Big Bang Theory...is a bunch of BS?

[Naudian]

The "Big Bang" is just a theory after all. The way scientists casually throw dark matter and dark energy in there has always bugged me.

So "Plasma Cosmology", while pointing out numerous contradictions or fudge-factors in Big Bang cosmology, tries to describe the cosmos in terms of plasma/electromagnetic phenomenon, apparently with some success. Interesting stuff, but it's just another theory

Big Bang Never Happened, 9-parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0


A Plasma Universe, 5-parts (uploaded by a creationist?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoIWv9Fuh7c

And if you're interested, here is a funny looking man's website: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

 

[kineaesth]

The "Big Bang" is just a theory after all.

Like gravity, and evolution! and electromagnetism! And all the other things that are theories that I know about because I am a top ten sciencetist

 

[MJ12]

I agree, Big Bang Theory is an awful show, I ****ing hate everything about it and-

 

[Acepilotf14]

I agree, Big Bang Theory is an awful show, I ****ing hate everything about it and-

i agree with this post

 

[Raziaar]

I have to defer to my scientific minded friends out there in the world, who will adapt and figure out better theories and stand behind those if the big bang is demonstrated to be wrong. Such is the beauty of the scientific method. But really, the subject is beyond me.

 

[Naudian]

Like gravity, and evolution! and electromagnetism! And all the other things that are theories that I know about because I am a top ten sciencetist

Exactly! At least gravity, evolution, and EM are actually useful/reliable. Big Bang theory has just given a false picture of reality and wasted time while scientersts keep trying to patch it up...in my highly educated opinion.

Sometimes the TV show makes me smile a bit.

@ Raz, the scientific method is pretty awesome when it's actually used. It's kind of sad how people feel the need to defend their life's work due to the nature of the system, instead of being free to admit they're wrong without fear of losing anything besides pride. Such is the beauty of capitalism.

 

[Acepilotf14]

Exactly! At least gravity, evolution, and EM are actually useful/reliable. Big Bang theory has just given a false picture of reality and wasted time while scientersts keep trying to patch it up...in my highly educated opinion.

I prefer it to 'god decided so everything was cool'.

 

[ríomhaire]

The "Big Bang" is just a theory after all.

Please look up what scientific theory actually means before you say things like this.

 

[KiplingsCat]

All I know is, the Big Bang is on my Astro course and can come up in the exam. This other stuff is not. Maybe I'll end up doing my PhD on it. But for now, it doesn't even exist for me. There isn't enough room in my brain.

 

[Nabobalis]

*sigh* Plasma cosmology was proven wrong about 30 years ago and hasn't advanced since in any scientific circles. The Big Bang will undergo something major in the nearish future that is for sure, maybe even get replaced entirely but as of right now it is the best idea available until something else comes along.

I also would recommend what riomhaire said.

 

[Shift]

The "Big Bang" is just a theory

A theory with observable scientific evidence to back it up..

 

[Remus]

Please look up what scientific theory actually means before you say things like this.

A theory with observable scientific evidence to back it up..

What they said. It always bothers me how the word "theory" is thrown about like it's just an idea without any evidence to back it up. No, there's another word for that, it's "hypothesis".

 

[Solaris]

I think anyone who uses the words "just a theory" on these forums should receive a one month ban.

Naudian, what are your qualifications/ how old are you?

 

[Hectic Glenn]

I wish scientists would stop covering the evidence for the big bang being fake. We all know the CIA killed JFK.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Damn you, Chuck Lorre! Or should I say Chaim Levine.

 

[Mr. Djees]

This seems like the "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" of astrophysics.

 

[Remus]

This seems like the "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" of astrophysics.

That title seems rather fitting. "No intelligent person should watch this".

 

[Nabobalis]

This seems like the "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" of astrophysics.

It is the same, same line of attack on the "mainstream". IF people disagreed with the big bang, why not challenge the science head on instead of producing "films" for the public just like creationists who claim the evidence is on their side but won't bother actually doping the science and publishing in real journals.

 

[Naudian]

Hah, I'm aware of what I wrote and the meanings of the word theory. The theory in question is a model of how the universe developed, which may or may not have been founded around false interpretations of real observations. But let's not talk about that, let's talk about me and my qualifications?

Admittedly, the videos I posted are more or less entertainment, not a good representation of these people's work at all. It's quite right to compare them to creationist youtube fluff. They seem to be aimed at a general audience and they don't go into enough detail to be convincing of anything much. What really got my attention is the apparent weakness of evidence supporting the big bang model. I had no idea, so I thought it was worthy of a discussion.

Taken from this overview...

What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

- Galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

- If the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.

- The abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences?

No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renowned Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4 [quote may be from the 60s but it's still relevant]

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.

Point being that the observations can be explained in more ways than one. The big bang model might be "the best we have" or more accurately "the most institutionalized we have," and for that reason it's replacement or revision will likely be met with a lot of resistance. In a way, that's a good thing, because it means the new model HAS to be that much better for it to come out on top. I don't know if the plasma approach is up to the task, but I'm sure it will have some influence at least. http://www.plasmacosmology.net/index.html

My personal conclusion? Shit's a mess, I'm overwhelmed.


Edit: In this thread, some peeps start discussing what has been published in mainstream journals regarding plasma cosmology, as well as what counts as legitimate references on that forum. Skim through it if you're interested.

 

[Nabobalis]

Point being that the observations can be explained in more ways than one. The big bang model might be "the best we have" or more accurately "the most institutionalized we have," and for that reason it's replacement or revision will likely be met with a lot of resistance. In a way, that's a good thing, because it means the new model HAS to be that much better for it to come out on top. I don't know if the plasma approach is up to the task, but I'm sure it will have some influence at least. http://www.plasmacosmology.net/index.html

My personal conclusion? Shit's a mess, I'm overwhelmed.


Edit: In this thread, some peeps start discussing what has been published in mainstream journals regarding plasma cosmology, as well as what counts as legitimate references on that forum. Skim through it if you're interested.

But their won't be resistance, most if not all cosmologists know its time is up (Big Bang) it needs work, inflation is the main sticking point but also gravity waves. But plasma cosmology was proposed about 30/40 years ago now and has not been able to explain the observations. Those papers seem to discuss situations where plasmas exist and interact with magnetic fields (i.e space plasma physics) and not plasma cosmology in general.

 

[Naudian]

There's certainly some distinctions to be made..."plasma astrophysics", "plasma universe", "electric universe", "plasma cosmology" Bah, like I said I'm overwhelmed. Obviously there's a pretty large debate surrounding PC that I've only just stumbled onto.

Which observations are you referring to that PC failed to explain? I'm not so sure that it's out of the ring yet, but I'll look around some more.

As for resistance to new theories, you're right, I oversimplified. I'm not sure how the scientific community handles paradigmatic changes, and I really don't know what will happen.

 

[Mr Stabby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

 

[Solaris]

Naudian, if there really is a 'debate' around the validity of Big Bang theory, could you please provide a link to an article in a peer reviewed journal from the last ten years arguing that Big Bang Theory is false?

You know, real Science instead of just Youtube videos and random websites.

 

[Nabobalis]

There's certainly some distinctions to be made..."plasma astrophysics", "plasma universe", "electric universe", "plasma cosmology" Bah, like I said I'm overwhelmed. Obviously there's a pretty large debate surrounding PC that I've only just stumbled onto.

Which observations are you referring to that PC failed to explain? I'm not so sure that it's out of the ring yet, but I'll look around some more.

As for resistance to new theories, you're right, I oversimplified. I'm not sure how the scientific community handles paradigmatic changes, and I really don't know what will happen.

Plasma astrophysics deals with the way that plasma interacts with astrophysical processes or how plasma interacts in stars, accretion discs etc, the last three terms are the same talking about a cosmological based on plasma and electrical processes. The only debate around PC is not in scientific circles and hasn't been for a while.

As far as I remember, expansion,CMB,CNB, the flatness of space and of the CMB.

Naudian, if there really is a 'debate' around the validity of Big Bang theory, could you please provide a link to an article in a peer reviewed journal from the last ten years arguing that Big Bang Theory is false?

You know, real Science instead of just Youtube videos and random websites.

Most debate is around the nature of inflation and the observational evidence that is hoped to be found in the near future (gravity waves).

 

[No Limit]

The big bang is all wrong? Someone quick, call Stephen Hawking!

Wait, what's this? Wikipedia has some insight:

Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background

....

A study in 1978 concluded that Alfvén's model of certain plasma flows, known as Birkeland currents, inaccurately explained star formation.[11] Alfvén and his supporters hypothesized that Birkeland currents were responsible for many filamentary structures. However, large-scale Birkeland currents have not been observed and the length scale for charge neutrality is predicted by astrophysicists to be far smaller than the relevant cosmological scales.[12]

...

In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized the cosmology of Klein (1971), and Alfvén's 1966 book, Worlds-Antiworlds, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds".

...

No proposal based on plasma cosmology trying to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced. Proposed explanations are relying on integrated starlight and do not provide any indication of how to explain that the observed angular anisotropies of CMB power spectrum is (so low as) one part in 105. The sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of these anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP. The fact that the CMB was measured to be so isotropic, in line with the predictions of the big bang model, was subsequently heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives.[27] These measurements showed the "acoustic peaks" were fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model and conditions of the early universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

But since there is debate on the internet about this that means it must be an acceptable theory despite what the evidance shows.

 

[Naudian]

You know, real Science instead of just Youtube videos and random websites.

I hear you, I've been searching, and yeah I'm aware of my random spewing of material so far. I'm just eager to share and hear people's thoughts, not trying to prove anything.

Right now I'm trying to figure out where the debate stands.

No Limit, those kinds of refutations are what I've been looking at, in the form of debates/discussions rather than wiki articles. Also, I hope you realize I never claimed it was an acceptable theory because there's debate. The "evidence" can be interpreted in more ways than one, which is why I'm not choosing sides.

Anyway, I'm still chewing. I just read through this + comments, gonna read this too.

The various papers by Lerner are certainly a refreshing change from the utterly dreadful 'Electric Universe' material!

It seems that Lerner pretty much stopped developing his ideas around 1990, at least that's about the last date of any 'plasma cosmology' paper (containing new material) by him; after then there's only plenty of 'Big Bang theory is WRONG' stuff, and one or two on his predictions of the CMB.

My guess as to why he stopped development is that the post-COBE CMB observations pretty much ruled out the foundation of his plasma cosmology models (i.e. giant inter-galactic (Birkeland) currents/plasma filaments);...(something similar may be said about Peratt too - he seems to have given up on plasma cosmology by the early 1990s).

So, with the possible exception of Lerner's ideas on quasars, can we close this chapter, and file it under 'nice idea, too bad the universe doesn't seem to work that way'?

Seems the overall theory of a "Plasma Universe" is struggling.

 

[Shift]

Bit of a pointless thread then really.