A psuedo-scientific Creation/Big Bang theory

Let me preface this post by say that while I don't go to church every Sunday, I do believe in a higher power. If that's a problem for you, don't bother with this post. There are probably better ways to spend your time.

This is my Big Bang theory, and no I can't prove it

In the begining all that existed was energy (don't ask me where it came from, this is an admittedly big picture view of the Big Bang). Over a vast length of time this energy began contract to a central point. Over the eons of this reverse Big Bang, the energy formed connections, simular the the neurology of the human brain. As the energy drew up into a smaller and smaller area, more pathways were form, and an intelligence began to form. As the energy field got smaller in became more and more self aware. By the time the field drew down to a single point, it was God. God contain all the knowledge of the universe, because he/she (whatever) WAS the universe. Then God says, "This place needs some redecorating" and BANG. Before ya know it, ya got primordial ooze and all.

Does this theory explain everything? Nah, I know it's full of holes. I'm no astrophysics major. This is more of a "what if" theory. It's the only way the scientist, realist and spiritualist in me can share a brain and get along

Some of you "hardcore" christians will say it's sacrilege, but that between me and God.

This topic category is the war zone of many a forum. Without claiming I can speak adequately for 20 year veteran Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of US Naval Observatory, Dr van Flandern; see his 30 problems with Big Bang condensed to 10 flaws with the Bang.

Before you base arguments on Wildly Expanding universe theory, study what he says about fundamental flaw with red shift data interpretation. He's got a message board if you're qualified to debate him ($5).

www.metaresearch.org...

Also, without claiming to know he's not wrong, another interesting argument at:
www.bigbangneverhappened.org...

The uniformity of the visible universe is like an atomic structure to my thinking, galaxies in all directions far as Hubble can see. Here's a couple sites about an electrical field to the universe being discovered now;

www.electric-universe.info...
www.jmccanneyscience.com...

Let there be light!

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
This topic category is the war zone of many a forum. Without claiming I can speak adequately for 20 year veteran Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of US Naval Observatory, Dr van Flandern; see his 30 problems with Big Bang condensed to 10 flaws with the Bang.

Ok ill give it a go. From Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang by: Tom Van Flandern

1- Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models

That's not true, at the least it's not so obvious that you can say categorically "static universe models fit the data better...." Firstly it violates Einstein "General Relativety", and even though he tried to 'fudge' it by inserting a "cosmologicl constant"(he initially favored a static model as did Newton i believe) he dropped the idea when Hubble proved that the universe was expanding(which contradicts a static model).

It also violates Newton's "Law of Gravity" which precludes a stable, static Universe with no beginning or ending. All the matter would have, by now, all lumped together in one spot, no? There are more examples of evidence that contradicts a static model, although admittedly no one knows for sure.

The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

It's my understanding(which ain't saying much) that the measurements of the of the cosmic background radiation showed the 'evolution' of the structure of the universe to be consistent with the Big Bang model.

Here's a good link: physics.csustan.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> physics.csustan.edu...

To summarize, the Big Bang theory predicts, and observations have confirmed:
-The expansion of the universe.
-The 3deg. cosmic background radiation.
-The amount of hydrogen (including deuterium) and helium present in the universe (more about this later).

3- Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

I would like to see a model, any model, that doesn't require many adjustable parameters.

4- The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

How is the 'structure' of the universe more consistent with a static model?

www.ncsu.edu...
The mechanism by which this clumping occurred is fairly simple, although its details continue to be studied and debated. At the time of recombination the universe consisted of a nearly uniform hot gas with regions very slightly denser than the average and others very slightly less dense. If the density had been exactly the same everywhere then it would have always stayed that way

(emphasis mine)

Like i said the structure is evidence against the static model is it not?

5-The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

I believe that this is a "problem" for the Big Bang Theory, however it involves some mathematics which are far beyond my abilities. Here's a good paper supporting the static model, specifically deals with measuring the 'red-shift' of quasars: www.newtonphysics.on.ca...

And here's a rebuttal to the "new red-shift interpretation": www.talkorigins.org...

6-
The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe

That statement is based on old data, the new data dates these clusters younger than the universe. The hubble constant has been 'refined'

www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de...
In the mid-90s, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe had not yet been discovered. Measurements of the Hubble parameter in that time yielded values around 80 km/s/Mpc - not too different from today's best value of about 72 km/s/Mpc. But since a decelerating universe was assumed, this gave an age of the universe of only around 10 billion years - instead of the 13.7 billion years one obtains when one takes into account the acceleration (and the modern measurements of the Hubble parameter).
.....snip......
Nowadays, the age of the oldest stars is nicely consistent with the age of the universe - see section 2g

I could provide rebuttals to the rest of the list, but as i'm severely under-qualified so i'll stop here.

It's a very interesting topic, and as i've noticed, you can find a decent argument either way, too many unknowns to say for sure who(IF anyone at all) has it right imo. Seems to me tho that the static universe model disregards alot of science and provides no viable alternative, not saying they're wrong but they've got some work to do imho.

interesting topic

[edit on 19-9-2005 by Rren]

You want me to fall with Dr van Flandern, when I don't even care if he's right or wrong. I posted it to mess with the worshippers of the sacred cow of mainstream science.

Feel free to humiliate him at the message board he has, IF you can. Force him to shut it down in shame! He's got a team of debaters on the site who've heard ALL the arguments before.
Big Bang or not matters not to me, or the big ejaculation theory.

Please post a link to your slam dunk in one paragraph at his message board, so I can witness your glorious victory over former Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of US Naval Observatory. Your credentials are?

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
You want me to fall with Dr van Flandern, when I don't even care if he's right or wrong. I posted it to mess with the worshippers of the sacred cow of mainstream science.

Feel free to humiliate him at the message board he has, IF you can. Force him to shut it down in shame! He's got a team of debaters on the site who've heard ALL the arguments before.
Big Bang or not matters not to me, or the big ejaculation theory.

Please post a link to your slam dunk in one paragraph at his message board, so I can witness your glorious victory over former Chief of Celestial Mechanics Branch of US Naval Observatory. Your credentials are?

Your a little defensive there guy, and the static universe theory has many opponents whose credentials far exceed that of your beloved Dr. Flandern...just FYI.

Besides the fact that i stated that i am not qualified to debunk anyone, but i did provide you with counters to his claims from reputable sources, of course you would of had to have read them to know that. But obviously your intellect is far superior to mine in that you advocate a theory you know little if nothing about, interesting. Of course it's against the mainstream so it has to be valid, brilliant.

You accuse me of endorsing and defending Dr van Flandern falsely. I never pretended to be an astrophysicist or be able to say who's right. I'm only casting doubt on current theory so worshipped by the mainstream. BB & Expanding universe are THEORIES, not conclusive facts.

Know it alls don't know it all, & a paragraph or two doesn't comprehensively answer all 10 flaws with the Big Bang posted. I couldn't care less, because either way, my faith is unaffected.

You want me to defend arguments I don't even understand. No, I want you know it alls to post a link to his message board debates, so I can watch you humiliate him, because none from any other site has skunked him yet. Prove you can win a debate with him, don't just claim he's wrong!

Originally posted by James J Dierbeck
.... I never pretended to be an astrophysicist or be able to say who's right.

James, i said the exact same thing numerous times in my original post. Hence my, "your a bit too defensive...", comment in my 2nd post.

I'm only casting doubt on current theory so worshipped by the mainstream. BB & Expanding universe are THEORIES, not conclusive facts.

Perhaps this is where you need to clarify your position? How and more importantly, why do you believe BB is a "sacred cow" worshipped by the mainstream. These arguments come up often in regard to Evolutionary Theory and naturallistc origins but i've never seen it used with BB -vs- Static arguments before? I'm a Christian and a lay advocate for old-Earth Creationism and i know of no religious implications regarding a belief in either theory. I don't have faith in either theory but so far as i can tell the BB models fit the data better than static models....no biggie, so you can calm down.

Know it alls don't know it all, & a paragraph or two doesn't comprehensively answer all 10 flaws with the Big Bang posted. I couldn't care less, because either way, my faith is unaffected.

Well .. technically a 'know it all' does 'know it all' by definition, but i can't remember claiming to be one, you however do seem to be pretty sure about your opinions as if you already seem to 'know it all'.

You want me to defend arguments I don't even understand.

Why would you suggest that BB theory is BS(ie "sacred cow") and then say you don't even understand the issues or arguments? How have you reached your conclusion, you're so adamant in your commentary i naturally assumed you have studied this, my bad.

No, I want you know it alls to post a link to his message board debates, so I can watch you humiliate him, because none from any other site has skunked him yet. Prove you can win a debate with him, don't just claim he's wrong!

Ya know you really come across as infantile with some of your commentary...just FYI.

I have no reason to doubt Dr. Flandern's credentials, i don't think he's crazy for advocating a static model for the universe. I said, again numerous times, that i'm a layman and i never said that i know more about Cosmology than the good Dr., and i'm sure if he carries a doctorate he would shred me rather easily in any debate on Cosmolgy.

Now i did read the material you linked. And obviously, based on your replies, you did not read the rebuttals so i'll give you one more specifically concerning Dr. Flandern and his hypothesis.

www.jerrypournelle.com...
I do not know whether or not he does indeed possess a doctorate, but his modus operandi is to make startling claims about the nature of the universe intended to spark interest in the layman, and then to proceed in buttressing his claims using carefully-selected rhetoric calculated to stroke the ego of the reader, employing just enough scientific jargon and showing a few complicated-looking equations to make it all seem plausible to the non-specialist.

his disputation of the Big Bang hypothesis (while there is still some contention about the Big Bang, there’s no original scientific work in evidence by Mr. Van Flandern, just the by-now-familiar assertions wrapped in jargon),

(emphasis mine)

Maybe this guy should debate your scientist, hope he's got 5 bucks.

I never said BB is a sacred cow. You twisted my words unfairly. I said mainstream science is a sacred cow.

www.jmccanneyscience.com... &
www.electric-universe.info... note electrical nature to stars and McCanney documents plasma discharge from the sun to near comets.

These findings support Dr van Flandern model.

I don't know if the universe is wildly expanding or not, but the red shift calculations of Hubble looking billions of years in the past leaves a huge discrepancy between estimated actual time VS light year time, with red shift figured in.

Hubble is looking 15 billion years back without red shift figured in. With red shift I forget, but considerably less.

I don't actually care either way. I still see a relatively uniform visible universe in distribution and density in all directions, full of galaxies.

Is there not a static electric field to our bodies that allows us to generate warmth on the atomic level? What would that look like magnified bigger than us? Galaxies and galaxies, I figure. But I've no doctorate thesis done on it. But Hydrogen is the most abundant element within us also.

Pardon my blasphemy to think the visible universe is a living unit...God incarnated.

(Big Ejaculation theory)

Incomplete science knowledge still allows speculation. Showing problems with BB & wildly expanding universe allows me to see it as natural, understandably not out of nothing nowhere.

Maybe the universe is a structure, even if not a living unit. Infinity concept gets in the way of BB. A ship at light speed could not ever return into the universe by traveling out permanently, I figure. There can be no border of the universe, only changes in density & makeup.

It sounds logical to me anyhow.

JAMES AND VAN FLANDERN SITTING IN A TREE...

Just kidding.

To yadboy: there are "higher powers" all around us and throughout the universe. Is a single man more powerful than a sun? A galaxy? The force of gravity? We are surrounded by natural and scientifically described "higher powers" everyday. If you believe in a specific or personal "higher power," then I must ask, "why?" What, in your experience, has lead you to the natural conclusion that there is an otherworldly character that is interested in your life?

How do you feel about Intelligent Design intending to nestle itself firmly in young people's science classes?

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot QUOTE:
"If you believe in a specific or personal "higher power," then I must ask, "why?" What, in your experience, has lead you to the natural conclusion that there is an otherworldly character that is interested in your life?"

August 4, 1971, Waukesha Freeman newspaper, Wisconsin: "Boy hangs self in jail".
I paid a lawyer to get the paperwork from the jail & hospital that proves I was left dead by docs 3 hours, after attempts to revive me failed. When I survived, due to a priest pressuring the docs for me again, they told my ma I'd be a vegetable the rest of my life (as with Terry Schiavo).
I'm a walking miracle. In 1973, I tried 7 more times to hang to death, but regained consciousness on my feet every time, as in Rev 9:6. Gov told me many have seen my "ghost" hanging there since, & they built a new jail, because I'd hung in a bunch of cell blocks there, leaving "ghosts" behind. In May, 1993, a PD informant staged a shotgun "accident" on me, but it was somehow dud shells, as in Ephesians 6:16. John 12:25. Many other proofs have I seen besides that wouldn't be believed here. There IS a God.

QUOTE:

"How do you feel about Intelligent Design intending to nestle itself firmly in young people's science classes?"

Don't you think there's a higher intelligence that allows creatures to evolve camoflage and answers perceived need for defenses? White blood cells are called out to the fight by the body before a person knows there is a fight on. Is not the universe conductive to life, and uniform, rather than the chaos to be expected from an explosive Big Bang, irregularly distributed?

I see God as the whole multiverse, and maybe more. I see spirit as where universal unity is, & everlasting that way. John 11:52.

Since every adult that wronged me as a child dropped dead immediately, I've had no choice but believe there's something spiritual happening.

mod edit to fix BB code

[edit on 20-9-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]