Question for Atheists

[MeachTheMonster]

The Big Bang still makes sense. The point is that there is more to the universe's acceleration than the momentum from the Big Bang itself.

In order to believe in the big bang one has to believe in something they can't observe or prove, but it has to be there to make sense of the theory. You have to have faith that it's there otherwise the theory fails.
^^^^^doesnt sound very different than religion to me

 

[Propaganda]

Using our curent laws of physics please explain to me how matter can continue to accelerate after an explosion. You can't and scientists can't yet they chose to ignore the big elephant in the room or say they will explain it later. More and more scientists are starting to disagree with the big bang theory because it just doesn't add up.

oh yeah? back that statement up with something. i haven't heard of this mass exodus from the big bang theory.

"dark energy" is the elephant in the room you say they're ignoring (which they aren't). it's the leading theory as to why the universe is accelerating - and they're certainly trying to figure out what it is exactly.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

oh yeah? back that statement up with something. i haven't heard of this mass exodus from the big bang theory.

"dark energy" is the elephant in the room you say they're ignoring (which they aren't). it's the leading theory as to why the universe is accelerating - and they're certainly trying to figure out what it is exactly.

BB top 30 problems

(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. 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. (I exclude the additional 50%-100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by, e.g., MACHO studies.) Some physicists don’t like modifying the law of gravity in this way, but a finite range for natural forces is a logical necessity (not just theory) spoken of since the 17th century. [[29],[30]]

Alternative Cosmology Group

 

[The Real]

In order to believe in the big bang one has to believe in something they can't observe or prove, but it has to be there to make sense of the theory. You have to have faith that it's there otherwise the theory fails.
^^^^^doesnt sound very different than religion to me

All the evidence points in the direction of the big bang. It's not a faith-based matter. No other model out there right now is as consistent with the evidence we currently have. Now it seems like you're just being contrarian for no reason.

BB top 30 problems
Alternative Cosmology Group

Your first link is to a website that specifically defines itself as concerned with "unpopular alternative ideas in astronomy."

The second link is explicitly called "alternative cosmology," aka not mainstream.

In other words, none of these are well-regarded, peer-reviewed scientific positions. The Big Bang remains the scientific consensus, and you're wrong to claim that science is moving away from it.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

All the evidence points in the direction of the big bang. It's not a faith-based matter. No other model out there right now is as consistent with the evidence we currently have. Now it seems like you're just being contrarian for no reason.

No SOME of the evidence points in the direction of the big bang. The evidence that doesn't fit is either ignored or altered to make it fit. You are correct it makes the MOST sense with what we know right now. But at one point the earth being flat made the most sense and those who thought it was round were looked at as crazies.

Your first link is to a website that specifically defines itself as concerned with "unpopular alternative ideas in astronomy." In other words, they themselves admit their ideas are unorthodox and unpopular, so they don't represent some broad movement away from the Big Bang, but a minority opinion.

The second link is explicitly called "alternative cosmology."

In other words, none of these are well-regarded, peer-reviewed scientific positions. The Big Bang remains the scientific consensus.

Never said it wasn't the scientific consensus, I just said SOME scientist are starting to disagree. And obviously the views are unorthodox if their different from the norm. You knew that before you clicked on the link.
Carroll Alley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia page for Carroll Alley a university of Maryland Professor and a member of the alternative cosmology club. You try to make it out that these people are crazy or not respected scientists when that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Except that the flat earth theory was mostly a byproduct of metaphysical/philosophical imaginings of the earth and was unscientific in its approach, I hope you're not trying to say the situation for the big bang is the same.

The reason theories are called theories is not because they are a product of faith. A scientific theory is developed and becomes consensus through testing and expanding a hypothesis. Like The Real said, the model that fits best now is the big bang. That doesnt mean it doesnt have issues, or is objectively the be-all end-all, but that it stands tall as the "best guess" based on the information we have now. Which is all you really can do, given that science is a product of subjective human minds.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Except that the flat earth theory was mostly a byproduct of metaphysical/philosophical imaginings of the earth and was unscientific in its approach, I hope you're not trying to say the situation for the big bang is the same.

The reason theories are called theories is not because they are a product of faith. A scientific theory is developed and becomes consensus through testing and expanding a hypothesis. Like The Real said, the model that fits best now is the big bang. That doesnt mean it doesnt have issues, or is objectively the be-all end-all, but that it stands tall as the "best guess" based on the information we have now. Which is all you really can do, given that science is a product of subjective human minds.

They thought the earth was flat because that's what they were able to see and understand at the time. The point is as knowledge and technology increase, our understanding of the universe changes and some things that were once thought to be true have been disproven.

I understand the big bang is the most accepted model. But what makes it the best? Have you studied other theories?

Here is a statement signed by 33 respected scientists from across the globe

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
*
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
*
Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.
*
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

It's the best to me because its the widely accepted scientific consensus. I'm not going to pretend to understand quantum physics at all, so to me that seems the best. As for observation of dark energy/matter, we did find some circa 06 or 07 if i recall correctly. you can google that. Im fully aware that theories develop, are discarded, and change with technology and observations. That's the good thing about science.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

It's the best to me because its the widely accepted scientific consensus. I'm not going to pretend to understand quantum physics at all, so to me that seems the best. As for observation of dark energy/matter, we did find some circa 06 or 07 if i recall correctly. you can google that. Im fully aware that theories develop, are discarded, and change with technology and observations. That's the good thing about science.

Dark energy has NEVER been observed. It is thought that dark matter exists in order to make the big bang theory fit with our current laws of physics. But it has never been observed, just theorized about. That's why it's called dark energy.

I don't know if the theory is correct or not. But I think it is disingenuous not to question it.

 

[The Real]

Dark energy has NEVER been observed. It is thought that dark matter exists in order to make the big bang theory fit with our current laws of physics. But it has never been observed, just theorized about. That's why it's called dark energy.

I don't know if the theory is correct or not. But I think it is disingenuous not to question it.

Dark matter and dark energy aren't the same thing. Dark matter has also been directly observed.

 

[OG_StankBrefs]

Non-Atheist shouldn't ask the superior Atheist questions. They should continue reading the Jungle Book and twerking at church.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Dark matter and dark energy aren't the same thing. Dark matter has also been directly observed.

Link?

 

[The Real]

Link?

Dark matter space superstructures observed for first time — RT

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Dark matter space superstructures observed for first time — RT

They didn't observe dark energy. They observed the affects of what they THINK is dark energy on the universe. They observed an anomaly in the universe and explained it with the theory of dark energy. This doesnt prove or disprove it's existence.

 

[The Real]

They didn't observe dark energy. They observed the affects of what they THINK is dark energy on the universe. They observed an anomaly in the universe and explained it with the theory of dark energy. This doesnt prove or disprove it's existence.

I said that dark matter had been observed. You asked for a link. I gave you one, in which the first sentence begins with "Scientists have for the first time directly observed dark matter..."

Now you're saying they didn't observe dark energy, when that is not what I said we had observed, and not what you asked for a link for.