Give me good reasons as to why Big Bang is not a convincing theory/idea?

Question

I know that Big Bang is the most convincing, in terms of Logic and reasoning, and a lot of physics. But from what i have learnt in my physics lessons. Big still contradicts some factors like, lets say for eg: Some stars in the universe are older than the Big Bang? Now i want some real good contradictions in terms of Science and not silly stuff. Tell me why Big is not so convincing to Scientists yet? Arrhh!! and dont tell me, its becuase relgious people are hard nuts. plzzzz. Dont waste ur time and mine. Scientific Contradictions!!!!

Answer 1

There is a major reason for the THEORY of the "big bang" being invalid - it can't happen. There are two aspects to this answer. First, is the reason it was thought that the possibility existed that a mass could form into another dimension and become a seperate world unto itself. The concept of mass accelerating and gaining greater mass as it does is wrong. What happnens is the overall frequency of the accelerating mass transfers from right angles to direction of movement to that of the direction in moves in. When first considered it was noted that energy and mass are able to interchange, and that mass must gain mass for that reason - wrong assumption. What this means is that as mass reaches the speed of light it converts into electromagnetic radiation, thus becoming one-dimensional instead of remaining three in another existence.

Secondly, is the physics trilogy, E = mc2, m = E/c2, and c2 = E/m. The third equation is that of a field of gravity and shows this force (physical time) to be an energy/mass relationship. What we are interested in is the first two equations. The basis of each of these thoughts is that of the "c^2" value. What makes this so important is that these two equations state that everything, and everyone, in our universe are made up of this singular value, which value is that of physical time. We are composed of time, which is the reason all events move at the same speed from the present to the past. Notice that there is no room for any other time value than this singular one "c2". This means that there is nothing in our universe able to exist if it does not have this value. Were there to actually be a mass that did have either a greater or lesser value than this, it would cease to exist (it could not exist in our universe which has a particular value of existence - "c").

Lastly, notice the acceleration of a mass within our sun at a distance of 400 miles outward from its center. Anywhere inward of this location, were it possible to release a mass, it would accelerate past the speed of light in one second. If a "black hole" were able to form, one would have formed within our own sun. In our own planet the distance where a mass would accelerate to the speed of light is 0.716 miles from its center.

http://360.yahoo.com/noddarc there is a short writing "Concepts Concerning Gravity, Time and Energy" that may be of interest.

Answer 2

No, there are not stars in the universe that are older than the big bang. There were some stars that had faulty age measurements though.

The only thing I've heard that calls one piece of big bang evidence into slight question is the application of the Sunayev-Zel'dovich effect with regards to galaxy clusters. You can look that up for more information - basically, inverse Comptom scattering may cause some of the effects seen on the WMAP images instead of the temperature differences they are interpreted as. However, we have other evidence for the big bang.

Answer 3

Your question presupposes that the BBT is not fully accepted by scientists. This is wrong. I know of only one serious living astronomer who does not accept the theory.

There are no stars older than the universe.

There are no contradictions in the theory, despite the ravings of some crackpot lunatics.

The weakest point of the theory is probably the dominance of dark matter/dark energy. Someone had better find a dark matter particle soon (within the next 20-30 years, say) or some serious questions are going to be raised. I'm confident the dark matter problem will be solved, however, becuase there are so many completely independent lines of evidence for it.

Answer 4

Are you honestly seeking evidence pro and con to judge it objectively, or have you decided that the BB is Bogus, and are now seeking evidence to support your preconception? If the former, there's a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened" that will review some of the evidence against the BB. If the latter, there's a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened" that will provide you with plenty of validation to get you through the rough patch in your faith that prompted your question.

Answer 5

Sorry, I can't help you with any scientific (or religious ) reasons for discounting the Big Bang theory as the true and correct view of the origin of the universe.
...and I'm a creationist.
I'm a creationist and I firmly believe in the Big Bang.
What's not to believe?