Pow! Zap! (Big) Bang?! (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, September 25, 2010, 18:24 (5152 days ago) @ David Turell

Please be more specific
> 
> I can be very specific, but your list of objections suggest that you have no knowledge of the proposed BB theory.
> 
> The beginning
> >

• It violates the laws of physics, requiring that something came from nothing.
> 
> To quote Guth: No one has any idea of what went bang. He does not imply nothing. 
> >
> > If there were nothing by hydrogen and helium, what was in the center of the universe to cause enough gravity to condense it all down to a single point of super-dense material. This violates the laws of gravity.
> 
> First there was plasma! Hydrogen an Helium and a little Lithium come later.
 
> >
> > If it exploded, the resulting matter would travel in a straight line through the vacuum at tremendous speeds, with each subsequent second put particles further beyond the gravitational effects of neighboring particles. Thus, the universe would not have formed as all matter would still be traveling in a straight line.
 
 We are discussing plasma.
 
> > Gas(helium and hydrogen) expand in a vacuum, not contract. Thus stars could not have formed from helium and hydrogen.
 
 The expansion was not entirely uniform, clumping the gases as they appeared, when plasma cooled. But the universe is 'uniform' over massive distances. How would you form stars?
 
 
> > CERN experiments have shown that matter and anti-matter when created immediately destroy each other. Thus, if matter and anti-matter where created in the big bang, the resulting matter would have been immediately destroyed.- 
Again theory. A slight bit more matter than antimatter, and what we see now is the difference. 
> >


> > 
> > The Middle, supposing the beginning didn't complicate things enough..
> >


> > 
> > These are just a few. And yes, I know they have been thoroughly discussed else where. I just wanted to state my reasons so that I am not seen as 'just not wanting to believe' in something. There are valid reasons to question the BBT, namely, it does not fit the observed data without inventing untestable, unfalsifiable, and unprovable supporting hypotheses.
 
It is still the best fit we have until something else comes along.-But your general feeling about current politicized peer-reviewed science bugs me just as much as you are obviously bugged. I've told the story before of my using the therapeutic approach of the Aussies who discovered H. pyelori as the cause of dudenal ulcers about 20 years before the American GI physcians finally accepted it. And don't get me started on climategate. 
 
I know Matt loves science. I do also, but Matt has not seen the subversion as I have over the years.