Problems with the Big Bang Theory

[JimL]

Some Problems Posed with Regard to the Big Bang Model.

I have presented below some problems with the standard model.

1) Problem - The expanding universe model is self contradictory.

1) If the universe is infinite then it is without limit.
2) To expand means to go beyond a limit.
3) Hence, for a body to expand infers the body has limit.
4) Therefore an infinite, expanding universe is not possible, for the universe cannot go beyond that which does not have a limit.

5) If the universe is finite, then it has limit.
6) What exists beyond the universes limit is either a being or a non being.
7) If it is a being, then it must be part of the universe, for the universe itself is a being.
8) If it is a non being, then there is nothing beyond the limit of the universe.

9) But, nothing (non being) has no potency (can be) nothing (non being) is receptive of a perfection, and therefore nothing (non being) has potency.
12) Therefore, because 9) contradicts 11), an inflating universe is self contradictory.

2) Problem of Universal, uniform expansion.

If the Universe is uniformly expanding (as an acceleration) in all directions, then there is a force acting in all directions as the cause of acceleration.
If the force is acting within a universe, uniformly in all directions, then such a force, in accord with Newtons third law, must have an equal and opposite reaction.
But the force of expansion is universal, hence the reaction must also be, proportional to the force and hence universal.
Hence a universal force of expansion, will always be countered by a universal reaction force, acting equally against the expansion.
Hence the universe is either 1) expanding in contradiction of Newtons third law of motion, or 2) not expanding contrary to the Standard Model.

3) Problem of Universal, non-uniform expansion.

If the Universe is not uniformly expanding (as a series of accelerations) in all directions, then there are forces acting in all directions as the cause of the accelerations.
If the forces are acting within a universe, not uniformly in all directions, then such forces, in accord with Newtons third law, must have equal and opposite reactions.
But the forces of expansion are universal, hence the reactions must also be, proportional to the forces of expansion and hence universal.
Hence universal forces of expansion, will always be countered by universal reaction forces, acting equally against the expansion.
Hence the universe is either 1) expanding in contradiction of Newtons third law of motion, or 2) not expanding contrary to the Standard Model.

4) Problem of universal expansion and the stability of galaxies.

The Standard model concludes that the universe is expanding in all directions.
The cause of the universal expansion is dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM).
DE and DM are said to permeate the entire universe.
Yet if DE and DM existed within the local Milky Way, or indeed all of the many galaxies observed, DE and DM would also cause those galaxies to also expand.
Yet such expansion of the galaxies has not been observed.
Hence DE and DM are the mechanism for universal expansion, but are ignored when local stability is observed in the galaxies.
Such means DE and DM have enough force to move all the galaxies and the space between the galaxies, but not enough force to move the bodies within the galaxies, to expand those same galaxies.
DE and DM are then the mechanism which has a force greater than any one galaxy to move said galaxy, but not enough force to spread the parts of the galaxy.
Hence the standard model requires a mechanism that is both stronger than all the galaxies, yet weaker than any parts of the galaxies.

5) Problem of the Assumed Copernican Principle.

The standard model is based upon the Copernican principle, which states there is no preferred place in the universe.
Therefore when red shifted galaxies are observed from the earth, the standard model assumes the Copernican principle applies to the red shift observations.
The standard model then concludes that such red shift would be observed from from any point in the universe.
Therefore the universe is expanding in all directions.
Yet such a universe is only a model derived from the Copernican principle (CP).
Therefore, because red shifted galaxies interpreted as galaxy motion away from the earth and space expansion between the earth and the observed galaxy may either indicate 1) the earth is in a special location in the universe, or 2) according to the CP, the earth cannot be in a special place, then the universe must be expanding in all directions.
Yet because the CP is only a principle, which cannot be proven, but can only be invalidated, there is no certitude that the universe is expanding, as required by the Standard model.

6) Problem of Hubble's Law.

Hubble's Law is derived from the observations galaxy red shift and the correspondent relationship between galaxy redshift and distance from the observer.
Yet the relationship between red shift and galaxy location is 1) only in relation to observations on/near earth, and 2) assume redshift indicates velocity, as interpreted according to the doppler effect of light.
But 1) only means red shift is observed from one reference frame, and hence the one reference frame should not be the normative guide for the same shift to be observed from all reference frames, as required by the standard model.
And but 2) redshift may not indicate velocity as quasars do not correspond to the same redshifts as galaxies. Hence the Hubble law cannot also apply to quasars along with galaxies with diverse red shifts.
As 1) and 2) correspondingly do not establish Hubble's law and are contrary to Hubble's law, then the Standard model has insufficient evidence for universal expansion according to Hubble's law.

7) Problem of Hubble's Law and the Copernican Principle (CP).

If the universe expands in accord with Hubble's law, then it does so in accord with the CP.
Hubble's law says the universe is expanding in all directions.
The CP says the universes expansion in all directions is in accord with laws of physics that are universally homogeneous (no preferred place).
Yet the local solar system does not expand.
Hence the local system does not conform to the physical laws of expansion said to exist throughout the universe.
Therefore because the local laws of physics are not that of the universal laws of physics, then locally the CP does not hold.
Hence locally, the Milky Way, and solar system are in a special place within the universe, contrary to the CP.
Hence for the Standard model to hold, the model must both universally apply the CP, but locally deny the CP, wherever there is a stable galaxy observed (pretty much everywhere).
Hence the CP is embraced universally under the theme of universal expansion, but denied everywhere under the theme of locally stable galaxies, located all over the universe.

8) Problem of Well formed Distant Galaxies.

The Standard Model (SM) assumes an expanding universe, whereby the most distant galaxies are the oldest.
But the most distant galaxies are observed to be no more or less formed than more local galaxies.
Hence the SM requires an observation of galaxy formation, which is diverse over distance from the observer, that is universally not found in observation.

9) Problem of the Assumed Starting Point.

The Standard Model (SM) assumes the most distant galaxies, are the most red shifted, and hence are moving away from the earth based observer at the greatest velocity.
Hence, because the most distant galaxies are assumed to have the greatest recessional velocity, the universe must be expanding.
Yet such reasoning cannot exclude the possibility that the galaxies began at divergent points and began to move from those points.
Hence the most distant galaxy may not have the greatest velocity, but may only have an unknowable velocity, for the starting point of the galaxy motion is unknown.
Hence the SM is based upon an unsupported assumption of the beginning galaxy motion.
Hence the SM is logically not well supported.

10) Problem of the Light at c.

If light is always at c, then the galaxies we observe that are said to be several, or even many light years away are only the light that enters the local telescope.
Hence what is observed about very distant galaxies is only that which is said to have occurred many years ago.
So, if the light is not an indicator of what exists now in the universe, then nobody can be sure what is actually existing now in the universe.
Yet the Standard Model (SM) requires that man have a knowledge of what exists now in the universe.
For the SM claims that the Hubble constant and several other constants are known to act now in the universe.
As we can never know what is occurring now in the universe, but only what occurred in the distant past, then the laws of the universe, now, can never be known.
The constancy of light at c then conflicts with the notion that the constants within the universe can be known and applied within the SM.
Hence the SM is based upon poorly founded knowledge of the universe.
As the principle of light at c conflicts with certitude of knowing what actually exists now in the universe, then the constants within the SM cannot be known with certitude either.
Hence the SM is a most uncertain model.

JM

I believe you are confusing the universe, spacetime, with the greater cosmos, aka quantum vacuum, within which the spacetime universe was born. The former is temporal and finite and can expand within the latter which is itself infinite.

[JohnMartin]

I believe you are confusing the universe, spacetime, with the greater cosmos, aka quantum vacuum, within which the spacetime universe was born. The former is temporal and finite and can expand within the latter which is itself infinite.

The universe is not infinite as demonstrated by Olber's paradox. The rest of your statement is grammatically poorly formed, which makes it difficult to understand what you are talking about.

JM

[Roy]

So either Roy is wrong, or Swinburne university is wrong, or the standard model is so poorly thought out that nobody really knows what is going on.

Or you don't know what you're talking about and are incapable of understanding any of the issues.

I'm running with Swinburn on this one until there is better evidence to overturn what they say above.

Fine. Swinburne say this:
"Caused solely by the expansion of the Universe, the value of the cosmological redshift indicates the recession velocity of the object, or its distance."
Do you agree with that?

Therefore the problem of redshift in expanding space remains. Roy's version of cosmological redshift is really doppler redshift.

Correct. I was talking about Doppler redshift caused by the relative velocity of galaxies, not cosmological redshift caused by light being stretched in transit. The former would exist even if the latter did not. Contrary to your claims, there would still be redshift even if you were correct about space not affecting light in transit.

Why then does the academy take the model seriously when other alternate explanations can be offered for what we observe?

What alternative explanations are those? If you mean your ridiculous aether nonsense, then the academy takes the standard model seriously because the alternative 'explanation' is incoherent inconsistent gibberish.

[JimL]

The universe is not infinite as demonstrated by Olber's paradox. The rest of your statement is grammatically poorly formed, which makes it difficult to understand what you are talking about.

JM

Olbers paradox doesn't apply because our particular universe, i.e. spacetime, is neither infinite nor static, our particular universe is not "THE UNIVERSE."

[JohnMartin]

Olbers paradox doesn't apply because our particular universe, i.e. spacetime, is neither infinite nor static, our particular universe is not "THE UNIVERSE."

Our universe is the only universe that exists. The multi universe theory is just another fraud perpetuated by part of the science academy because they simply cannot account for the the phenomena they observe by the current models they have within only one universe. The problems are with the lack of explanatory power within the current physics models they use. The poorly constructed models that apparently lend support to a multi universe theory, only do so because the models are poor. The physical data does not provided any evidence for other universes.

Our universe is finite and its the only universe that exists.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Fine. Swinburne say this:
"Caused solely by the expansion of the Universe, the value of the cosmological redshift indicates the recession velocity of the object, or its distance."
Do you agree with that?

Yes, but Swinburne also says cosmological redshift is caused by the expansion of space.

Cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself and not from the motion of an individual body. The larger the distance to the system, the longer the emitted photons have travelled through expanding space and the higher the measured cosmological redshift.

Therefore the problem of redshift in expanding space remains. Roy's version of cosmological redshift is really doppler redshift.

Correct. I was talking about Doppler redshift caused by the relative velocity of galaxies, not cosmological redshift caused by light being stretched in transit. The former would exist even if the latter did not. Contrary to your claims, there would still be redshift even if you were correct about space not affecting light in transit.

even so, cosmological redshift would not exist. The standard model says it does exist, yet the model has no experimentally verifiable way to determine if cosmological redshift really is caused by the expansion of space. Hence the model is merely a mathematical speculation, which can never be raised to the level of a real theory. No experimental basis for a physics theory means the physics theory is only a maths theory about physical things. Yet such a maths theory does not mean the maths theory is in any way a reflection of the real. Nobody can tell humanity for certain that space expansion is real. Hence, the standard model is very deficient.

Even without any experimental basis, the expansion of space is conceptually problematic. What does the expansion of space really mean? Can space actually expand, and if so how can we know for certain, so then we can entertain the concept as a possible solution to the redshift data?

Why then does the academy take the model seriously when other alternate explanations can be offered for what we observe?

What alternative explanations are those? If you mean your ridiculous aether nonsense, then the academy takes the standard model seriously because the alternative 'explanation' is incoherent inconsistent gibberish.

I'm currently out of time. But one theory by Halton Arp proposes the redshift is an indicator of the time the star came into existence and not velocity recession.

JM

[Roy]

Why then does the academy take the model seriously when other alternate explanations can be offered for what we observe?

What alternative explanations are those?

I'm currently out of time. But one theory by Halton Arp proposes the redshift is an indicator of the time the star came into existence and not velocity recession.

Halton Arp's theories have been reviewed by astronomers and rejected. Why should the academy take Arp's model seriously when the expanding universe model better explains the data?

[Cerebrum123]

You figured as much without knowing anything about what I was talking about. Does that make any sense? No.

JM

I figured as much because of my past experience reading your posts on topics I do comprehend.

[Roy]

I figured as much because of my past experience reading your posts on topics I do comprehend.

Have you seen this?

"The cosmic yoyo has the nature of yoyo.
The nature of yoyo is not being, but other than a being.
The cosmic yoyo that exists has a nature of yoyo and has being as the cause of its actualization.
Being is the fundamental perfection of the cosmic yoyo.
As the cosmic yoyo has being, then it is not the cause of its own being.
The cosmic yoyo is dependent with regard to being,
What is dependent is in potency, and hence limited.
Hence the cosmic yoyo is limited."

[Cerebrum123]

Have you seen this?

"The cosmic yoyo has the nature of yoyo.
The nature of yoyo is not being, but other than a being.
The cosmic yoyo that exists has a nature of yoyo and has being as the cause of its actualization.
Being is the fundamental perfection of the cosmic yoyo.
As the cosmic yoyo has being, then it is not the cause of its own being.
The cosmic yoyo is dependent with regard to being,
What is dependent is in potency, and hence limited.
Hence the cosmic yoyo is limited."

[Yttrium]

Have you seen this?

"The cosmic yoyo has the nature of yoyo.
The nature of yoyo is not being, but other than a being.
The cosmic yoyo that exists has a nature of yoyo and has being as the cause of its actualization.
Being is the fundamental perfection of the cosmic yoyo.
As the cosmic yoyo has being, then it is not the cause of its own being.
The cosmic yoyo is dependent with regard to being,
What is dependent is in potency, and hence limited.
Hence the cosmic yoyo is limited."

If it has being and is in potency, is it thus able to perform "around the world" and "walk the dog"?

[JohnMartin]

I figured as much because of my past experience reading your posts on topics I do comprehend.

Which of course makes no sense, because you already admitted you didn't understand a fundamental concept such as potency.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Have you seen this?

"The cosmic yoyo has the nature of yoyo.
The nature of yoyo is not being, but other than a being.
The cosmic yoyo that exists has a nature of yoyo and has being as the cause of its actualization.
Being is the fundamental perfection of the cosmic yoyo.
As the cosmic yoyo has being, then it is not the cause of its own being.
The cosmic yoyo is dependent with regard to being,
What is dependent is in potency, and hence limited.
Hence the cosmic yoyo is limited."

Roy plays games in an attempt to make me look silly. Th cosmic yoyo topic was his own idea, by which he asked me to prove the cosmic yoyo was limited. I covered both scenarios whereby one could consider the cosmic yoyo either real, or imaginary. Roy is now parading around one of my answers as though I actually believe the cosmic yoyo exists, when I do not.

To further highlight the games Roy plays, lets see what would happen if I did not respond to his childish request? He would no doubt claim victory for I had not established that the cosmic yoyo was limited, therefore . . . blah blah blah (insert atheistic misunderstanding about the nature of ontology - being and so on). So either way, Im damned if I do and damned if I don't respond to his request.

Roy plays games to prop up his faith in atheism is quite telling. Roy has no rational arguments for atheism, nor any rational arguments against theism. He is an atheist because he wills it to be so. That's what atheism is - a willed belief made against the truth of monotheism.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

Roy plays games in an attempt to make me look silly.

It's working too, although you're doing most of the heavy lifting yourself.

Th cosmic yoyo topic was his own idea, by which he asked me to prove the cosmic yoyo was limited. I covered both scenarios whereby one could consider the cosmic yoyo either real, or imaginary. Roy is now parading around one of my answers as though I actually believe the cosmic yoyo exists, when I do not.

JM

Cosmic yoyo is just as good a description of you as Moonbat.

[JohnMartin]

Halton Arp's theories have been reviewed by astronomers and rejected. Why should the academy take Arp's model seriously when the expanding universe model better explains the data?

The expanding universe theory does not take any data into account better than any other theory. The expanding universe theory is entirely the work of relativists who want to promote the maths equations of a thought experiment into redshift data. The data was such a bad fit to the equations that they had to invent the expansion of space and the corresponding redshift. There is no experimental evidence for the expansion of space, no for the change in light frequency caused by the expansion of space, which affects light redshift.

The entire mechanism to explain redshift is an artificial construct, which is sadly lacking experimental confirmation, is conceptually problematic and inconsistent with relativity theory (and common sense experience). For relativity says lengths will contract according to the transforms. Yet the standard model says the entire universe is expanding in all directions. So when light travels towards the earth and the observer sees the redshift, then the light must arrive at the observer because the distance between the galaxy and the observer is expanding according to the standard model, but also contracting according to relativity, but remaining the same distance according to common sense experience.

Both Harp's theories and the Big Bang theory are flawed in principle, because both begin by assuming the universe can exist without a creator, or a creation event as has been revealed by God. Then both theories invent concepts about the physical world that are either not well established, cannot be established, are absurd, or contradict other parts of the theory. This is what happens when the science academy rejects the Genesis account of creation. Multiple logical, mathematical and physics problems pop up allover the shop and we are all expected to either gullibly accept all this garbled mess, or ignore the models and then be ridiculed. When all along the science academy really doesn't have a clue where the universe came from, how it continues to exist, and what the causes of many observed phenomena are.

We are scientifically living in the dark ages when the academy seeks to invent models about the origin of the universe without any reference to the origin of all being, who is God, who has revealed that the universe was created and rotates around the earth once per day. Corresponding to these facts, redshift may then be understood as an effect of either the creation event, rotation, or the location of the galaxy relative to the earth in relation to he firmament and local aether flow. Of course the modern scientist will mock such an approach, yet there is nothing absurd in the approach and the alternative explanations are all flawed.

Note - Because the cosmological redshift explanation is flawed, then the academy has no means to determine doppler redshift either. Hence the motions of the galaxies relative to the earth are probably unknown.

JM