Facts about the Big Bang "Theory": It's Wrong and Unproven 1/3

An explanation on how the big bang theory is inherently flawed by violating cause and effect, the scientific method and relativity/physics.

The theory is pseudo-scientific and implicitly suggests a centric and creationist view of the universe.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• big
• bang
• theory
• science
• astronomy
• space
• fallacy
• physics
• universe
• geocentric
• relativity

[AtomosDemocritus]

Nice video! I think you make good some points that are even more true today than they were when you said them. :)

[SuperFinGuy]

@AtomosDemocritus Thanks, what do you mean that some of my points are more true today? After all the experimental failures of the big bang?

[ColonelKucemeken]

@MumblingMickey where does it come from? id think that is the entire point. and besides... saying matter is created and destroyed but then saying that it just goes somewhere else are two different things. it sounds like what youve described is a wave emission and not physical matter as an object. in quantum physics we are talking about the smallest part of an object which, if is made up of waves, what youre looking at may seem to be appearing and disappearing but may just be fluctuating...

[MrKorrazonCold]

Galaxies are flying away from each other at a million miles an hour from a magical dark energy from a big bang causing everything to magically appeared from no-where all in one single moment as blackholes suck everything in with a magical force that comes out when nothing else can with dark matter and snooker balls that cling and clang with higgs bosos. Don't you know?

[Typho0n86]

Cosmic background radiation = other galaxies that have shifted

[JohananRaatz]

@SuperFinGuy "having dimensions or information"

Actually we may even be closer then, because I was actually arguing that it was just pure information without dimensions -and that space and dimensionality actually emerge from that level (This is similar to Smolin's view of spin-foam as quantum computer).

"can't have events"

Well the idea is that the Big Bang is only really an event when viewed from in the universe. When viewed from an exterior context it's "the first moment of time"

[SuperFinGuy]

@JohananRaatz lol that part of your video is actually very similar to mine... I think where we disagree is that you consider a single particle in a void as having dimensions or information, I showed it does not, it is infinitesimal or that it is zero dimensional.

Seeing that space-time (being a derivative/ratio, not an object) depends on matter, that is why you can't have events without without them, such as the big bang. No matter, no space-time, no events.

[JohananRaatz]

@SuperFinGuy I don't agree with you on the Big Bang, but your conception of space is actually very close to my own. See towards the end here: watch?v=iLvAxyzOIs0

Once we see how space-time is linked to matter we can see why space-time could not exist before the Big Bang. No matter = no space-time.

[AtomosDemocritus]

@SuperFinGuy I agree very much with nearly everything you said! :) In fact i see it as being ahead of it's time. I saw it was posted 4 years ago, and we still seem to have the same basic misunderstandings you've pointed out as foundations for all our theory. Hopefully this will change. :)

[SuperFinGuy]

@stramster1 Well there's no reason in the paper why non-expansion mechanisms shouldn't be applied to all of the red-shifting. Remember that Ho is the rate of the increase in wavelength per unit distance so has nothing to do with the cause proposed by the Big Bang.

Yeah you probably heard of Halton Arp, he is known as the modern Galileo.

Btw the notation explanation is for the rest of the audience.