Posted on 01/12/2024 7:02:41 PM PST by Red Badger
BIG BANG PING!................
BIG BANG FUSION PING!....................
It’s all in here.
Actually there is a Theory of Little Bangs!
It posits that instead of one BIG BANG there were numerous Little Bangs....................
I suppose the events documented in Genesis 1:1 could’ve made a huge bang.
The Big Bang is just something theorized by a Catholic priest.
God does have a flair for the dramatic!...................
“The Big Bang is just something theorized by a Catholic priest.”
Why not? They’re good at fiction.
That was unnecessary.
Did he eat “real food?”
Fr. Georges LeMaitre in the 1920s theorized the big bang as a potential explanation for astronomical observations in light of the physics theories of the time, particularly the theories of relativity.
The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960s, along with cosmological redshifts, were both predicated by the extant Big Bang models, which lent it greater credibility as an explanation for the physical origin of the universe.
Future models may more adequately explain physical observations to an extent that the Big Bang model could be discarded.
But to say Fr. LeMaitre was trying to theorize a fiction, instead of trying to formulate a physics model that fit what was being observed, is just being silly.
There's apparently a reason for that:
"In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized Alfvén–Klein cosmology, 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". In his book he also showed that Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. A further difficulty with the ambiplasma model is that matter–antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons, which are not observed in the amounts predicted. While it is possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell is simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition does not lend itself to observational tests."
I also find it interesting that one of the reasons Alfven wanted to reject the Big Bang was that he considered it a stealth form of creationism (as he apparently believed that the universe had always existed).
<“The Big Bang is just something theorized by a Catholic priest.”
Why not? They’re good at fiction.>
Haters gotta hate
I play online backgammon and sometimes play an opponent named BigBangGirl. I figure she’s either a physicist or a hooker. Haven’t asked her yet, though.
The Webb Space Telescope has extended our ability to ‘see’ the past to just under 14 Billion Years.
And the objects we see at that distance are almost red shifted to the point of invisibility, but we can still gather some data from the faint photons that Webb has gathered.
For instance, we still see the objects as star clusters, crude galaxies, that are irregular in shape, but definitely recognizable as galaxies.
Now what does that tell us?
It tells us that gravity existed, was weaker than it is now, though still formidable as a force.
It tells us that there was star formation and lots of it.
If there was star formation, then there was element formation going on in those ancient furnaces.
Though the number of heavy elements were not many, they were being created. It would take several more billion years to get to iron and others.
There was plenty of hydrogen floating around to amass enough to light the nuclear fusion fires of lots of stars.
I posit that these ‘stars’ did not have planets or any such non-gaseous solids within their vicinity. There had not been enough novae and supernovas to create them yet.
These stars were massive by comparison to our stars of today. Ultra-Giant stars of pure hydrogen that was not polluted with heavy elements. They created helium on an unimaginable scale.
The irregular shape of these proto-galaxies apparently is due to a lack of gravity to organize into spirals and no black holes in the center yet.
They are just groups of wandering stars that have enough mass in them to ignite but their affect on their neighbors isn’t enough to depress space-time to allow them to collide or merge unless it’s by total random accident.
Does she have ‘bangs’?...............
All of the effort against the Big Bang and all of the Multi-verse crap is because the Big Bang implies CREATION. This is why it gets “fairy tale” appellations all of the sudden.
Return of the God Hypothesis - Steven C. Meyer
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07G122JJN
Meyer argues that theism—with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent and active creator—best explains the evidence we have concerning biological and cosmological origins. Previously Meyer refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to perhaps the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind—but the existence of a personal God.
This is why the Big Bang had to go..
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.