[davidgow77]

Thats the problem with it. It traces the evolution of the universe right back to the point of creation but no further. DG

[Guille]

maybe scientists should called the big bang the start-now theory. The TOE will be obligated to have:

1) zero-start explenation and

2) now-future explenations. (not simply especulative, but with math and physics background)

But I think that the big bang IS a very hepfull theory to undesrtand how the universe is and was, and why. I also think that maybe the numbers that your all using to disprove the big bang theory are incorrect and they don't seem very reliable. I think the big bang IS a correct theor, and it has been proved:

1) theoretically (Einstein's GR)

2) Empirically (Since 1921, there have been thousands of measurements that state that the universe IS in fact growing and accelerating).

[battybat]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao another evidence supporting the BB is the resolution of Olbers' Paradox. The puzzle of why the sky appears dark at night or also appears dark by day if the atmosphere is removed. the resolution is that the universe must have a beginning. Otherwise the universe would have been infinitely bright if it was eternal as the steady state theory suggested.

Olbers' Paradox can be explained in other ways.
The further stars are from us the less light from them reaches us. At some point they are so faint we can no longer see them. So we don't actually see light from an infinite number of stars but only from a finite number that are within range of our telescopes.

Battybat

[battybat]

Originally Posted by surya actually light emitted from that galaxy is stored in some galaxy or other galaxy and hence it take time to reach our earth.you are satisfied with this answer?but this is true only.if any further doubt mail me on surya_912003@yahoo.com ..

That's a new one on me, Sarya.
How do you store light in a galaxy? Do you have a mechanism in mind?

Intrigued,

Battybat.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by battybat The further stars are from us the less light from them reaches us. At some point they are so faint we can no longer see them.

according to Swiss astronomer Jean-Phillippe Loys de Chesaux later in the 18th century, the faintness of distant stars is exactly compensated for by their increased numbers at farther distances.

[battybat]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao according to Swiss astronomer Jean-Phillippe Loys de Chesaux later in the 18th century, the faintness of distant stars is exactly compensated for by their increased numbers at farther distances.

Back in the 18th century, they believed that the Universe was created in six days. Mind you, I suppose things haven't changed that much!

Battybat.

[AntonioLao]

de Chesaux's assertion is based on his calculations. Modern cosmologists agree that the calculations plausible.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao But for concept of mass, the separation can still be zero for the vector boson called graviton (zero mass) and the scalar boson called the Higgs (massive particle). Both of these still cannot be detected by experiments. But they must exist in equations of theories for the sake of consistency.

Hi Antonio

Have you ever thought that there may be another way? That the equations should be subservient to the explanation rather than driving it?

Would you like a bet on whether the LHC will discover the graviton and/or the Higgs Boson? I wager they will not.

Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Guille But I think that the big bang IS a very hepfull theory to understand how the universe is and was, and why. I also think that maybe the numbers that you're all using to disprove the big bang theory are incorrect and they don't seem very reliable. I think the big bang IS a correct theory, and it has been proved: 1) theoretically (Einstein's GR) 2) Empirically (Since 1921, there have been thousands of measurements that state that the universe IS in fact growing and accelerating).

General Relativity is not a proof, or even evidence of the BB. The BB is accepted dogma because of a small number of observed phenomena:

• the 'observed' expansion of the universe
• the cosmic background radiation (CBR)
• Stephen Hawking says it is right

Lets examine these. The observed expansion of the universe is based on Hubble's red shift observations which apply to most (but not all) galaxies and says that they must be receding. Occam's Razor would suggest that the more likely explanation is that light becomes 'tired' over the immense distances of interstellar space and that the universe is not expanding in any general sense. Certainly it is not expanding locally as our nearest neighbour galaxy is predicted to collide with ours at some time in the future.

The CBR pervades the whole of spacetime and is purported to be the leftovers from the BB. But it may just be the noise of virtual particles being created and disappearing again as some current theories predict. Either way the minor fluctations in the CBR cannot explain the formation of galaxies or their swirling motion. The third reason above relates to a simple herd instinct.

Here's a basic question - what's the difference between the BB and a black hole? They seem to have very similar properties except that there's only one BB and a lot of BHs - even one at the centre of each and every galaxy. If there is, then is it not more likely that galaxy formation has more to do with BHs that with fluctuations in the CBR. My feeling is that the foundations of the BB are extremely suspect.

[appologies to those who read this argument from me on a similar thread]

Felix

[Profpat]

Hi Felix;

I think the big bang would be just like a black hole, and if black holes are possible why not one to start it all.

BTW I'm glad to see Dr. Schrodinger let you out of your box.

Best

Pat