unstable and was thus condemned to a fleeting existence. He proposed that it decayed away after only about 10 -32 s, following which the universe would resume its normal, decelerating expansion. This duration doesn’t seem very long, but such is the rate of inflation that in 10 -32 s the universe would have ballooned out by a huge factor. Any matter present before inflation would have been diluted to a negligible density, leaving the universe effectively empty—a vacuum. Obviously, a vacuum isn’t a good description of the universe today, or even at one second. Where, then, did all the matter—the electrons, protons, neutrons, and so on—come from, once inflation had ceased? Once the general idea of inflation had entered cosmology, it was there to stay. Guth’s original theory, however, contained a fatal flaw—the so-called graceful exit problem. The decay of the inflaton field is a quantum process, so its initiation is subject to the usual unpredictable quantum fluctuations. As a result, it would decay at different times in different places, in the form of randomly distributed bubbles—bubbles of space, that is, in which the inflaton field had decayed, surrounded by regions of space where it had not. The energy given up by the decayed inflaton field would be concentrated in the bubble walls. Bubble collisions would release this energy, as heat, but the process would be utterly chaotic and generate as much inhomogeneity as inflation was designed to remove. These shortcomings were addressed by a number of distinguished cosmologists who found the idea of inflation compelling
https://3lib.net/book/5903498/82353b

MICHELLE STARR This Is The Most Exciting Crisis in Cosmology AUGUST 2020
The current rate of this expansion is called the Hubble constant, or H0, and it's one of the fundamental measurements of the Universe. If you know the Hubble constant, you can calculate the age of the Universe. You can calculate the size of the Universe. You can more accurately calculate the influence of the mysterious dark energy that drives the expansion of the Universe. And, fun fact, H0 is one of the values required to calculate intergalactic distances.
However, there's a huge problem. We have several highly precise methods for determining the Hubble constant... and these methods keep returning different results for an unknown reason. Today, the difference between the two values, known as the Hubble tension, may not seem like a large number - just 9.4 percent.
https://www.sciencealert.com/we-can-t-figure-out-how-fast-the-universe-is-expanding-here-s-why

But cosmologists are yet to figure out wherein lies the cause of this discrepancy. The most obvious problem would be one of calibration, but its source remains elusive.

Sciencedan Failed Predictions of the Big Bang November 17, 2015
https://scienceandevidence.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/bigbang/

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[/size], 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. 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.’


New Scientist An Open Letter to the Scientific Community 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.
cosmologystatement.org

The Big Bang's 15 Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict
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.
http://kgov.com/big-bang-predictions#antimatter

Gabriele Veneziano The Myth Of The Beginning Of Time February 1, 2006
NEVERTHELESS, the properties of the Milky Way are basically the same as those of distant galaxies. It is as though you showed up at a party only to find you were wearing exactly the same clothes as a dozen of your closest friends. If just two of you were dressed the same, it might be explained away as coincidence, but a dozen suggests that the partygoers had coordinated their attire in advance. In cosmology, the number is not a dozen but tens of thousands--the number of independent yet statistically identical patches of sky in the microwave background. One possibility is that all those regions of space were endowed at birth with identical properties--in other words, that the homogeneity is mere coincidence. The other, that the Universe was created by God. Neither proponents of loop quantum gravity nor String theory have been able to solve the riddle.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/

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[1].)
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
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”  
8. God most probably exists.
NOTE:
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.


Problems of the Big Bang Theory Scienc10

Problems of the Big Bang Theory Fig2202

Guillermo Gonzalez Confirming the Big Bang: The Recent Decades March 7, 2019
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/03/confirming-the-big-bang-the-recent-decades/

[b]The Big Bang Never Happened[b]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-B2hACS0dQ

1. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/zna-2018-0110/html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/planck.html



Last edited by Otangelo on Sun Jul 25, 2021 12:43 am; edited 18 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

2Problems of the Big Bang Theory Empty Re: Problems of the Big Bang Theory Tue Jul 06, 2021 2:40 pm

Otangelo


Admin

.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum