The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Criticizing the BigBang Cosmology  (Read 1051 times)

Offline StopTheBigBang

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Criticizing the BigBang Cosmology
« on: 13/10/2014 06:57:13 »
I'm trying to gather updated scientific documentation that criticizes BigBang theory, if you are interested you can take a flip:
newbielink:http://false-bigbang.jimdo.com/documents/ [nonactive]

In this web is a short introduction that expresses well my reasons:

"
The alleged BigBang is a theory that is based on a few features of the universe around us that can be explained in another way as you can see in the documents that are added. This is, for example, the effect of the redshift of the light from stelar objects, which is assumed result of a Doppler effect (like the sound of a car that moves away) but for which there are several theories of light-tired (an effect that would light interacting with various elements interstellar space) type.

On the other hand assume BigBang involves taking as true, bizarre concepts of physics that have been created ad hoc for the theory to be more consistent with what is apparently seen now; matter and dark energy (it seems impossible to detect and thus prove its existence, only guess), inflation, etc. In addition there are objects in the universe that contradict that theory; excessively large clusters of galaxies for them to have time to form, visible interactions between objects that have different red shift (and therefore should be at different distances), etc.

Here this theory is criticized and generally all that talk for an expanding universe, the main reason is purely intuitive; my heart tells me that the BigBang and expansion nor existed nor exists. The second reason is a mental reasoning induced by other knowledge of philosophy and natural sciences that I have absorbed and that are inconsistent with the idea of an expanding universe that dissolves into nothing (for me the universe is alive!) . The third reason is the type of data and information pointed above and that are discussed in the documents.
"


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Criticizing the BigBang Cosmology
« Reply #1 on: 13/10/2014 12:49:54 »
I'm trying to gather updated scientific documentation that criticizes BigBang theory, if you are interested you can take a flip:
http://false-bigbang.jimdo.com/documents/

In this web is a short introduction that expresses well my reasons:

Three problems here; (1) One would need to have the expertise and understanding of a cosmologist and/or astrophysicist to be able to understand those documents [one would be foolish to accept what a paper claims if they don't have the knowledge and skill to be able to follow the arguments presented] (2) Not all of them have been published so we don't know if they've been proof read

As for your beliefs; it's one thing to have a qualitative description of something but an entirely different thing to have a quantitative one. Alternate hypotheses for cosmological redshift has to have the correct accounting of what the redshift is versus the distance the galaxies are from us. And that is not provided by your guesses.
« Last Edit: 13/10/2014 12:52:48 by PmbPhy »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Criticizing the BigBang Cosmology
« Reply #1 on: 13/10/2014 12:49:54 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums