Any other scientific theories that contradict the hallowed big bang theory?

Question

The reason I used "Hallowed" ... I haven't heard of any theories other than the Big Bang. Just was interested. I read somewhere that scientists do not really want anyone to challenge the big bang theory. Hence the ironic use of the word.

good answers so far.

Answer 1

Yes. I created the universe for my amusement... God

Ok, seriously... as the previous answerer said, there are no other scientific theories with any real credibility. All of the evidence points toward a universe in which all of the mass is expanding outward from a single point of origin.

The biggest ongoing debate is regarding whether or not there is sufficient gravitational mass in the universe to arrest the expansion and collapse the universe back to the point of origin (resulting in another big bang), or whether the universe will simply keep expanding and increasing its entropy forever.

Of the two end solutions, the former is more emotionally satisfying, by my way of thinking, as it means some sort of death and rebirth is the end result of the universe. However, the universe cares little for my opinions, and it will do what it was always going to do eventually.

Cheers,

Roy N

Answer 2

Masses of evidence contradicts the Big Bang hypothesis.

It has many unfounded, philosphical assumptions - such as the Copernican principle. It has also had to invent dark matter and dark energy for which there is no observational evidence.

"...makes use of the Copernican Principle: the universe has no edges and no centre—it looks everywhere broadly the same. This principle, it is important to note, is not a conclusion of science, but an assumption thought to be valid.

The implications of the Copernican Principle for modern cosmology are profound. Humphreys argues that when these ideas are expressed mathematically and applied to the equations of general relativity, they result in Big-Bang cosmologies. Humphreys looks again at general relativity theory, but using different presuppositions. These are: the universe is of finite size and has a boundary; the Earth is near the centre; the cosmos has been expanded by God in the past; the cosmos is young. The picture that emerges is dramatically different from the Big Bang. The following scenario combines Humphreys’ biblical framework and the results of his research into general relativity theory."


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/267.asp

Answer 3

First of all, the universe was NOT created by a BIG BANG. That is preposterous. Our particular Universe was created by a harmonic wave passing through a quantum soup or "suspension" and precipitating matter as we know it out. That matter then congealed over time into the stars, planets, comets, etc that we are familiar with.

This harmonic wave resulted from two "membranes" colliding (m-theory).

Our particular Universe is finite in size. Once this harmonic wave ran out of the energy required to precipitate matter out of the quantum soup, matter as we know it, ceased to be created. That being said, there is "infinite" space beyond the edge of the "matter zone" - however, there is nothing "perceptible" there.

Think of this wave as a pebble being dropped in an infinitely large pond. The waves would travel outward in all directions but eventually lose their energy and subside.

If you accelerate matter to the speed of light, it breaks down and returns to its quantum state. This is why matter seems to be traveling at the speed of light at the event horizon of a black hole. There is no "mass" in a black hole as many believe. It is just the event horizon of matter being broken down to its original state - law of entropy.

Answer 4

I agree with the above answer, but the source below has some really good data contradicting the big bang. Check it out. This guy really does know what he is talking about but he is definitely not main stream!

Answer 5

Well, there is the Little Poof Theory, but no reputable scientist will accept it.

Answer 6

The concept of the "big bang" is an impossibility. Were you to determine mass acceleration 400 miles from the very centre of our sun, you would find that a mass released in that location would exceed the speed of light in one second. What this means is that in the inner location of our sun there is either a new form of mass that is able to atomically exist even though accelerating past the speed of light, or there is a black hole within the centre of our sun. If this were true, though, then that object would be gobbling up the mass of our planet. This same condition exists within the core of our planet at the 0.716 mile location from its very centre. If this condition exists within relatively small masses as found in our solar system, mass could not have collected into a single entity as found in the "big bang".

Then, there is the reason this concept exists today. It is due to a mistake on Einstein's part that brought it about. He, understanding that mass and energy are equatable, sumised that as a mass accelerated, what brought that condition about was energy being added to the accelerating mass so moving mass was actually gaining more mass. A moving mass does not gain more mass in any manner. What happens is that the overall frequency of the mass transfers from right angles to that of the direction of travel. A mass at rest is able to have energy move in any direction through it at the speed of "c". As a mass begins moving this is no longer true. A mass moving at the speed of light (c) minus 2 mps (miles per sec) could have energy move at right angles to direction of travel of only 2 mps. At the speed of light there would be zero potential at right angles to direction of travel. Mass would have become zero, and energy would become that of hf.

http://360.yahoo.com/noddarc and
http://timebones.blogspot.com may be of interest

Answer 7

None that have much support. There's too much evidence supporting the big bang.

Answer 8

Why do you call it "hallowed"? Sounds like you don't believe it...so what do YOU believe?