"Top 30 Problems With the Big Bang"

Yoda · Post by **Yoda** » 2007-02-21 01:42pm

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

According to this article, the Big Bang theory is incorrect (for lack of a better word on my part), and the universe is static.

One of the arguments caught my eye, that the Big Bang theory violates the second law of thermodynamics. Having seen rebuttals to this, the validity of the other arguments is uncertain in my eye.

Are they valid? And if not, why?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-02-21 01:52pm

How can the idea the universe is expanding(Verified via doppler shift) violate thermodynamics?

R. U. Serious · Post by **R. U. Serious** » 2007-02-21 02:07pm

I can't respond to the question of the (non-)validity of the specific points raised, but well readable general FAQs for the interested layman on the topic of the Big Bang can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Maybe you'll find a few references that'll help you find the answers you're looking for.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2007-02-21 02:08pm

So the number 1 problem with Big Bang is it's not Steady State. Holy shit did we not put that one to bed four decades ago. If that's their numero uno then the rest of the list simply isn't worth wasting time on.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-02-21 02:10pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:So the number 1 problem with Big Bang is it's not Steady State. Holy shit did we not put that one to bed four decades ago. If that's their numero uno then the rest of the list simply isn't worth wasting time on.

I'm curious about the thermodynamics problem myself. Hasn't that one been debunked for years?

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2007-02-21 02:49pm

SirNitram wrote:How can the idea the universe is expanding(Verified via doppler shift) violate thermodynamics?

YOU just violated subsection B, Paragraph A-23 of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so there!

It seems to me that every time some assholes tries to prove evolution, the big bang, or another scientific theory incorrect they always trot out a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as if they actually understand it and are an authority figure. I think it's the same phenomenon that makes 16 year olds (in 2007) experts on Led Zeppelin, and makes Zeppelin the greatest rock band EVER, and if you don't agree you're a douchebag who sucks.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2007-02-21 02:50pm

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

Outright lie.

(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

Outright lie.

(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

Bollocks.

...

...

and so on. My god, what bullshit.

Some "holes" exist in the current formulation of the Big Bang theory, though that's a far cry from providing justification for dismissing it, much less supporting Steady State.

And still with the "ZOMG teh Big Bang violates Thermodynamics!!1" crap . Le snore.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2007-02-21 03:06pm

General Zod wrote:I'm curious about the thermodynamics problem myself. Hasn't that one been debunked for years?

It's called observation. Imagine standing outside in a thunderstorm with someone arguing that rain cannot exist because it violates Thermo. You ask them what that wet shit bouncing off their head is and it doesn't phase them in the slightest.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2007-02-21 10:11pm

Thermodynamics has five syllables.

Five syllables!

Count them.

Post by **Edi** » 2007-02-22 05:32am

What a load of shit.

Edi

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2007-02-22 02:07pm

I'm sick of these fucking lists that people trot out as irrefutable proof of their position. These lists overwhelm the opponent with quantity, not quality. They're essentially a long list of baseless assertions. They never explain why steady state models fit the obersvations better than the Big Bang theory does, etc.

SilverWingedSeraph · Post by **SilverWingedSeraph** » 2007-02-22 02:14pm

wolveraptor wrote:I'm sick of these fucking lists that people trot out as irrefutable proof of their position. These lists overwhelm the opponent with quantity, not quality. They're essentially a long list of baseless assertions. They never explain why steady state models fit the obersvations better than the Big Bang theory does, etc.

It's basicly a "Believe us because we're right, because god is on our side!" thing, I think. That list isn't for the purpose of converting people who know facts, it's about enforcing the beliefs of dumbasses that already think in that way. "Well gawsh, they used all them big words and sciencey terms, they must know what they're talkin' 'bout! Down with the big-bang! Yee-haw!"

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2007-02-22 03:00pm

They appear to be crackpots rather than your usual fundies. This is funny though:

Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one recent survey)

So those that presumably don't know enough about it are doubting it?

They also have something about "Lorentzian relativity".