Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: The Big Bang Theory Violates the Law of Gravity

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    5

    The Big Bang Theory Violates the Law of Gravity

    The Big Bang could not have happened because gravity would never allow it to happen.

    Here's what happened, Hubble discovered galaxies moving away from us and all other galaxies, so, astronomers figured if they ran everything backwards then everything would have come from one location. It sounds nice and clean and more simple than any other hypothesis but the problem is that it violates the law of gravity. Black holes don't explode their material.

    Cosmic background radiation comes from galaxies, not a big bang. Every direction we look to in space has galaxies. Also, if a big bang produced radiation that radiation would be moving along with us in an expanding sphere, not coming at us from every direction. All matter would be located in an expanding sphere with a huge empty area at the center where the "bang" happened. This is not what we see in the universe. Matter is pretty uniform throughout the universe.

    Red shift is caused by the expansion of space which are both caused by dark energy. The expansion is not evidence that everything came from one location, only evidence that something is causing space to expand. And the expansion is increasing in speed, not slowing down as it would if the expansion came from one initial event.

    As for the abundance of light isotopes, they come from the initial formation of nebula's. Particles pop into existence then they pop back out again, some remain.

    As for Olbers Paradox, his theory was that the dark night sky conflicted with the idea of a static universe. This only supports the idea of a dynamic (expanding) universe but, once again, the expansion comes from dark energy not an initial big bang.

    Once the James Webb telescope is launched we will see evidence of galaxies farther than 13.7 billion years and you will all have to finally dismiss this incorrect theory and bring back the law of gravity.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,604
    Welcome to the CosmoQuest forums, Dook. If you haven't already done so, please read our rules linked in my signature line below. Since you've posted in the Against The Mainstream (ATM) forum, please note rule 13 in particular. I also recommend that you read "Alternate Theory Advice" also linked below. Again, welcome.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,733
    Welcome to CQ, Dook.

    Your post contains many profound errors of concept and fact. One of the most glaring is an ignorance of what the mainstream says. Those misattributions by themselves doom your notions rather directly. Overall, you seem to believe that BB cosmology posits that a black hole explosion started off the universe, and that observations contradict such a view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dook View Post
    Hubble discovered galaxies moving away from us and all other galaxies, so, astronomers figured if they ran everything backwards then everything would have come from one location. It sounds nice and clean and more simple than any other hypothesis but the problem is that it violates the law of gravity. Black holes don't explode their material.
    Mainstream BB cosmology does not describe the BB as an explosion, nor does it posit a black hole as the source of this non-existent "explosion". Indeed, BB cosmology is a theory of evolution, not of creation.

    Cosmic background radiation comes from galaxies, not a big bang. Every direction we look to in space has galaxies. Also, if a big bang produced radiation that radiation would be moving along with us in an expanding sphere, not coming at us from every direction. All matter would be located in an expanding sphere with a huge empty area at the center where the "bang" happened. This is not what we see in the universe. Matter is pretty uniform throughout the universe.
    The mere presence of a CMB is not taken as the evidence for the BB. Features such as a remarkable match to a black body spectrum is one piece that you have completely overlooked. Indeed, the CMB is the best black body ever measured in this respect. Another is its remarkable isotropy as well as tiny but important anisotropy.

    Red shift is caused by the expansion of space which are both caused by dark energy.
    Please provide a reference that "red shift is caused by dark energy." (Your word "both" suggests separate effects of the single cause, dark energy.)

    The expansion is not evidence that everything came from one location
    Again, your ignorance of mainstream cosmology is showing. Perhaps your knowledge comes only from popular science sources, rather than from the reading of the actual scientific literature?

    ..., only evidence that something is causing space to expand. And the expansion is increasing in speed, not slowing down as it would if the expansion came from one initial event.
    You seem unfamiliar with how GR accommodates dark energy.

    As for the abundance of light isotopes, they come from the initial formation of nebula's. Particles pop into existence then they pop back out again, some remain.
    Please show quantitatively how your asserted mechanism works, and in particular, how it provides at least as good a value as conventional cosmology.

    As for Olbers Paradox, his theory was that the dark night sky conflicted with the idea of a static universe. This only supports the idea of a dynamic (expanding) universe but, once again, the expansion comes from dark energy not an initial big bang.
    Aside from your misstatement of Olbers' Paradox, the "paradox" has several possible resolutions, not "only...the idea of a dynamic universe."
    Last edited by Geo Kaplan; 2018-Oct-22 at 05:51 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Welcome to CQ, Dook.

    Your post contains many profound errors of concept and fact. One of the most glaring is an ignorance of what the mainstream says. Those misattributions by themselves doom your notions rather directly. Overall, you seem to believe that BB cosmology posits that a black hole explosion started off the universe, and that observations contradict such a view.



    Mainstream BB cosmology does not describe the BB as an explosion, nor does it posit a black hole as the source of this non-existent "explosion". Indeed, BB cosmology is a theory of evolution, not of creation.



    The mere presence of a CMB is not taken as the evidence for the BB. Features such as a remarkable match to a black body spectrum is one piece that you have completely overlooked. Indeed, the CMB is the best black body ever measured in this respect. Another is its remarkable isotropy as well as tiny but important anisotropy.



    Please provide a reference that "red shift is caused by dark energy." (Your word "both" suggests separate effects of the single cause, dark energy.)



    Again, your ignorance of mainstream cosmology is showing. Perhaps your knowledge comes only from popular science sources, rather than from the reading of the actual scientific literature?



    You seem unfamiliar with how GR accommodates dark energy.



    Please show quantitatively how your asserted mechanism works, and in particular, how it provides at least as good a value as conventional cosmology.



    Aside from your misstatement of Olbers' Paradox, the "paradox" has several possible resolutions, not "only...the idea of a dynamic universe."
    Explosion/inflation, we can argue semantics forever but that is avoiding the real issue.

    The big bang was not a black hole? Is your argument that the initial particles did not have any mass? If so, how did they change and gain mass? If they did have mass then all the matter in the universe coming from one place would be a black hole. Trying to change the definition of things in order to violate the law of gravity is not what science is supposed to be about.

    The big bang is a theory of evolution? One that violates the law of gravity. You can't do that. No one can.

    CMB is not evidence for the BB? Correct, but many claim it to be.

    I have completely overlooked the black body spectrum? No, I have not, I just did not include that in my initial post. The overall coolness of space is caused by the expansion of space, not a single big bang event. The expansion of space is the main reason for the big bang theory but we now know that the expansion is caused by something we call dark energy and the BB violates gravity so it had it's time. The James Webb telescope will put the nail in the coffin of the BB.

    I should provide a reference that says that red shift is caused by dark energy? I did not make that claim. Red shift is caused by an object moving away from a target. Dark energy, whatever that is, causes the expansion.

    I am ignorant of main steam cosmology? You mean the one that attempts to violate the law of gravity? That one? Please provide a reference as to how gravity turned on after the big bang event. I can't wait to see it.

    I am unfamiliar with how General Relativity accommodates dark energy? I think you are trying to claim that scientists somehow knew from General Relativity that the universal expansion was increasing in speed. That is incorrect. Just because GR doesn't disallow the increased speed of expansion it also does not specify the increased speed of expansion. GR is GR. It's not the BB nor does it explain dark energy. We didn't come up with dark energy until long after GR.

    I should show how particles pop into existence and then pop back out again? Virtual particles. You can look them up.

    Please show quantitatively how gravity turned on after the big bang.

    I didn't incorrectly state Olbers Paradox, I simplified it to make the post shorter. You are really into semantics.
    Last edited by Dook; 2018-Oct-22 at 07:59 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    710
    Welcome to CQ, Dook!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dook View Post
    Explosion/inflation, we can argue semantics forever but that is avoiding the real issue.
    Actually, in the relevant literature (i.e. published papers in relevant peer-reviewed journals), I think you'll find that the two are very different, at many levels.

    Can you please provide references to support your assertion?

    The big bang was not a black hole? Is your argument that the initial particles did not have any mass? If so, how did they change and gain mass? If they did have mass then all the matter in the universe coming from one place is would be a black hole. Trying to change the definition of things in order to violate the law of gravity is not what science is supposed to be about.

    <snip>
    (my bold)

    What is "the law of gravity"? Please describe it, in some detail. And please make clear which parts are your own ATM idea, and which are things you can find in standard, graduate-level, textbooks.

    I've skipped the rest of your post, for now.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean Tate View Post
    Welcome to CQ, Dook!

    Actually, in the relevant literature (i.e. published papers in relevant peer-reviewed journals), I think you'll find that the two are very different, at many levels.

    Can you please provide references to support your assertion?

    (my bold)

    What is "the law of gravity"? Please describe it, in some detail. And please make clear which parts are your own ATM idea, and which are things you can find in standard, graduate-level, textbooks.

    I've skipped the rest of your post, for now.
    Fine. You want semantics. Inflation then.

    Can I provide references to support my assertion? You can look up gravity. I'm sure there is a Wiki page on it.

    What is the law of gravity? You want to turn this into a semantics argument and argue word meanings and endlessly argue understandings of all the theories because you know the BB violates gravity and there is no way you can get around it so you're trying to avoid discussing it.

    You can't violate gravity.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Dook View Post
    Please provide a reference as to how gravity turned on after the big bang event. I can't wait to see it.

    Please show quantitatively how gravity turned on after the big bang?
    Dook,

    Under our rules, it is your obligation to support your claims
    in this thread. While they may choose to do so, other members are not required to defend mainstream theories.

    And please take the tone down a few notches.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,429
    Hi Dook. Sooner or later someone is going to ask for your math. I'll start here. Can you estimate the maximum density the observable universe could have without exceeding the mass which would define a black hole? In other words, given the radius of the observable universe, how much mass could it have and still not be a black hole, then calculate the number of particles per cubic meter? For this calculation you can ignore anything outside the observable universe.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Dook View Post
    Explosion/inflation, we can argue semantics forever but that is avoiding the real issue.
    The current expansion of the universe (ie the Big Bang model) is not an explosion, nor is it inflation.

    The big bang was not a black hole? Is your argument that the initial particles did not have any mass? If so, how did they change and gain mass? If they did have mass then all the matter in the universe coming from one place would be a black hole.
    The mass did not come from one place. The universe has always been completely full of matter. (That is why it is not an explosion.)

    The big bang is a theory of evolution? One that violates the law of gravity. You can't do that. No one can.
    Gravity is described by GR, yes? The Big Bang model is also a result of GR. So you are saying that GR violates GR. Can you see a problem with that?

    CMB is not evidence for the BB? Correct, but many claim it to be.
    That is not what was said. The presence of the CMB is not evidence for the big-bang model. However, the spectrum (black body), temperature, isotropy, etc ARE evidence for the big-bang model.

    So you need to show, in mathematical detail, how your alternative predicts exactly what we observe.

    The expansion of space is the main reason for the big bang theory
    The expansion of space pretty much IS the big-bang model. There are details (which allow us to make precise testable predictions which allow us to confirm the theory) but basically the Big Bang model just says that the universe is expanding.

    but we now know that the expansion is caused by something we call dark energy
    Expansion is NOT caused by dark energy.

    and the BB violates gravity
    You need to provide some theoretical or evidential support for this claim. Just repeating it is not very compelling.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    Dook,

    Under our rules, it is your obligation to support your claims
    in this thread. While they may choose to do so, other members are not required to defend mainstream theories.

    And please take the tone down a few notches.

    You want me to explain gravity to you? It's in all the physics books.

    What you want is for me to reference some elite theoretical physics guy who has been published numerous times and has some theory as to how the big bang didn't happen because any normal educated person could not possibly be right when so many people who are really good at math say that the big bang really happened, right?

    You know there is no reference for a credible idea that goes against the Big Bang.

    There is no tone. You're trying to violate the law of gravity. I'm just saying that you can't do that and that the James Webb will absolutely prove that the Big Bang idea is wrong.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    Hi Dook. Sooner or later someone is going to ask for your math. I'll start here. Can you estimate the maximum density the observable universe could have without exceeding the mass which would define a black hole? In other words, given the radius of the observable universe, how much mass could it have and still not be a black hole, then calculate the number of particles per cubic meter? For this calculation you can ignore anything outside the observable universe.
    This discussion is philosophy, not math.

    Can I estimate the density the observable universe could have without exceeding the mass of a black hole? Two or three solar masses.

    I can then calculate the number of particles per cubic meter? So you're trying to say that the initial mass of the big bang particles was less than a black hole so the pressure was high enough to exceed all of the particles combined gravity. There is just no way. We're talking about all of the matter in the universe, not one or two solar masses.

    Can you provide a reference or math that explains how gravity was not working during the initial stages of the big bang?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,178
    Closed pending moderator discussion
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,178
    Dook,

    Where to start? You were told twice by a moderator to take a look at our forum rules, as you were also required to do when you signed up. You were also told to tone down your attitude. Nobody here is required to answer your questions, but you are required to defend your theory. You're not allowed to argue with moderators in this thread. This will earn you an infraction.

    Besides that, it is pretty obvious that you do not have theory to defend, all you want to do is argue against big bang theory. That is not what this forum is for, and if you had taken the moderator's advice you would known that. This thread will remain closed, unless anyone can convince us that there is a good reason to reopen it. If so, report this post as usual.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •