> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 9:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Big Bang
>
>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Chad Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >I disagree with the Big Bang theory because there is too
> much >conflicting
> >evidence otherwise.
>
> I have not seen such evidence. There are, indeed,
> cosmological anomalies
> that exist, and there may even be some that will require
> modifications to
> existing theory (one can always hope. :-) ) But, there is not strong
> evidence supporting the steady state universe (the main
> alternate theory of
> this century) for example, and there continues to be a wealth of data
> supporting the big bang.
Although I am an uneducated layman when it comes to discussing the politics
of modern science, I do read about a lot of serious problems that the BB
theorists try working around (One can always find what one is looking for).
You may already be aware of them. The biggest problems I see are:
How did super-galactic clusters form so quickly?
Why is there a lot of observations of U being much older than predicted by
BB?
How does spiral galaxy formation occur in so few rotations ( According to
BB, they get maybe 5-10 rotations, if they were formed as soon as BB allows)
How do galaxies collide if they are expanding'out'. They are huge! Brownian
movement allows it, but not at any other scale above microscopic. Gravity is
just too weak. In order for collisions to occur, deflection off something
has to occur in th past for paths to cross. What are they bouncing off?
The question of how does empty "space" expand or rather, how does 'nothing'
expand (this sounds philosophical, but it isn't)
Why is there too much baryonic matter to match the math of BB predicts?
How some galaxies red shift indicate an age of 10 billion years or more,
which is way before BB predicts galaxies would form?
Observable evidence of fractal clustering of matter at all scales which
opposes the idea of a smooth universe (which is required for BB) in
extremely large scales
There are probably more arguments I have come across not listed here.
These can be broken down to a few problems:
1 > Not enough time to form observable universe according to BB
2 > Too much baryonic matter for predicted values of BB
3 > Inflationary model is an mathematical adjustment to save BB.There is no
evidence that it occured.
>
> Now, there are always anomalies that are not yet explained by
> theory. The
> orbit of the moon was not reconciled with classical mechanics
> for about 100
> years, IIRC. Further, general theories, evolution or the big
> bang, are
> subjected to "friendly amendments". Examples of this would be DNA
> underlying evolution or improvements in modeling weather.
I agree with the concept of friendly amendments, but adding Inflation to the
BB equations is not "friendly amendments".
> interprets scripture and the writings of the church in light
> of the fact
> that the big bang is a well-supported explanation of how the
> universe began.
It is much more important than that. It validates the cosmologic belief that
the Universe had a beginning. Big Bang fits well with Genesis. The fact that
that a major religion is now accepting a "theory" as dogma should tell you
something. Culturally, BB works well with the common cosmologic belief that
U had a beginning, but preserving a poor model so that people are
comfortable is not good science.
>
>
> >As far as I know it is still unproven
>
> Indeed it is, as is every scientific theory. Scientific
> theories cannot be
> proven. The can be verified or falsified, but they cannot be proven.
>
> >and newer models come out almost daily as some observable
> >fact appears to contradict the "pure math" of the latest BB theory.
>
> I think that this post, as does the previous, indicates a
> binary view of
> science that is not consistent with how science is really
> done. The general
> overview provided by the big bang is well verified. It explains why
> everything is going away from us. It predicted a background
> radiation at
> 3K, which was observed by Penzia and Wilson in 1965. It
> gives roughly the
> right ratio of H/He observed in the sun. It is consistent with the
> experimental work done in high-energy physics.
>
> It is true that a simplistic big bang model does not explain
> all of the
> data. There is still theoretical as well as experimental
> work to be done.
> But, the need for refinements of theory is not falsification
> of that theory.
I don't believe that there is falsification in general. I do believe that
there are not simple refinements going on with BB. It seems every day some
new observation contradicts some past assumption about BB, and the BB
theorists all break out the chalk and blackboards to create new "equations"
to meet the new observations, so that they can then claim "See, BB is true,
because we have some new equations that now work with the new
observations.". The MEME is self-replicating. It can change to meet new
observations, but it still contains the basic cosmologic principles that
make people feel good.
> An example is the development of QED as an extension of QM.
> QM was not
> falsified by QED, but enhanced.
>
> Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge.
> Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> _______________________
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
