Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsAstronomy & Space · 6 months ago

Big Bang is DEAD as can be.?

Cosmic Background Explorer investigated cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) and found the directional line across the universe -- something excluded from every Big Bang elaboration

17 Answers

Relevance
  • goring
    Lv 6
    6 months ago

    when the beginning point was is something that we do not exactly know as Humans

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Sorry atheists, but it is the Steady State hypothesis that is dead.

    The Universe had a beginning, which could NOT have happened without a cause.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    The "directional line" across your question leads to my reply, "Oh, please, give me a break!"

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • paul h
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    I think you're referring to the "Axis of Evil" or directional line /alignment with our solar system discovered by WMAP and Plank missions which is not predicted by the Big Band model along with a large cold spot. The COBE mission found that the temperature variations were not as predicted without altering the BB model.The BB model also relies on the existence of some unknown dark matter and dark energy or it falls apart.

    So many problems.

    "How do secular scientists explain the axis of evil and the cold spot? There aren’t any explanations for the axis of evil. Its large size apparently is impossible to explain within big bang cosmology. Its alignment with the plane of the solar system further complicates the issue. The alignment of the axis of evil suggests that the CMB may not be cosmic in origin at all. Instead, the CMB could be a local microwave background (LMB). This has been suggested before. If the CMB actually is an LMB, then it hardly is evidence for the big bang. If this turns out to be the case, then everything published on cosmology over the past half century is rubbish. With such dire consequences, cosmologists generally ignore the axis of evil, hoping that it’s some statistical fluke. As for the cold spot, there have been several proposals, but none are satisfactory. Cosmologists tend to ignore it too."

    https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/axis-evil-co...

    ".......there are a number of documented problems with the CMB resulting from the age of decoupling in a big bang universe. First, a light travel time problem exists in the big bang model in that disparate parts of the universe have the same temperature, even though those parts have not had time to come into thermal equilibrium (Lisle 2003). This difficulty is called the horizon problem. Inflation in the early universe is invoked to explain the horizon problem, but there is no proof that inflation occurred, and modern ideas of inflation have become increasingly bizarre (Steinhardt 2011). Second, there ought to be gravitational lensing in the CMB, but there is none (Samec 2006). Third, Hartnett (2006a) has pointed out that the CMB contains quadrupole and octopole modes that the standard inflationary big bang model cannot explain. Fourth, Hartnett (2006b) also has explained that inverse Compton scattering by electrons (Sunyaev- Zel’dovich effect) in the intergalactic medium within clusters of galaxies ought to distort the CMB, but this is not seen. These last three problems suggest that the CMB, rather than originating in the most distant parts of the cosmos, actually comes from a much closer source or sources, perhaps even within the solar system or even the earth.

    If the CMB is locally produced (essentially making it a local microwave background (LMB) rather than the CMB), then it would render the CMB as evidence of the big bang a huge red herring. Given that this would make nearly everything published in cosmology over the past half century wrong, cosmologists will have tremendous resistance to this possibility."

    https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/c...

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 6 months ago

    Perhaps ,albeit, unknowingly you raise the question as to whether our theory of an "expanding universe " is wrong.

    That theory is largely based on GR ,and "Doppler" like shifts in wavelengths ,which are associated with the comoving coordinates of expanding space .And it works -- it "explains" our observations .

    But an alternative could, I guess, be a static universe in which the frequencies we observe decrease with distance due to interactions with the content /makeup of space itself ?.

    • ...Show all comments
    • hoarseman
      Lv 7
      6 months agoReport

      I've always taken the Big Bang to be a theory about the expansion of space -- not the creation of the universe per se. I'm therefore simply suggesting that alternative theories ,which would explain our observations , aren't impossible

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Clive
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    And what is your question? Clearly you have no idea how this site works.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Ya know, radio astronomy is one of my stronger points in this hobby, I clearly see you have zero understanding of the issue, and read a paragraph off some blog the sum of your knowledge. Just enough to make a fool of yourself.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Nyx
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    And yet, you cite no evidence, or proof of your claim.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 6 months ago

    Whatever you wish to think is fine...

    • ...Show all comments
    • Yeah... I know... Mark Twain: 'Never argue with stupid people; they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.'

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    Okay, so did you have a question? Because that's kind of the way things work here. You post a question, and people post answers. If you're looking for Yahoo! Chat, they shut that down years ago.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.