Problems with the Big Bang Theory

[JohnMartin]

26) The Problem of Gamma Ray Bursts, Quasars, Binary Star motions, and Globular Clusters are all focused on the Earth.

The Standard Model is based in principle upon the Copernican principle, which states there is no preferred place in the universe.
If there is large scale evidence for the earth as a preferred place in the universe, then the Copernican principle and the standard model are both invalidated.

According to Jonathan Katz, we [the earth] are at the center of a spherically symmetrical distribution of gamma ray burst sources, and this distribution has an out outer edge. Beyond this edge the density of burst sources decreases to insignificance. (see Jonathan Katz, in The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-ray Bursts, the Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, p 111. Also see Fishmann and Meegan, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 33, 415, 1995)

Also according to Halton Arp, the ". . . supposed recession velocities of quasars to measure equal steps in all directions in the sky means we [the earth] are at the center of a series of explosions. This is an anti Copernican embarrassment. (See Halton Arp, Seeing Red:Redshifts Cosmology and Academic Science, p 195).

Also Varshni discovered that quasars are arranged in spherical shells around the earth. (See Varshni, Astrophysics and Space Science, 43: (1) (1976), p8)

Also there is evidence that the universe is not homogenous according to the article entitled - Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity

Abstract Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) posits the existence of an aeon preceding our Big Bang B, whose conformal infinity I is identified, conformally, with B, now regarded as a spacelike 3-surface. Black-hole encounters, within bound galactic clusters in that previous aeon, would have the observable effect, in our CMB sky, of families of concentric circles over which the temperature variance is anomalously low, the centre of each such family representing the point of I at which the cluster converges. This is confirmed when the same analysis is applied to BOOMERanG98 data, eliminating the possibility of an instrumental cause for the effects. These observational predictions of CCC would not be easily explained within standard inflationary cosmology.

Article by Gurzadyan and Penrose

Also the Barr Effect concludes that binary stars all over the sky have axes that point towards the earth. (See The Barr Effect, The journal of the Astronomical Society of Canada, 77:95 1983).

Also globular clusters are situated as a sphere around the earth at the center of the sphere. (See Dewey Larson, "Globular Clusters," The universe of Motion, p 33, 37).

The distribution of gamma ray bursts, and quasar recession velocities around the earth as the focus of the bursts, the Barr Effect, and globular clusters are strong, large scale evidences that the universe is focused on the earth in violation of the Copernican principle (CP) and the standard model (SM).
(The inhomogenous nature of the universe as described in the article by Gurzadyan and Penrose is also problematic for the CP and SM.)
Hence both the CP and SM have been invalidated.
Also because the earth is at the center of the quasar distribution, along with the WMAP results that show the universe is symmetrical about the ecliptic, the earth is then the preferred reference frame of the universe. Hence both SR and GR have been invalidated.

JM

[JohnMartin]

That's not how it works. I said I figured you didn't understand the concepts of Thomas Aquinas, with regards to things like potency, potentiality, etc. because of your other posts on topics that I do comprehend. Thomistic metaphysics is way more complicated than stuff about heliocentrism, and you can't even get the basics of heliocentrism right. Which is why I don't expect you to have things figured out about the more complicated subject of Thomistic metaphysics.

Which is both evidence free statement and a conclusion based upon a non sequitur. Well done.

JM

[Cerebrum123]

Which is both evidence free statement and a conclusion based upon a non sequitur. Well done.

JM

Your thread "Problems with Heliocentrism" is proof enough for the former to those who understand the basics about the subject. If you can't understand rather simple things like that, why should I trust you on more complicated things? Jesus spoke of a similar kind of reasoning in the following passage.

John 3:12 If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

[JohnMartin]

Your thread "Problems with Heliocentrism" is proof enough for the former to those who understand the basics about the subject. If you can't understand rather simple things like that, why should I trust you on more complicated things? Jesus spoke of a similar kind of reasoning in the following passage.

John 3:12 If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

You don't have any proof. You only an allegation without any evidence and a non sequitur.

JM

[Yttrium]

I've argued for both matter and nothing as separators of the universe. Both conclude to one universe.

JM

You're leaving out possibilities.

[JohnMartin]

You're leaving out possibilities.

Matter and nothing cover all possibilities.

JM

[Yttrium]

Matter and nothing cover all possibilities.

Unless you have some oddball definition of matter that doesn't relate to the definition in physics, there are other things besides matter and nothing.

Wait, you probably do have an oddball definition of matter, don't you? That would be normal for you.

[Yttrium]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Big Bang theory depends on an accelerating expansion at all. Wasn't the acceleration something that came up relatively recently? I recall it coming as a bit of a surprise, since it's counterintuitive. One would expect the expansion to be slowing, and likely stopping someday and reversing in a rubber band effect. The acceleration idea still needs a bit of work. (Of course, as I previously and clearly demonstrated with my nutty crackpot theory, the acceleration is due to light pressure.)

[JimL]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Big Bang theory depends on an accelerating expansion at all. Wasn't the acceleration something that came up relatively recently? I recall it coming as a bit of a surprise, since it's counterintuitive. One would expect the expansion to be slowing, and likely stopping someday and reversing in a rubber band effect. The acceleration idea still needs a bit of work. (Of course, as I previously and clearly demonstrated with my nutty crackpot theory, the acceleration is due to light pressure.)

No, The BB itself is the original cause of the acceleration, the outward expansion of space, but it was thought that, after 14 billion years, the expansion would be decelerating, when in fact it was observed to be accelerating.
Actually, if i'm not mistaken, the expansion is believed to have slowed shortly after the enormous burst at its beginning, but then for some unknown reason it began to accelerate again.

[JohnMartin]

26) The Problem of Gamma Ray Bursts, Quasars, Binary Star motions, and Globular Clusters are all focused on the Earth.

The Standard Model is based in principle upon the Copernican principle, which states there is no preferred place in the universe.
If there is large scale evidence for the earth as a preferred place in the universe, then the Copernican principle and the standard model are both invalidated.

. . .

Standard Model = SM
Copernican Principle = CP

27) The Problem of Forced reasoning within the Standard Model.

The Copernican principle (CP) says there is no special place in the universe.
The redshift interpretation that says cosmological redshift is caused by the expansion of space,
But the interpretation that says all space is expanding is based upon the Copernican principle.
So redshift is said to be caused by the expansion of space, whereby the expansion of space is said to be universal because of the CP.
Yet universal expansion of space is not required by the evidence.
So the standard inflationary model is merely the product of the CP and a forced interpretation of locally viewed data, applied universally.
As the inflationary model is based upon a forced interpretation of the data, then the there is no guarantee that the standard model is realist.


28) The Problem of Incredulity within the Standard Model (SM).

The SM assumes the Copernican Principle (CP) is sound.
Yet the Copernican principle is a negative principle, made in denial of any special place in the universe.
The CP then assumes a special place in the universe is incredulous, and infers the CP is then credulous.
But when the CP is applied to the redshift data, the CP is used to arrive at the SM, whereby it is assumed that all of space is expanding in all directions.
Therefore the SM is based upon the denial of the principle of a special place in the universe, due to incredulity, but then claims the entire universe is expanding, because 1) such expansion is assumed to be the correct interpretation of redshift data, and 2) the CP is applied to have the entire universe acting as supposed with the expansion witnessed from one reference frame.
Hence the SM is in principle, based upon the denial of a specific model (stationary earth), because it claims the model is incredulous.
But then the SM concludes to a far more incredulous model, which says 1) Space expands between the observer and the galaxies, without any experimental evidence to explain what space expansion is, 2) space expands in all directions from a mechanism that is unknown and unknowable, 3) space expands from a naturalist cause, which is not understood, and 4) space expands, when it need not expand, because other theories can account for redshift.
All of this incredulity within the SM is promoted after the theory is promoted by those who think the stationary earth model is incredulous.
Evidently incredulity within a model is both a reason to reject a model, and another reason to promote another model, that is at least as incredulous as the model previously rejected.

29) The Problem of the rejection of classical based physics within the Standard Model (SM).

The SM is based upon relativity theory, which proposes a new understanding of time, space, length and place, whereby the classical understandings of the same are rejected.
Those who promote Relativity theory do so by referring to a series of experiments that purport to support the relativistic concepts of time, length, velocity, etc.
Yet because relativity theory never deductively proves the relativistic nature of time, length, relative velocity, etc, such concepts within the theory are never known deductively to be real.
As they are not known to be real from deductive reasoning, they can only be known to be possible through the inductive method, whereby experiments are constructed to measure any predictions made by relativity theory.
So even if some experiments purport to produce the results predicted by relativity theory, such results are merely interpreted by relativists as evidence for the theory, and in no manner actually ever demonstrate concepts, such as time dilation, length contraction and the space-time continuum are actually real.
Hence, because the SM is based upon the concepts within relativity, and such concepts are never demonstrated to be real, then SM can never be demonstrated to be a realist theory.
Hence SM will always only ever be a maths hypothesis, which can be either accepted, or rejected at whim.
Hence the SM is not a realist theory.

30) The Problem of acentrism within the Standard Model

The SM is based upon the CP, which says there is no special place within the universe.
Yet the CP infers there cannot be a center point in the universe, because a center point would mean that there is at least one point in the universe that is special.
Yet according to Olber's paradox, the universe is finite.
And according to observations, the universe has mass.
But what has mass and is finite, according to Newtonian mechanics, has a center of mass.
And what has a center of mass has a center.
Therefore, the SM both explicitly denies the universe has a center, but implicitly affirms the universe has a center.
Hence the SM is self contradictory, and therefore invalid.

31) The Problem of the apriori, assumed agnostic/atheistic worldview as an ideological foundation of the Standard Model

The SM is a non religious based model that implicitly denies any revealed truth concerning the origin and structure of the universe.
Yet both agnosticism and atheism are false world views.
For agnosticism is invalidated through the Judaeo-Christian revelation, whereby man comes to know the name and life of God, and where the universe came from through the creation event.
And atheism is false, as known through the absurdities within atheism and the proofs for the existence of God, within monotheism.
Hence the SM is based upon false apriori assumptions about what man knows about the universe, prior to any scientific investigation into the origin and structure of the universe.
As the apriori assumptions are false, then the SM is false in principle.
But what is false in principle is false.
Hence the SM is false.

32) The Problem of the Unknown Unknowns within the Standard Model.

All models based upon the inductive method, seek to explain reality through what is known via observation and theory.
Yet what is known, infers there are always known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
But what is a known unknown may be incorporated into the model as a possible outcome.
But what is an unknown unknown may not be incorporated into the model as a possible outcome.
So, because the SM will always have unknown unknowns, then no mater what is claimed to be known, the model may well be always false, because the unknown unknowns may well invalidate the model, when they become known.
Hence the validity of the SM, like all other models that try to explain the origin of the universe from the inductive method, will always suffer from the problem of the unknown unknowns.

33) The Problem of the instability within a Homogeneous Universe contrary to that required by the Standard Model.

The CP says there is not special place in the universe.
Hence any model that applies the CP, will tend towards a homogeneous universe, to avoid there being any special place.
Yet a homogeneous universe has been shown to be unstable and will always tend towards an inhomogeneous universe (see Tolman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 20, 169, 1934).
Hence, because the SM includes the CP, then the SM can never be true, for the SM tends towards a homogeneous universe, yet such a universe is unstable.
Yet we observe the universe is stable, hence the universe must be inhomogeneous, contrary to the SM.
Hence the existence of a stable universe invalidates the SM.

34) The Problem of a lack of evidence for Dark Matter contrary to the Standard Model.

Studies have been conducted to observe stars near the sun, which should act in a particular way as predicted by the existence of dark matter.
Yet such studies have concluded that what was observed does not required the existence of dark matter. (See Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories? New Study finds Mysterious Lack of Dark Matter in Sun's Neighbourhood," ScienceDaily, April 18, 2012.
As there is strong evidence that Dark Matter does not exist, then the SM has been invalidated.

35) The Problem of Ockham's razor which points away from the Standard Model and towards Geocentrism.

The lack of evidence for dark matter, and the corresponding problems posed for the SM, indicate that the academy has little experimental evidence for dark matter and the associated dark energy. As there is little evidence for such physical mechanisms within the universe, then according to Ockham's razor, because the simplest explanation is the preferred explanation, then a model that does not require dark matter or dark energy is the preferred model.
As a stationary earth does not require dark matter or dark energy, (see Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae." Physical Review Letters, 101, 131302 (2008) DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 101.13102.), then geocentrism is the preferred model.
As the SM is not the preferred model, then the SM is in breach of Ockham's razor.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No, The BB itself is the original cause of the acceleration, the outward expansion of space, but it was thought that, after 14 billion years, the expansion would be decelerating, when in fact it was observed to be accelerating.
Actually, if i'm not mistaken, the expansion is believed to have slowed shortly after the enormous burst at its beginning, but then for some unknown reason it began to accelerate again.

The entire Big Bang model is a fiction, based upon the fiction of relativity theory, a false interpretation of redshift, the false Copernican principle, and the false physics of dark energy and dark matter. The age of the universe as determined within the Standard model is most likely also false.

JM

[JohnMartin]

35) The Problem of Ockham's razor which points away from the Standard Model and towards Geocentrism.

The lack of evidence for dark matter, and the corresponding problems posed for the SM, indicate that the academy has little experimental evidence for dark matter and the associated dark energy. As there is little evidence for such physical mechanisms within the universe, then according to Ockham's razor, because the simplest explanation is the preferred explanation, then a model that does not require dark matter or dark energy is the preferred model.
As a stationary earth does not require dark matter or dark energy, (see Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae." Physical Review Letters, 101, 131302 (2008) DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 101.13102.), then geocentrism is the preferred model.
As the SM is not the preferred model, then the SM is in breach of Ockham's razor.

JM

Problem 35 included a reference to an article entitled - Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae The abstract states the following which is relevant to a model approach that excludes the need for dark energy.

Alternatively, it could be the case that the Copernican Principle is invalid, and that
the data has been interpreted within an inappropriate theoretical frame-work. If we were to live in
a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then
the supernovae observations could be accounted for without the addition of dark energy. We show
that the local redshift dependence of the luminosity distance can be used as a clear discriminant
between these two paradigms. Future surveys of Type Ia supernovae that focus on a redshift range
of 0.1 − 0.4 will be ideally suited to test this hypothesis, and hence to observationally determine
the validity of the Copernican Principle on new scales, as well as probing the degree to which dark
energy must be considered a necessary ingredient in the Universe.

The article proposes to have the earth in a void to avoid the problems of the lack of expeirmental evidence for dark energy.

it does require a rejection of the Copernican Principle. We would be required to live near the centre of a spherically symmetric under-density, on
a scale of the same order of magnitude as the observable Universe. Such a situation would have profound consequences for the interpretation of all cosmological observations, and would ultimately mean that we could not infer the properties of the Universe at large from what we observe locally.

36) The Problem of Lack of Experimental Evidence for Dark Energy (DE) and Dark Matter (DM) within the Standard Model (SM)

The SM proposes the need for dark energy and dark matter, yet there is little, to no experimental evidence for the existence of such physical phenomena in the local system.
Hence if dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM) do exist throughout the universe, and there is no experimental evidence for such locally, then the physical properties within the local system must be diverse from that of the rest of the universe.
Hence the Copernican Principle (CP) is invalidated, and along with the CP, the SM is also invalidated.

37) The Problem of Lack of Experimental Evidence for Dark Energy (DE) and Dark Matter (DM) and the implied logical inconsistency within the Standard Model (SM)

Following upon the conclusions of the above article entitled "Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae", because there is no evidence for DE and DM in the local system, then the earth and the local system are in a special location in the universe, contrary to the SM.
And also if DM and DE exist throughout the universe, because the physical properties within the rest of the universe are diverse from the local system, such diversity of physical properties from the local to universal frames infers the properties of the physical universe are probably unknowable from the local frame.
As these universal, physical properties are unknowable, then the claims of the SM are also really only claims made about a universe which physically unknowable from the local frame system).
Therefore, because there is little, to no experimental evidence for DE and DM in the local system, the SM makes claims about the nature of the universe which are conclusions made beyond the empirical evidence available locally and are also unknowable universally.
As the SM claims are beyond the evidence, the SM is inconsistent regarding the certitude of the knowledge had concerning the existence of DE and DM.
Therefore the SM is invalidated.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Big Bang theory depends on an accelerating expansion at all. Wasn't the acceleration something that came up relatively recently? I recall it coming as a bit of a surprise, since it's counterintuitive. One would expect the expansion to be slowing, and likely stopping someday and reversing in a rubber band effect. The acceleration idea still needs a bit of work. (Of course, as I previously and clearly demonstrated with my nutty crackpot theory, the acceleration is due to light pressure.)

One would expect the science academy to admit the standard model is only a hodge podge of ideas and theories melded together into an eclectic mess. Yet, such is not so, for the main stream physics establishment wants the rest of humanity to buy into a model that is almost entirely fictional. Why? We live in the scientific age in which humanity expects answers where no certain answers are forthcoming. Hence the academy has collectively decided to deliver us a truck load of stale bread, called the standard model which we are all expected to dunk into our soup on Sunday night and give thanks.

JM

[Roy]

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.

Only after you'd already stated it was "limited". If you're going to insist that something I made up on the spur of the moment is "limited", then you ought to be able to support that.

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.

So you have different 'proofs' for something being limited depending on whether it actually exists or not? Wow.

But the basic issue is that I invented a name for something, and you promptly started assigning traits to it.

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,...

Of course. I you will make claims about stuff I just made up, that's what'll happen. Either you support those claims, which'll make you look silly, or you don't, which'll make you look empty. But that's a dilemma of your own making.

That's what atheism is - a willed belief made against the truth of monotheism.

So you still haven't grasped that atheism is a rejection of all religions, not just yours.

[JohnMartin]

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.

Only after you'd already stated it was "limited". If you're going to insist that something I made up on the spur of the moment is "limited", then you ought to be able to support that.

I have already done so.

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.

So you have different 'proofs' for something being limited depending on whether it actually exists or not? Wow.

If the cosmic yoyo is only a possible, then its an objective potency, or an imaginary being, composed of potency and act. Nothing wow about that.

But the basic issue is that I invented a name for something, and you promptly started assigning traits to it.

Yes because the yoyo is either real or imaginary. Either way it is a composed thing, and hence limited. All imaginary things are limited, which includes the cosmic yoyo.

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,...
Of course. I you will make claims about stuff I just made up, that's what'll happen. Either you support those claims, which'll make you look silly, or you don't, which'll make you look empty. But that's a dilemma of your own making.

I have done so. Then you continued with a game, by only posting part of my response on another thread.

That's what atheism is - a willed belief made against the truth of monotheism.

So you still haven't grasped that atheism is a rejection of all religions, not just yours.

Denied.

I request that there be no further discussion about the cosmic yoyo on this thread, which is irrelevant to the current thread, which is devoted to problems with the big bang theory. If Roy wants to continue this discussion, he can do so on his own thread.

JM