Which Came First , Time or the Big Bang? What about Space

[BAYLOR]

I read a few books about this once upon a time. White Holes, and Unveiling the Edge of Time, by John Gribbin among others. I have yet to read the Stephen Hawking books I have on my shelf, but will as I just saw "The Theory of Everything" and felt inspired to read his books. Anyway, I tend to think our universe is not alone, as well.

A Brief History of Time is a good read.

 

[ErikB]

According to the big bang theory , the universe started out as a primordial atom. Then it exploded in spectacular fashion and suddenly you have instant universe ,Time Space galaxies ,stars , light, gravity, dark matter , ect.

The big bang was an event, the first in time. But how could it have happened all? For an event (any event ) wouldn't there would have to be time flow ?

And how could there be no space in existence before the big bang? We don't know the exact size of the primordial atom , it could have been any size , from tiny all the ways up to galaxy size. But whether it was tiny or gigantic, wouldn't it have occupied space which didn't yet exist?

How can anything happen or exist without Time and Space?

Big Bang is a joke. The stupidest and most heavily disproven theory ever supported by science. It was perpetuated by a small oversight that Hubble made which came out in an article in the New York Times in the 30's.

This one area of science is also the most religiously guarded area by otherwise intelligent scientists like Sagan, DeGrasse, Hawkins, and others.

It stems from the fact that the establishment spent the last several decades doing research based on the viability of the big bang. These are folks with tenure.

Younger astronomers and those who have debunked and solidly opposed the laughable notion of big bang found themselves in many cases shut down by a group of astronomers that do not wish to admit that everything they have pushed and based their research on is a farce.

Its not only an ego thing its a financial thing. Admitting it is absolutely wrong means losing funding, respect, employment, credibility, tenure, etc. So they work hard to cover their collective butts.

Problem is too many credible scientists including more senior and well established physicists and astronomers have continued to pile on more and more proof that big bang is a ridiculous and pathetic nonsense joke!

The methods of disproof are not only widespread, they are overwhelming! Anyone buying into big bang (other than the sitcom which is quite good) is way off base.

I have a section of it in one of the non fiction books I am working on. Plus it makes no sense to anyone with a modicum if logic.

Such a poor joke. The most amazing thing about the big bang theory is not that it has been given so much credence, but that it was even postulated in the first place.

 

[BAYLOR]

The popular theory prior to big bang was the Steady State Theory .

 

[Venusian Broon]

Big Bang is a joke. The stupidest and most heavily disproven theory ever supported by science. It was perpetuated by a small oversight that Hubble made which came out in an article in the New York Times in the 30's.

This one area of science is also the most religiously guarded area by otherwise intelligent scientists like Sagan, DeGrasse, Hawkins, and others.

It stems from the fact that the establishment spent the last several decades doing research based on the viability of the big bang. These are folks with tenure.

Younger astronomers and those who have debunked and solidly opposed the laughable notion of big bang found themselves in many cases shut down by a group of astronomers that do not wish to admit that everything they have pushed and based their research on is a farce.

Its not only an ego thing its a financial thing. Admitting it is absolutely wrong means losing funding, respect, employment, credibility, tenure, etc. So they work hard to cover their collective butts.

Problem is too many credible scientists including more senior and well established physicists and astronomers have continued to pile on more and more proof that big bang is a ridiculous and pathetic nonsense joke!

The methods of disproof are not only widespread, they are overwhelming! Anyone buying into big bang (other than the sitcom which is quite good) is way off base.

I have a section of it in one of the non fiction books I am working on. Plus it makes no sense to anyone with a modicum if logic.

Such a poor joke. The most amazing thing about the big bang theory is not that it has been given so much credence, but that it was even postulated in the first place.

Erm*...what are the 'overwhelming' methods of disproof?

-----------------------------------------------------------

* he says not sure he wants to get heavily into a debate, but...**

** What the hell, I'm a Fortean, so always interested and willing to give everything a listen...

 

[goldhawk]

Erm*...what are the 'overwhelming' methods of disproof?

Don't feed the trolls. Don't ask for evidence; they should supply it.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Don't feed the trolls. Don't ask for evidence; they should supply it.

I'm curious!

 

[goldhawk]

I'm curious!

Curious about what? Please be specific.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Curious about what? Please be specific.

Curious as to what the 'overwhelming' methods of disproof are. It's a bold claim, so I'd like to see the evidence.

 

[goldhawk]

Curious as to what the 'overwhelming' methods of disproof are. It's a bold claim, so I'd like to see the evidence.

Ah, "overwhelming" is just hype I'm afraid.

 

[ErikB]

Fair enough. I'll share a little of it here, since I don't want to have the bangers think of me as a "troll" for pointing out the obvious stuff and now the stuff they are too comfortable accepting to research or question.

First off theory supporters date the big bang as taking place between 13.5 - 19 billion years old. Depending on which person you go with.

But unfortunately for those to postulate these numbers there are stars close to us that have been accurately dated to be over 22 billion years old.

So if we just went with this tiny paradox alone the question arises how is it that one has Stars between 3 - 8.5 billion years older than their supposed point of origin?

You don't.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that if you looked at a spiral nebula that the shifts in their light wave width was directly proportional to their distance from us. This led toward supporting the idea of an expanding or non static universe as Einstein had originally predicted. This meaning that the red shifts were getting larger and larger as they looked suggesting that they were moving further away from us. Thus the New York Times stated in 1930 that we live in an expanding universe.

What becomes known as the "Hubble Law" states that the feinter a galaxy is the larger its red shift and thus the faster it was moving away from us.

In the 1960's we discovered quasars, which appeared as faint blue points of light and have huge red shifts implying that they are at greater distances from Earth.

Some astronomers discovered that vast numbers not quasars abounded next to spiral galaxies, and that these objects could be seen not only with radio telescopes, but also with optical and x-ray sources.

Quasars had two properties that did not mesh with expanding universe notions. First if you plotted their brightness against their red shift pattern as one would for galaxies they were scattered rather than on a gradual curve like galaxies. This indicated that they didn't follow the Hubble Law and may not be at their proposed red shift locations.

In fact it is widely argued that if Hubble had pointed his telescope at quasars first, he and other astronomers would never have proposed an expanding universe.

The second problem with quasars is that they are very small objects no more than a light year across. Yet they are intensely bright objects which (if they were at the distances projected by the expanding universe notion) would be so bright that the energies needed to generate that amount of light would require an unnatural explanation.

On the flip side, if they are placed at their observed distances the light mass becomes normal and no special or metaphysical explanation is needed to justify their location.

This has led astronomers reviewing the findings to realize that if the red shift distance evidence is false as the data shows, then there is no need or likelihood for an expanding universe, meaning big bang never happened.

Shall I go on?

You want to learn about Dr. Halton Arp's discoveries and peculiar galaxies?

Perhaps Dr. Margaret Burbridge and the case of NGC 7603 and the embedded filament stuff?

Perhaps the two Hill Type quasars studied by Martin Lopez Corrediora?

Or perhaps the cosmic background radiation fallicy that disproves Big Bang?

Or maybe the discrediting by science of the Element Abundance predictions? Or Non-Varianic/Dark Matter ideas disproved? Or the Dark Energy fail?

Guys these are not even all of the massive and ever increasing scientific evidence tossing big bang where it rightly belongs, in the garbage!

And let's leave aside all of the huge body of science that destroys this childish and ignorant notion and go back to basic logic.

Time and space are infinite. Apparently the meaning of "infinite" has been lost to most of humanity. It is too large and disturbing for people to grasp.

Time does not have a beginning or an end. Suck it up. If time had a beginning, bear with me here, what was happening during the time before time began? Time was happening.

We live in a plasma universe. Nothing wrong with that. What surrounded the point from which the BBT was supposed to have started? Space surrounded that point. Space is also infinite. And the universe is endless.

Humanity has an obsession with linearity. Everything having a beginning a middle and and end. It just bugs the crap out of us that something could just be. As in always "be" in existence.

Limitations of human thinking are really mind blowing. But I am not going to keep listing the massive pool of evidence that makes what most children could figure out logically into a "here let me crush the BBT in this thread" answer.

Instead I will simply say do your own research if you really wish to know. And trust me as a biologist I can say that there are a lot of minor and a few larger mistakes made here and there among scientists. Perfection is hardly a job prerequisite.

What is inexcusable is that MOST of the scientists still touting the BBT to the public and the scientific community know that its crap and a total farce. They also know that admitting it is a career ender for many of them and they are unwilling to set aside pride for the sake of education. And that to me is inexcusable.

When I make an error or get proven wrong I admit it, own up, and move on. I don't cling to it for the sake of tenure or scientific accolades. The facts come first in science. And I feel passionately about the way some otherwise brilliant minds have played this little deception out for their own sake!

Sorry if I seem a bit moody when addressing this but it is a full blown and silly sham. Check it out more closely and you'll soon see past the nonsense too.

Cheers!

 

[Vertigo]

Just to pick one point could you name one of these 22 billion year old stars for us. HD 140283 wouldn't be one of them would it?

 

[ErikB]

Not sure the designations for all nearby stars. I am not an astronomer, merely someone having looked into the subject extensively and in agreement with those who have shared the information publicly.

I don't know off the top of my head. Sorry. Have to look it up more in depth.

The research was shared with me by astronomers that I am willing to trust based on what was shared.

 

[mosaix]

Not sure the designations for all nearby stars. I am not an astronomer, merely someone having looked into the subject extensively and in agreement with those who have shared the information publicly.

I don't know off the top of my head. Sorry. Have to look it up more in depth.

The research was shared with me by astronomers that I am willing to trust based on what was shared.

But how does a, purportedly, older Universe refute Big Bang Theory anyway?

 

[ErikB]

But how does a, purportedly, older Universe refute Big Bang Theory anyway?

If a star or any other body is older that the origin of what supposedly created it then either the event is not accurately measured or more to the point it did not happen.

Its rather simple.

 

[ErikB]

There's actually a very good documentary on this on YouTube called "The Big Bang Never Happened." Its a bit over an hour long and covers a lot of the various evidence and discussions of not only why its is an invalid theory, but how this came about.

If you are interested in hearing physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, and others breaking it down in greater depth.

 

[mosaix]

If a star or any other body is older that the origin of what supposedly created it then either the event is not accurately measured or more to the point it did not happen.

Its rather simple.

If the star is older than the than the estimated age of the Universe it's obvious that the estimated date of the Universe is incorrect. How does that refute the Big Bang?

And please no condescending comments. It isn't simple at all. None of it's simple. If you think it is then there's something fundamentally wrong with your theories.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Yes, very good point mosaix - while I'm sincerely grateful for the sharing of information, and always love the raising of questions within science, I would be grateful, ErikB, if we could keep such discussions well-mannered.

Even when talking about "Dark Energy".

 

[Phyrebrat]

Okay this thread has been very interesting - if challenging for this simple dance teacher's mind to grasp - and my head is a little muddled.

I like the concept of ErikB's 'be' i.e. There's always been being, but I'm intrigued as to what alternative there is.

Does it mean that BBT deniers have an alternative or that everything has always 'been' and always will 'be' and that, therefore time is a philosophical construct that came into play when we did?

I probably shouldn't have got involved as this science stuff is way above my pay grade but it's intriguing.

pH
Ps is it time to talk about uk freshwater fish yet?

 

[Stewart Hotston]

Sigh. I'm a physicist. The big bang is the most plausible explanation of how time, space and spacetime came into being. I can suggest many good, proper, rigorous academic books on it. I'm cautious about posting here because I'm not really interested in debating it in the same way I'm not interested in debating whether milk is a liquid or if the postman delivers letters.

On the more interesting point about whether time or the big bang came first? The answer is (apologies if someone else has gotten here before me) that time does not exist without space hence the two emerged together at the same point of expansion of this brane of spacetime.

 

[Vertigo]

Not sure the designations for all nearby stars. I am not an astronomer, merely someone having looked into the subject extensively and in agreement with those who have shared the information publicly.

I don't know off the top of my head. Sorry. Have to look it up more in depth.

The research was shared with me by astronomers that I am willing to trust based on what was shared.

You see I tried to find any mention on the internet of any stars older than the big bang theory's current estimate of the age of the universe and the nearest I could find was HD 140283 which originally appeared to be 16 billion years old which was indeed older than the BBT estimate. However based upon more recent improved theories of stellar structure** and improved distance data from the Hubble telescope the new estimate of that star's age now falls within the margin of error for the age of the universe. However it is indeed a fascinating star as, from it's low metal content, it is likely a first generation star formed shortly after the big bang and I don't believe there are a great many of those still around and observable.

Other than that I found absolutely no other mention of 22 billion year old stars or indeed any mention of any stars older than the big bang theory's estimate of the age of the universe. Now I know the internet is not the great omniscient oracle of all things but it shouldn't be too hard a thing to search for and I'm not a complete Google incompetent but I found absolutely nothing. Which suggests those who have researched these older stars are extremely reticent.

**Remember that is how the scientific method works; if you find observations that contradict your theory you attempt to adjust the theory to take those observations into account. If you can't do that then you probably need a new theory. As far as I'm aware, and as @Stewart Hotston states, the big bang theory is still the best fit for all the current observations.

Also I think it is rather insulting to scientists to state that 'most' of the scientists 'touting' the big bang theory 'know' it is false and are only pushing a false theory to protect their reputations and jobs. From my experience of all the scientists I have known that strikes me as a frankly ludicrous assertion. You may get one or two scientist who might behave badly in such a way but 'most'?