Problems with the Big Bang Theory

[Roy]

The SM promotes a theory of the origin of the universe which is at odds with reason, experience and in several respects, cannot be tested by experiment.

It's only at odds with reason if your reason excludes any possibility but geocentrism. (This is a very, very small group of people.)

I think that was a typo. It should have said:

"JM promotes a theory of the origin of the universe which is at odds with reason, experience and in several respects, cannot be tested by experiment. "

The last line is a non sequitur. You don't throw scientific theories out because they can't be completely proven. If that were the case, we'd have no scientific theories at all.

Did you notice JM's 'logic' can equally well be used to prove that he should abandon geocentrism?

[JohnMartin]

35) The Problem of false principles within the SM that cause academic schizophrenia.

The Copernican Principle says there is no special place within the universe.
Yet such principle tends towards a homogeneous universe, for a homogeneous universe is a universe without any special place.
Yet according to Tolman, 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).
Such is known by the academy, which continues to push the SM at the expense of reason.
So the academy is condemned to suffer under a form of institutionalized enforced schizophrenia.
As such an effect is adverse to scientists, then the theory must be false.
>_<

I suggest a course or two in Real Analysis. A long regimen of rigorous mathematical proofs would be helpful with your logic.

I suggest you provide an argument.

36) The Problem of overconfidence and inevitable hubris associated with the SM.

The SM promotes a theory of the origin of the universe which is at odds with reason, experience and in several respects, cannot be tested by experiment.

It's only at odds with reason if your reason excludes any possibility but geocentrism. (This is a very, very small group of people.)

A modern version of the Big Bang (BB) includes the claims of Krauss who argue for the universe from nothing. He advocates the BB model. Hence as an atheist, he is claiming the BB model offers an explanation for why man is here. The model is a fraud of course, and so is his theory of something from nothing.

The SM is at odds with reason, and my statement doesn't arrive at the conclusion you stated above.

37) The Problem of the Simplicity of Admitting fault associated with the SM.

The academy promotes the SM as a model that explains the existence of the universe.

It's not promoted as explaining the existence of the universe. It's promoted as explaining the early development of the known universe. How that process got started is not explained by the theory.

The BB tries to explain how things came to be and how the universe currently functions.

38) The Problem of ignoring other means of attaining knowledge as implied with the SM.

The SM is based upon Hubble's law, which apparently concludes to the expansion of space.
Yet the model excludes the deductive method which conclude that space cannot expand.
Hence the SM ignores reason and the inductive method, to arrive at a conclusion within the model that is untenable.

Your "deductive method" depends on your particular interpretation of Biblical revelation.

One can deduce from the nature of place, and body composed of parts, and force that expanding space is very problematic. This can be done apart from any revelation. For example,

1) a body has a natural minima and maxima. Expanding space implies there is no natural maxima to the universe as a body. Hence the expanding space theory is contrary to the nature of a body.

2) An expanding body has a natural maximum expansion, after which the structure of the body fails and the body ceases to be a body. The ever expanding body of the universe is observed to be stable, yet, according to the nature of bodies, should be unstable. Hence the expanding universe theory is contrary to the nature of bodies.

3) An expanding body requires a force to cause expansion. And such force implies a cause acting within the body. Yet a body naturally tends to stability and constancy of volume, which implies such a force acting within a body is naturally alien to a body. Hence to posit an expanding universe is to posit a force within the body of the universe, which is alien to the nature of the universe as a body.

4) An expanding universe is contrary to the laws of entropy, which concludes to an action towards equilibrium. As the expanding universe is said to be accelerating, the acceleration is a universal breach of the law of entropy concerning the gaining of force, rather than the expectant loss of force as determined by entropy. The expanding universe is therefore contrary to a law of entropy and is therefore contrary to a law of science.

5) An expanding space, is empty, cannot expand. For that which is empty has no reason of be to cause a force and thereby affect expansion of space. SR says space is empty, hence the expansion of space is contrary to SR.

6) If space is expanding in all directions, then light from galaxies, passing through space would also be expanding in all directions. After all, the expanding space theory proposes that space expands and has an effect upon the wave length of light. if so, then expanding space in all directions must cause light to deform from its straight line path from a galaxy towards the earth. Such a deformation of light would make it virtually impossible to make an observation of a galaxy in focus. Yet galaxies are often observed in focus. Hence the expansion of space is contrary to the observed light from galaxies.

7) Expanding space is a sui generis claim, which is not encountered in any other part of science. Hence logically such a claim must be regarded with some suspicion. For there is nothing within science whereby such expansion is observed in other bodies, nor explainable within the theory. Hence the claim is most likely spurious, and should be rejected.

8) Nature is consistent, hence observation can conclude to some understanding of nature. The expanding space theory is not consistent with 1) any other form of expansion of bodies, 2) with the treatment of light passing through expanding space, 3) with entropy, and 4) with what is observed on earth concerning the nature of bodily expansion. Hence because the expanding space theory is contrary to natures observed on earth, then the expanding space theory is most likely not an effect of nature, but a part of a theory required to prop up the failed Big Bang model.

39) The Problem of only one reference frame implied within the SM.

All observations are made on earth, or near earth.
Hence all data is earth based observation.
Hence when data is only collected from one point in space, the data may always be skewed.
Yet because it is unknown if the data is skewed or not, then the truth value of the data is unknown.
Hence because the SM is based upon data that may be wrong, the truth value of the SM is unknown.
Hence the SM may well be wrong and any other theory, which is dependent upon the same data may also be wrong.
Hence the academy must be agnostic about the nature and origin of the universe.
Hence the SM must be dropped by the academy.

The last line is a non sequitur. You don't throw scientific theories out because they can't be completely proven. If that were the case, we'd have no scientific theories at all.

I disagree. If a theory is dependent upon bad data, or supported by bad data, then the validity/soundness and applicability of the theory is unknowable/unverifiable. Hence a theory such as SR that is unverifiable requires that the academy remain agnostic about its veracity. Such is the problem with SR.

JM

[JohnMartin]

JM has demonstrated that he is incapable of correctly formulating logical proofs.
This suggests JM is a turnip, because turnips are incapable of correctly formulating logical proofs.

Since turnips cannot post on Theologyweb, this thread does not exist.
Therefore it should be deleted.

Mods?

Roy is an atheist because he thinks theists place labels on conclusions nominally, made apart from ontology. Roy's atheism should be deleted.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I think that was a typo. It should have said:

"JM promotes a theory of the origin of the universe which is at odds with reason, experience and in several respects, cannot be tested by experiment. "Did you notice JM's 'logic' can equally well be used to prove that he should abandon geocentrism?

No, because geocentrism has been revealed by God. If all scientific data could be explained in more than one way, apart from a stationary earth, then the stationary earth model would still be the preferred model, because only that model has been revealed by prime truth.

SR as a dominant paradigm infers it is the preferred model of motion, yet such is not required from the data.

JM

[Yttrium]

I suggest you provide an argument.

Fine.

The Copernican Principle says there is no special place within the universe.
Yet such principle tends towards a homogeneous universe, for a homogeneous universe is a universe without any special place.
Yet according to Tolman, 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).
Such is known by the academy, which continues to push the SM at the expense of reason.
So the academy is condemned to suffer under a form of institutionalized enforced schizophrenia.
As such an effect is adverse to scientists, then the theory must be false.

Your second line doesn't follow, because there can be other scenarios besides a homogeneous universe in which there is no "special place". Roy was using the turnip as an example of assuming that because one case fits, it's the only case that fits. So your logic is already broken.

Your third line fails to establish why Tolman would be correct. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. In any case, it probably doesn't matter, due to the previous problem.

Your final line concludes that a theory must be false if it adversely affects scientists... which just doesn't make logical sense.

Note that I'm not even arguing that you're wrong here. I'm just pointing out that your logic needs work.

[Yttrium]

A modern version of the Big Bang (BB) includes the claims of Krauss who argue for the universe from nothing. He advocates the BB model. Hence as an atheist, he is claiming the BB model offers an explanation for why man is here. The model is a fraud of course, and so is his theory of something from nothing.

Why should we care about this Krauss guy? He has his own philosophy of life, the universe and everything, which apparently includes the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is not a philosophy, it's just a theory. In fact, many religious people use it as part of their philosophies, believing it to be a sure sign that the universe was created by God. Since the Big Bang doesn't explain how the universe came to exist in the first place, there's nothing in it to say that God didn't create the universe. (Just not in a way that works with your particular philosophy, as it turns out.)

The BB tries to explain how things came to be and how the universe currently functions.

It tries to explain the early development of the known universe.

1) a body has a natural minima and maxima. Expanding space implies there is no natural maxima to the universe as a body. Hence the expanding space theory is contrary to the nature of a body.

What can expand can also contract. Big Bang theory doesn't require endless expansion (although it doesn't preclude it either).

2) An expanding body has a natural maximum expansion, after which the structure of the body fails and the body ceases to be a body. The ever expanding body of the universe is observed to be stable, yet, according to the nature of bodies, should be unstable. Hence the expanding universe theory is contrary to the nature of bodies.

Stable? You should take some time to look up "heat death of the universe". You might find it interesting.

3) An expanding body requires a force to cause expansion. And such force implies a cause acting within the body. Yet a body naturally tends to stability and constancy of volume, which implies such a force acting within a body is naturally alien to a body. Hence to posit an expanding universe is to posit a force within the body of the universe, which is alien to the nature of the universe as a body.

If I pour water on the ground, I create a puddle that's going to keep expanding as I keep pouring. Where's the constant volume? And again, Big Bang theory doesn't require the expansion to last permanently.

4) An expanding universe is contrary to the laws of entropy, which concludes to an action towards equilibrium. As the expanding universe is said to be accelerating, the acceleration is a universal breach of the law of entropy concerning the gaining of force, rather than the expectant loss of force as determined by entropy. The expanding universe is therefore contrary to a law of entropy and is therefore contrary to a law of science.

A current acceleration does not imply an eternal acceleration. The acceleration could decrease over time, stop, and reverse. Also, Big Bang theory doesn't require the acceleration. If the acceleration turns out to be false, no big deal.

5) An expanding space, is empty, cannot expand. For that which is empty has no reason of be to cause a force and thereby affect expansion of space. SR says space is empty, hence the expansion of space is contrary to SR.

What are you even talking about. I assume you just don't understand the science here.

6) If space is expanding in all directions, then light from galaxies, passing through space would also be expanding in all directions. After all, the expanding space theory proposes that space expands and has an effect upon the wave length of light. if so, then expanding space in all directions must cause light to deform from its straight line path from a galaxy towards the earth. Such a deformation of light would make it virtually impossible to make an observation of a galaxy in focus. Yet galaxies are often observed in focus. Hence the expansion of space is contrary to the observed light from galaxies.

Please do calculate the expected deformation and demonstrate the virtual impossibility.

7) Expanding space is a sui generis claim, which is not encountered in any other part of science. Hence logically such a claim must be regarded with some suspicion. For there is nothing within science whereby such expansion is observed in other bodies, nor explainable within the theory. Hence the claim is most likely spurious, and should be rejected.

Fine, reject it. See if I care. I mainly look at it as galaxies spreading out anyway.

[JohnMartin]

I suggest you provide an argument.
Fine.

The Copernican Principle says there is no special place within the universe.
Yet such principle tends towards a homogeneous universe, for a homogeneous universe is a universe without any special place.
Yet according to Tolman, 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).
Such is known by the academy, which continues to push the SM at the expense of reason.
So the academy is condemned to suffer under a form of institutionalized enforced schizophrenia.
As such an effect is adverse to scientists, then the theory must be false.

Your second line doesn't follow, because there can be other scenarios besides a homogeneous universe in which there is no "special place". Roy was using the turnip as an example of assuming that because one case fits, it's the only case that fits. So your logic is already broken.

The second line does follow because a principle that excludes a special place does tend towards any theory that has no special place within the universe. One such theory is the homogeneous universe, which has no special place. Hence the CP does tend towards a model of the universe that is unstable, and therefore not realist.

Your third line fails to establish why Tolman would be correct. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. In any case, it probably doesn't matter, due to the previous problem.

The third line establishes the principle from authority.

Your final line concludes that a theory must be false if it adversely affects scientists... which just doesn't make logical sense.

Because the theory tends towards an unstable model of the universe, scientists who know this, know the theory is untenable. As such, the academy must promote a theory at odds with reason. Hence because the theory produces an adverse effect within the academy, the theory must be false. The theory is false in principle, and according to the result in an unstable model, and false in practice, whereby scientists are told to be dishonest about the viability of the model.

Note that I'm not even arguing that you're wrong here. I'm just pointing out that your logic needs work.

Thanks for the help. I don't mind constructive criticism.

JM

[JohnMartin]

A modern version of the Big Bang (BB) includes the claims of Krauss who argue for the universe from nothing. He advocates the BB model. Hence as an atheist, he is claiming the BB model offers an explanation for why man is here. The model is a fraud of course, and so is his theory of something from nothing.

Why should we care about this Krauss guy? He has his own philosophy of life, the universe and everything, which apparently includes the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is not a philosophy, it's just a theory. In fact, many religious people use it as part of their philosophies, believing it to be a sure sign that the universe was created by God. Since the Big Bang doesn't explain how the universe came to exist in the first place, there's nothing in it to say that God didn't create the universe. (Just not in a way that works with your particular philosophy, as it turns out.)

I agree, but atheists also use it as a cover for their unbelief. The agenda is to promote a theory without the need for God, then claim the universe can be explained without God. Hence we dont need God, even if the atheists cannot prove that He does not exist. The logic is missing, because unbelief is illogical. But that why the atheists promote the theory. It's godless and non, or anti Christian to the core.

Christians who promote it, do so apart from revelation.

The BB tries to explain how things came to be and how the universe currently functions.
It tries to explain the early development of the known universe.


1) a body has a natural minima and maxima. Expanding space implies there is no natural maxima to the universe as a body. Hence the expanding space theory is contrary to the nature of a body.

What can expand can also contract. Big Bang theory doesn't require endless expansion (although it doesn't preclude it either).

The current discoveries tend towards a far larger expansion than previously thought. The expansion is simply not natural for large bodies. Hence the theory is simply incredulous.

2) An expanding body has a natural maximum expansion, after which the structure of the body fails and the body ceases to be a body. The ever expanding body of the universe is observed to be stable, yet, according to the nature of bodies, should be unstable. Hence the expanding universe theory is contrary to the nature of bodies.

Stable? You should take some time to look up "heat death of the universe". You might find it interesting.

Heat death is merely a hypothesis associated with the expanding universe theory. I note that wicki says under certain conditions the universe will expand forever -

If the topology of the universe is open or flat, or if dark energy is a positive cosmological constant (both of which are supported by current data), the universe will continue expanding forever and a heat death is expected to occur,[1] with the universe cooling to approach equilibrium at a very low temperature after a very long time period.

Such an expansion is a breach of the natural maxima of bodies, which infers the big bang model is invalidated.

3) An expanding body requires a force to cause expansion. And such force implies a cause acting within the body. Yet a body naturally tends to stability and constancy of volume, which implies such a force acting within a body is naturally alien to a body. Hence to posit an expanding universe is to posit a force within the body of the universe, which is alien to the nature of the universe as a body.

If I pour water on the ground, I create a puddle that's going to keep expanding as I keep pouring. Where's the constant volume? And again, Big Bang theory doesn't require the expansion to last permanently.

The volume of the water doesn't change, hence my argument stands. Bodies naturally tend towards stability and to posit a force inside a body that keeps the body ever expanding is contrary to the nature of bodies. It seems we agree that bodies tend to stay the same volume, which is adverse to the expanding space theory.

4) An expanding universe is contrary to the laws of entropy, which concludes to an action towards equilibrium. As the expanding universe is said to be accelerating, the acceleration is a universal breach of the law of entropy concerning the gaining of force, rather than the expectant loss of force as determined by entropy. The expanding universe is therefore contrary to a law of entropy and is therefore contrary to a law of science.

A current acceleration does not imply an eternal acceleration. The acceleration could decrease over time, stop, and reverse. Also, Big Bang theory doesn't require the acceleration. If the acceleration turns out to be false, no big deal.

The current theory makes the universe act as though everything is still winding up to greater motion and greater energy, contrary to entropy theory. This means the expanding universe theory has much to explain.

5) An expanding space, is empty, cannot expand. For that which is empty has no reason of be to cause a force and thereby affect expansion of space. SR says space is empty, hence the expansion of space is contrary to SR.

What are you even talking about. I assume you just don't understand the science here.

SR doesn't posit space with any properties other than length contraction and time dilation. Neither of which explain space expansion. Hence SR cannot account for the expanding space theory.

6) If space is expanding in all directions, then light from galaxies, passing through space would also be expanding in all directions. After all, the expanding space theory proposes that space expands and has an effect upon the wave length of light. if so, then expanding space in all directions must cause light to deform from its straight line path from a galaxy towards the earth. Such a deformation of light would make it virtually impossible to make an observation of a galaxy in focus. Yet galaxies are often observed in focus. Hence the expansion of space is contrary to the observed light from galaxies.

Please do calculate the expected deformation and demonstrate the virtual impossibility.

If a galaxy G1 is moving away from the earth at v, and another galaxy G2 is moving at right angles to G1, then space is expanding in two directions at once. If space expansion affects light in one direction, then it does so in another direction. Hence, because galaxies exist all over the sky, space must be expanding in all directions at once, each acting on light. Hence such action should bring about a spread in the light, making it impossible to focus on any object in the universe. In fact, the further an object is away from earth the worse the problem becomes.

7) Expanding space is a sui generis claim, which is not encountered in any other part of science. Hence logically such a claim must be regarded with some suspicion. For there is nothing within science whereby such expansion is observed in other bodies, nor explainable within the theory. Hence the claim is most likely spurious, and should be rejected.

Fine, reject it. See if I care. I mainly look at it as galaxies spreading out anyway.

If I claimed water expanded in all directions, you would claim that you have never observed such happening. Why then believe space expands, when such has never been observed to occur?

JM

[JohnMartin]

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

38) The Problem of Self Deception as a principle of the Standard Model (SM).

Edwin Hubble observed much evidence that supported a preferred position of the earth within the universe, but deceived himself into thinking that such a preferred position is not possible.

The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that
we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.

. . .

The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition
of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution, and assume that space is sensibly transparent. Then the data from the surveys are simply and fully accounted for by the energy corrections alone - without the additional postulate of an expanding universe.

Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology. p 41-42.

So what is the alternative to the earth at a central location within the universe? The motion of the galaxies relative to the earth.

In this case all the empirical information we have concerning the observable region as a whole is internally consistent. The region appears to be thoroughly homogeneous - an insignificant sample of a universe which extends indefinitely. The conclusion would probably be accepted without hesitation if it
were not for the fact that, at the moment, we do not know of any permissible interpretation of red-shifts other than actual motion, actual recession of the nebulae.

And what of the problems created by relativity theory?

The second principle is a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals strongly to our sense of proportion. Nevertheless, it leads to a rather remarkable consequence, for it demands that, if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where he may be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the universe, no centre, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions.

So modern cosmology is born from the embarrassing self deception of Edwin Hubble, who cannot bring himself to believe what his eyes are telling him. The earth is at the center of the universe. Yet such is not possible and must be avoided at all costs. And more than this, because of relativity theory, what is seen from earth must be seen from all observers all over the universe. Hence we are all thrust into the maths world of the homogeneous universe, based upon self deception and the false theory of relativity.

As such self deception is unscientific, then the big bang theory is also unscientific.
Along with this, Hubble's law is a fiction, for there is only recession velocity required if geocentrism is falsified within the inductive method.
Yet geocentrism is not falsified by the inductive method, but verified by the inductive method.
Therefore recession velocity is not required.
And what is not required in nature is not natural.
And what is not natural does not fall under the inductive method.
Hence recession velocity is not required and therefore not within the inductive method.
Hence Hubble's law is also unscientific, and the academy should drop the theory in favor of the observed universal effect which concludes to geocentrism, and not the artificial construct of the homogeneous universe.

JM

[JohnMartin]

God created the multiverse. I believe it. That settles it.

I'm happy for you.

JM

[JohnMartin]

39) The Problem of the Unrecognizable Geocentric Universe as implied within the contrary Standard Model (SM).

The universe has been observed by scientists such as Hubble and many others, whereby the evidence supports a geocentric universe.
If such evidence is observed, but rejected as support for the geocentric universe, what kind of evidence is required for science to embrace a geocentric universe? If the current evidence is rejected out of hand, as we see with the statements of Hubble, could any evidence whatsoever be accepted as evidence for geocentrism?

The answer is because Hubble has a prior commitment to a Copernican world view, then no amount of data can be understood by him and others in the academy as evidence for an earth centered universe. Hence when asked what a geocentric universe would look like, James Burke, responds "The point is that it would look exactly the same. When we observe nature, we see what we want to see, according to what we believe we know about it at the time. James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed, p11.

As the geocentric universe cannot be recognized by the academy, because the academy is committed to a prior method of understanding the data, the universe, which is and looks geocentric, will never be understood to be geocentric. Hence the SM implies the existence of the unrecognizable, geocentric universe prior to the acceptance of the SM by the academy. Hence the problem with the geocentrism of the universe is not with the universe, or with the geocentric models, but with the academy and its prior commitment to another understanding of the universe.

Such is implied within the SM, which makes the SM an artificial construct of the academy.

40) The Problem of the Forced Interpretation of the Data, made contrary to the evidence in the Standard Model (SM).

According to Edwin Hubble, the amount of matter required to have recession velocity is enormous.

Thus the theory might be valid provided the universe were packed with matter to the very threshold of perception. Nevertheless, the ever-expanding model of the first kind seems rather dubious. It cannot be ruled out by the observations, but it suggests a forced interpretation of the data.

Yet if redshift is not an indicator of recession velocity, then the problem of internebular material is removed.

The disturbing features are all introduced by the recession factors, by the assumption that red shifts are velocity-shifts. The departure from a linear law of red-shifts, the departure from uniform distribution, the curvature necessary to restore homogeneity, the excess material demanded by the curvature, each of these is merely the recession factor in another form. These elements identify a unique model among the array of possible expanding worlds, and, in this model, the restriction in the time-scale, the limitation of the spatial dimensions, the amount of unobserved material, is each equivalent to the recession factor. On the other hand, if the recession factor is dropped, if red-shifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of the time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large. The universe might even be an expanding model, provided the rate of expansion, which pure theory does not specify, is inappreciable. For that matter, the universe might even be contracting.

Stephen Hawking saw a similar conclusion to Hubble in Problem 38 above, -

. . . all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look it might seem o suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988, p42.

So Hubble recognizes that if redshift indicates recession velocities, then the universe must be packed with an unimaginable amount of matter. If the redshift, does not indicate recession velocities, then the earth is at the center of the universe, and the problem of an immense amount of matter is removed. Contrary to Hubble, Hawking assumes the recession velocities, but also arrives at the conclusion that the earth is at the center of the universe. But then Hawking applies relativity to conclude that such would be seen from any observer. Yet Hawking does not have any evidence to make such a claim.

The comments of Hubble and Hawking are both revealing. Both see geocentrism in the galaxy data, but cannot bring themselves to believe what they see. The universe is geocentric, but the academy is taught to embrace relativity and the Copernican principle which force the interpretation away from geocentrism, to the standard, big bang model. Hence the SM is merely the product of an agenda drive academy, that has produced a model contrary to the evidence and thereby constructed false problems of dark energy and dark matter, which only exist within the false, SM paradigm.

JM

[Duragizer]

I'm happy for you.

JM

Until you provide biblical evidence that this is the case, I won't believe you.

[JohnMartin]

41) The Problem of lack of Authority in Opposition to Prophetic Authority as an implied premise within the Big Bang Model (BB).

The Big Bang theory is said to be inferred from the universal expansion of space between all galaxies.
Such expansion is said to have begun from a small volume and continues today as observed by the almost universal redshift.
Yet the inference of redshift which is said to work backwards towards an ultimate first, material cause is only an inference, which can only be asserted as a science fact, with the implied rejection of prophetic utterances.
Yet to reject the prophetic utterances which reveal the true origin of the universe in a creation event and the true nature of the universe as a body rotating around the earth, means men have rejected prime truth, in favor of inference within the inductive method.
Yet to reject prime truth does not conclude to another model which is more certain, but to a model which is made, based upon a most erroneous principle.
That erroneous principle is the negative principle of the assumed naturalism, and therefore the assumed anti-super naturalism, and consequent rejection of prophetic truth, as the basis of the BB model.
Hence because the BB model is based upon a principle of anti supernaturalism, then the theory is false.
For supernaturalism is true, and the prophetic utterances concerning the nature of the universe are also true.
Hence, consequently, only a model that embraces the super natural world view can hope to have any semblance of being able to put together a true model of the universe.

42) The Problem of the initial volume that imitates the divine power as an implied premise within the Big Bang Model (BB).43) The Problem of mathematical dependence within the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model is mathematically dependent upon General relativity (GR).
Yet GR is a theory that makes sui generis claims concerning the nature of length, acceleration, time, light speed and a space-time continuum.
All of which is based upon a thought experiment, and mathematical theory.
Yet GR is not the only means to mathematically describe such phenomena.
Hence, because a model is only as certain as it most uncertain principle, and because GR is not a certain principle, then the BB model is an uncertain model.
As the model is uncertain, the model may easily be abandoned.

44) The Problem of the lack of finality within the Big Bang Model (BB).

All acts are on account of ends and ends are subordinated to a final end.
Hence acts within the universe are all directed towards a final end.
As all ends are good, then the final, ultimate end is the ultimate good, then all natural acts within the universe are ordered towards an ultimate good.
Hence all acts within the universe are ordered towards to true, ultimate good, which is God.
Yet the BB theory says the universe exists, because of an unknown forces, and continues to act for no ultimate end.
Hence the BB theory is not in accord with the nature of action, or end, hence the BB theory is not a theory in accord with nature.
Hence the BB theory is false.

45) The Problem of order from chaos within the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB theory states the universe came from a small volume.
Such a small volume contained all the matter, at least according to power, of the known universe.
The small volume exploded in all directions, which then became the observable universe.
As the explosion is chaotic, the BB model must posit that the universe, with all of its order, was produced from a chaotic event.
Yet chaotic events have never been observed to produce large scale order.
Hence because chaotic events do not produce order, then same claim within the BB may be dismissed as an extravagant claim, made apart from observational evidence.
Hence the BB model is not a scientific theory, based upon observed evidence, but a theory based, in part, upon a naturalist wish that all order came from chaos.
Hence the BB theory is false.

46) The Problem of the implied nihilism within the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model states the universe is a product of chance events, which occurred without any action directed to an ultimate end.
Hence the universe exists, without order to the ultimate good and hence without any ultimate meaning.
What has no ultimate meaning is meaningless.
What is meaningless is nihilism.
Hence the BB model is nihilistic.
What is nihilistic is false.
Hence the BB model is false.

47) The Problem of faith in universal evolutionism within the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB theory states the universe came from a small volume and as a product of chance events, which occurred without any action directed to an ultimate end.
Such an action infers whatever properties existed in the small volume, then arranged to become what we now observe in the universe.
Yet what we observe in the universe is complex and ordered.
Hence the BB implies a faith in an event which brought complexity from simplicity, and order from chaos, akin to the philosophy of universal evolutionism.
Yet faith in evolutionism is merely that, only faith.
Hence the BB model is a model based upon the faith that the universe is a product of a series of causes that has an upward trend concerning complexity and order, where such evidence is lacking by observation and reason.
Hence as the BB is against observation and reason the model is false.

48) The Problem of the irrationality of the principle of more from less within the Big Bang Model (BB).

The BB model implies a faith in evolutionism.
But evolutionism implies a principle of more from less.
Yet more from less is not possible, as what is less, from itself is less and can only become more from a perfection added to the less .
Yet for a perfection to be added to the less, requires a perfection given from another agent which has more.
Hence the principle of more from less, implies an act from more, to develop/perfect the less.
Yet such an action means more does not come from the less, but the less changes to be the more, from the more adding to the less.
As the BB theory implies more from less, then the BB theory is against reason.
What is against reason is false.
Hence the BB theory is itself false.

JM

[Roy]

41) The Problem of lack of Authority in Opposition to Prophetic Authority as an implied premise within the Big Bang Model (BB).

Or, more simply, 'my religion is right therefore the big bang is wrong'.

Thanks for continuing to put stupidity at the top of your posts so that we don't have to read very far.

[Roy]

44) The Problem of the lack of finality within the Big Bang Model (BB).

All acts are on account of ends and ends are subordinated to a final end.
Hence acts within the universe are all directed towards a final end.
As all ends are good, ...

Leibnizian optimism meets the Pollyanna Principle. Wow.

What is nihilistic is false.

These 'problems' are becoming unsatirisable.