Big Bang? 1 -- Science Disproves Evolution

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed (a), was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.

Redshift. � The redshift of starlight is interpreted as a Doppler effect (b); that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself expands�so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere (c). Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all physical laws. Furthermore, these galaxies, in their recession from us, should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating. [See �Dark Thoughts� on page�34.]

a. �Observations only recently made possible by improvements in astronomical instrumentation have put theoretical models of the Universe [the big bang] under intense pressure. The standard ideas of the 1980s about the shape and history of the Universe have now been abandoned�and cosmologists are now taking seriously the possibility that the Universe is pervaded by some sort of vacuum energy, whose origin is not at all understood.� Peter Coles, �The End of the Old Model Universe,� Nature, Vol. 393, 25 June 1998, p. 741.

�Three years ago, observations of distant, exploding stars blew to smithereens some of astronomers� most cherished ideas about the universe[the big bang theory]. To piece together an updated theory, they�re now thinking dark thoughts about what sort of mystery force may be contorting the cosmos.

�According to the standard view of cosmology, the once infinitesimal universe has ballooned in volume ever since its fiery birth in the Big Bang, but the mutual gravitational tug of all the matter in the cosmos has gradually slowed that expansion.

�In 1998, however, scientists reported that a group of distant supernovas were dimmer, and therefore farther from Earth, than the standard theory indicated. It was as if, in the billion or so years it took for the light from these exploded stars to arrive at Earth, the space between the stars and our planet had stretched out more than expected. That would mean that cosmic expansion has somehow sped up, not slowed down. Recent evidence has only firmed up that bizarre result.�Ron Cowen, �A Dark Force in the Universe,�Science News,Vol.�159, 7 April 2001, p.�218.

�Not only don�t we see the universe slowing down; we see it speeding up.�Adam Riess, as quoted by James Glanz, �Astronomers See a Cosmic Antigravity Force at Work,�Science,Vol.�279, 27 February 1998, p.�1298.

�In one of the great results of twentieth century science, NSF-funded astronomers have shown both that the universe does not contain enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion, and that the rate of expansion actually increases with distance. Why? Nobody knows yet.�National Science Foundation Advertisement, �Astronomy: Fifty Years of Astronomical Excellence,�Discover,September 2000, p. 7.

�The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe. We now know that the expansion is accelerating and that whatever caused the acceleration (dubbed �dark energy�) cannot be Standard Model physics.�Gordon Kane, �The Dawn of Physics Beyond the Standard Model,�Scientific American,Vol.�288, June 2003, p.�73.

�Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no �science� is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma.� Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.

b. Redshifts can be caused by other phenomena. [See Jayant V. Narlikar, �Noncosmological Redshifts,� Space Science Reviews, Vol. 50, August 1989, pp. 523�614.] However, large redshifts are probably the result of the Doppler effect.

c. �...energy in recognizable forms (kinetic, potential, and internal) in an expanding, spatially unbounded, homogeneous universe is not conserved.� Edward R. Harrison, �Mining Energy in an Expanding Universe,� The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 446, 10 June 1955, p. 66.