I notice in books & magazines that more and more scientists distrust Big-Bang Theory:
- what are the incoherences of this theory?
- what are the scientific observations that contradict Big-Bang Theory?
2006-07-06 22:20:55 · 18 answers · asked by Axel ∇ 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Thx Madmax :-)
2006-07-06 22:43:44 · update #1
Yeah Malikacc!
2006-07-07 05:32:54 · update #2
Thx Karl :-)
2006-07-07 07:15:20 · update #3
Hi,
The Big Bank theory is not 100% mathematically correct. That means after it does not act with the rules that must work...
However, there is a new theory called "Mtheory" or "Strings" that might give the solution about it.
Karl
http://www.freewebs.com/smithkarl/DaveBlogs.htm
2006-07-07 06:58:27 · answer #1 · answered by James B 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
1
2017-01-17 15:51:41 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The information I've heard is this....The Idea is that in the beginning there was an explosion that sent all the matter in the universe rocketing away form the center of the universe. The Idea is that based on the principles of physics (much like throwing a ball) everything should be slowing down. So we are moveing away from the center and are supposed to be decelrating. However, apparently scientist are calculating that we are actually speeding up. At least that's what I have heard, but again the whole big bang is just a theory.
2006-07-06 22:31:55 · answer #3 · answered by Charlie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They don't. At least, no the ones who know anything. Maybe if you said who you had read disagreeing we could say more, but a blanket and unverifiable assertion is not helpful.
The big bang is extremely well supported by astronomical observation, going well beyond the red shift and background radiation.
However, the theory is incomplete in its description of the early universe (the first few seconds) because this period requires an understanding of how gravity and quantum mechanics work together. This is currently not at all well understood.
It is also incomplete because the laws of physics as we know them are discontinuous at the singularity that is the big bang. This has no effect on the universe we see, but it would be nice if the laws were framed such that they could be continuous to describe how the big bang came to be itself. Hawking and others have proposed the concept of imaginary time to do this.
2006-07-06 22:53:11 · answer #4 · answered by Epidavros 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there's enough speed matter can move away from each other without coming to an eventual halt and the resulting attraction towards each other. So if there was enough force in the big bang, it would never come to another big bang, and the original big bang would end in matter being dissipated through space. The other thing is that nobody'd really sure as to what a proper string theory is. That's when different sized objects react differently to different forces. For example, we react strongly to gravity, while atoms react more to their electric charge etc. So this means that it's not possible to understand the universe as bodies in continual moment with much exactness at the moment...or at least that's what I think :-)
2006-07-06 22:27:13 · answer #5 · answered by crudhouse 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is that some Creationists are even more extreme than saying that evolution doesn't exist--they further argue that the earth is only 6000 years old. This is because they take the list of generations in the Bible up to Jesus (mind you, there's a few different lists, but whatever), then add the known time since then, to determine that the universe was created about 6000 years ago. They're called Young Earthers. Thus, they have to deny the Big Bang Theory as well, since it posits a universe billions of years old. Mind you, I'm a Christian, and I think they're both wrong and unBiblical, but that is, of course, a matter for debate.
2016-03-27 07:40:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because there isnt a shread of evidence of it or any idea out side of a creator that a universe could begin self sufficiently . .let alone sustain its self..even if there was a so called big bang..life could not be sustained by natural sources. .now a day there are so many different ideas theories and dates and time lines that not only scientist dont agree with one another. .they cant even agree to when it all started..
2015-11-30 11:02:33 · answer #7 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not as if scientists have recently decided that the theory is flawed. There has long been opposition to the big bang theory.
2006-07-07 02:48:57 · answer #8 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which scientists? The nutty pseudoscientists or the real scientists? Which magazines? Which books?
Of course there is evidence for the Big Bang: It's called "redshift". Ever heard of it?
2006-07-06 22:25:31 · answer #9 · answered by me 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is no proof. there is nothing. it's just a theory. there has so far been no proof whatsoever to sustain any theory about the creation of the universe and life.
the real question is: if big bang is what created the universe as we know it what created the universe as it was before te bang?
2006-07-06 22:25:18 · answer #10 · answered by ilya 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋