Posted on 05/02/2014 2:52:50 PM PDT by aimhigh
In a startling challenge to the widely-popular Big Bang theory, new evidence, to be published this week in the International Journal of Modern Physics, D, indicates that the universe is not expanding after all. . . .
Key contradicted predictions:
1)Lithium
Prediction: Any superhot explosion throughout the universe, like the Big Bang, would have generated a certain small amount of the light element lithium.
Evidence: 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. . .
2) 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.
Evidence: Multiple lines of evidence, especially observations of the motions of galaxies, show that this dark matter does not exist.
3) Too Large Structures
Prediction: In the Big Bang theory, the universe is supposed to start off completely smooth and homogenous.
Evidence: But 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.
4) Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) Asymmetries
Prediction: The inflation that was supposed to have occurred during the Big Bang should have smoothed out any large-scale asymmetries in the universe. The CBR should show be perfectly symmetrical.
Evidence: The CBR in fact shows strong evidence of asymmetries from one side of the sky to the other that, although small, could not have been produced by the ultra-symmetric “inflation” that hypothetically occurred in the Big Bang.
(Excerpt) Read more at nextbigfuture.com ...
B-b-but it’s settled science. It’s a fact! There’s an overwhelming consensus!
The fundamental problem is that if you accept the underlying premise that only gravity matters on a cosmological scale, there are no viable alternative explanations for the Hubble red shift.
But if you don’t accept the underlying premise - if you open up your models to the possibility that electromagnetism can have effects over cosmological differences, you end up with a complex universe in which you can’t make meaningful predictions about past or future.
So either it’s the Big Bang, or accepting that the future and history of the universe are unknowable.
And “it’s impossible for us to know” isn’t an answer that gets you grant money.
What about red shift?
And since it involves the stars, it's by definition Sirius as well.
Big Bang at least concedes that the Universe must have a beginning. Without a beginning, we are faced with the conceptual nightmare of a Universe that goes infinitely backwards in time.
I’m sorry—I’m interested, but I have to ask—”What difference does it make?”
What about the gaseous clouds around Uranus?
Penny: Not knowing’s part of the fun.
Sheldon: Was that the motto of your community college?
The executive summary is that a number of the statements made in the article are not true. The Big Bang assumes isotropy and homogeneity of spacetime, not of objects existing or emergent in space, and in fact, quantum mechanics requires that the distribution of objects in spacetime just after the Planck Time would not have been so.
This blows up the claim that galaxies should be homogeneously distributed in space, and that the cosmic background radiation must be uniform in all directions. Nope. They wouldn't be, couldn't be, and that has never been a requirement of the Big Bang. So that's just two claims right off the bat in this article which are nonsense.
Lithium distribution is another. Lithium distribution in free space is not only completely consistent with the Big Bang, it is also consistent with the assumption of isotropy and homogeneity of spacetime. Second-year grad students in statistical mechanics go through the calculation as an exercise in both Patthria and Landau's classic texts, and the agreement between fundamental theory and what is observed is a beauty to behold. The distribution of Lithium in stars is indeed anomalous... and has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
Sorry, but it's not a very good nor a very convincing article.
“startling challenge to the widely-popular Big Bang theory”
The TV show is popular. The scientific attempt at explaining creation is a joke.
The “Big Bang” theory was a failure from the start. It has absolutely no explanation for where the “unbelievably dense” pea-sized blob of matter came from, or for the energy that caused it to expand so rapidly.
Be careful of the company you keep:
Me and a buddy of mine were arguing that same fact during the last super bowl half time...........
Hey, we were doing the same thing at my house!
They've really got to come up with better half-time events.
What we are analyzing happend billions of years ago, so the inference was that the universe was expanding based on doppler red shift. But how do we know that the universe has not reached it’s limit and has begun to contract again but are unable to measure that.
As a physicist by training, I find all of this stuff interesting but the unknowns make my brain turn to jell-o.
The universe and our understanding of it is based on what we can measure, light from distant stars that may not even exist any longer due to the incredible distances that light has traveled to get to us. We are looking into the past to predict the future, yet what we are evaluating is not real time, it was millions to billions of years ago....and the light or other electro-magnetic waves/particles are just reaching us now.
all of this is conjecture, based on other measurable/predictable phenomena. It may be well reasoned, and have empirical evidence to suggest certain things, but we are still looking at what was, not what is.
Lithium transmutes to tritium in the presence of high neutron flux such as in a star.
The amount would vary depending on the age of the star and its intensity.
Saying that, I personally believe more in multiple bangs and that most of the universe is beyond the 13B light year observable window.
We will never know for sure but it is fun to think about.
No, it doesn’t. Lousy article.
Time is a myth.
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.