Continuing from the last post regarding the reasons why the Big Bang
is in error and it is way past time to put it to rest (or bury it, so to
speak). The first seven points were covered in the previous post:
8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but
non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies,
clusters, superclusters, and the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this
invisible, not-yet-detected “dark matter” to keep the theory viable. Overall,
over 90% of the universe must be made of something we have never detected for
the Big Bang to be realistic. By contrast, Milgrom’s model (the alternative to
“dark matter”) provides a one-parameter explanation that works at all scales
and requires no “dark matter” to exist at any scale, excluding the additional
50%-100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist). Some physicists don’t
like modifying the law of gravity in this way, but according to Tom Van
Flandern of the University of Maryland, in his “Possible New Properties of
Gravity” paper in Astrophysics and Space
Science, 1996, pp244,249-261, “a finite range for natural forces is a
logical necessity (not just theory) spoken of since the 17th
century.” And Milgrom’s model requires nothing more than that, which is an
operational model rather than one based on fundamentals, and is consistent with
more complete models invoking a finite range for gravity. This, then, is a
basis to eliminate the need for “dark matter” in the universe at any scale and
is one more Big Bang “fudge factor” no longer needed.
Galaxies congregate in clusters and superclusters, and at
larger scales superclusters seem to blend into chains and filaments that span
vast distances. These three superclusters will eventually smash together and
give rise to one of the largest galaxy superclusters in the universe
9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show
insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts
(z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars. The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and
galaxies in the early universe be “primitive,” meaning mostly metal-free,
because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in
stars. But according to the Astrophysics Journal (2001, 122, pp2833-2857) the
latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest” quasars and galaxies.
Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big
Bang expected to be the “dark age” of evolution of the universe, when the light
of the few primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds.
10) If the
open universe we see today is
extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter
in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part
in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already
collapsed on itself or already dissipated. However, inflation failed
to achieve its goal when many observations went against it. To maintain
consistency and salvage inflation, the Big Bang has now introduced two new
adjustable parameters: (1) the cosmological constant, which has a major
fine-tuning problem of its own because theory suggests it ought to be of order
10120, and observations suggest a value less than 1; and (2)
“quintessence” or “dark energy.” This latter theoretical substance solves the
fine-tuning problem by introducing invisible, undetectable energy sprinkled at
will as needed throughout the universe to keep consistency between theory and
observations. It can therefore be accurately described as “the ultimate fudge
factor.”
In
order for the Big Bang theory to work, the Universe would have to be filled
with 96% Dark Matter. The “Fudge Factor” is a description of a theory that is
based on the inclusion of invisible, undetectable, and unknown matter into the
mix—only scientists can get away with that. If you were to try that about
Creation they would laugh you out of the room
Anyone outside of the astronomy field that is
interested in astronomy has an excellent cause to doubt the Big Bang simply
because of the numerous “fudges” involved. Obviously, such failures where
imaginative inventions are needed to support an otherwise unsupportable theory
is bound to fall into question since failures falsify the hypothesis. As an
example, whenever the theory falls into question because it fails to meet a
requirement, scientists merely invent another factor and amend their theory to
account for all new, unexpected discoveries. This has been going on for so long
with the Big Bang that many young scientists now think this is a normal process
of science. They either forget or were never taught that a model has value only
when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and
form other models before the new things are discovered. Stated differently, explanations of new
things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an
adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory.
Naturally, papers written by scientists in
support of the Big Bang do not count any of the prediction failures or
surprises as theory failures as long as some ad hoc theory might explain them. And
the “prediction successes” in almost every case do not distinguish the Big Bang
from any of the four leading competitor models: Quasi-Steady-State, Plasma Cosmology,
Meta Model, and Variable-Mass Cosmology. For the most part, these four
alternative cosmologies are ignored by astronomers, and seldom mentioned by
anyone—in fact, the vast majority of people who accept the Big Bang have never
even heard of them.
11) Pencil-beam
surveys show large-scale structure out to distances of more than 1 Gpc in both
of two opposite directions from us. These large-scale structures appear as
a succession of wall-like galaxy features at fairly regular intervals, the
first of which, at about 130 (megaparsec) distance, is called “The Great Wall.”
To date, 13 such evenly-spaced "walls" of galaxies have been found! The
Big Bang theory requires fairly uniform mixing on scales of distance larger
than about 20 Mpc, so there are far more large-scale structure in the universe
than the Big Bang can explain.
12) Many
particles are seen with energies over 60x1018
eV. However,
that is the theoretical energy limit
for anything traveling more than 20-50 Mpc because of interaction with
microwave background photons. But this objection assumes the microwave
radiation is as the Big Bang expects, instead of a relatively sparse, local
phenomenon.
13) The Big Bang predicts that equal
amounts of matter and antimatter
were created in the initial explosion. However, today matter dominates the present universe. Big
Bang claims that is so because of some form of asymmetry, such as CP violation
asymmetry, that caused most anti-matter to annihilate with matter, leaving the
matter. Yet, while experiments are searching for evidence of this asymmetry, so
far nothing has been found, like many other ad hoc additions to the Big Bang.
Obviously, other galaxies can’t be antimatter because that would create a
matter-antimatter boundary with the intergalactic medium that would create
gamma rays, which are not observed
(See the next post, “It’s Past Time to Bury the Big
Bang – Part III,” for more of these reasons why the Big Bang is in error and it
is way past time to put it to rest—or bury it, so to speak)
No comments:
Post a Comment