The big bang theory is fundamentally flawed. Whenever someone tells you the universe is "x" billion years old...

The big bang theory is fundamentally flawed. Whenever someone tells you the universe is "x" billion years old, the truth is that he is guessing. Whenever someone tells you that "x" galaxy is "x" billion light years away, again, it's more likely he is guessing. It's more likely the universe had no beginning and will have no end. The universe is most likely not expanding.

The big bang theory is the new creation myth pushed upon the world to accept without question. I am not a religious person, and one does not need to be religious, only logical, to reject the big bang theory.

I encourage you to watch this documentary on youtube. It is not full of crazies; it's full of scientists and even has some nobel laureates who doubt the theory. Don't pay attention to the horrible editorializing and the ominous echoing narrator's voice: pay attention to the explanations of the scientists.

Part 1:
youtube.com/watch?v=cUwytm8K0jI

Part 2:
youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-7HIxFZjQ

Part 3:
youtube.com/watch?v=KhjP5Mt9Wac

Part 4:
youtube.com/watch?v=86mM6106ypM

Part 5:
youtube.com/watch?v=rXOtBAECkx0

Part 6:
youtube.com/watch?v=pMzWlqEILSU

Part 7:
youtube.com/watch?v=3v5-YoMc6A8

Part 8:
youtube.com/watch?v=FtUWiGmybII

Part 9:
youtube.com/watch?v=QXOy49snsKw

Essentially, today's scientists, filled with hubris, believe that they have a law which tells them how far away distant galaxies are. This is called Hubble's Law. Basically, each galaxy has a "red shift" score based on its observable light emission. According to the law, galaxies with high red shift scores are farther away.

Other urls found in this thread:

fritzwagner.com/ev/tools_for_analysis_3.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

There is proof, however, that Hubble's Law isn't a law at all, though it is a very important discovery which science does not completely understand yet. In the rush to proclaim how smart humanity's become, all evidence contrary to the "law" has been dismissed as mere quackery. It only takes common sense to realize that today's science has developed an unhealthy dependence on this law; if anything contradicted it, 60+ years of big bang theory would come crumbling down.

The problem is that galaxies have been found that have been linked to quasars. Quasars have some of the highest red shift scores observed in the universe. So, obviously, today's scientists say that they are the farthest things away. But, when a quasar is attached to a galaxy with a lower red shift score, it breaks Hubble's Law. The same galaxy can't be at two vastly different distances from Earth. Instead of studying these anomalous galaxies, modern science chooses to ignore them as coincidence. When science starts doing shit like that, your faith in it should be greatly disturbed.

Remember, every time you hear in the new that some new galaxy has been found "x" billion light years away, you should know that the law they are using is unproven. We still really know so little about the cosmos. It is man's pride in his own knowledge that is driving these proclamations.

...

this is a picture of NGC 7603, one of the galaxies mentioned in the documentary

the "z" scores are the red shift values

though they appear to be small numbers they are relative to one another

when a red shift score is double another's score, it means it's really fucking far away from the other according to hubble's law

however, the image clearly shows that the two objects are next to one another

red shift cannot be a reliable way to judge a distant galaxy's distance from earth

there's a stupid image to belittle every important idea in the world, isn't there?

The universe will die one day. Nothing can live forever.

You are right there is no absolute proof of the universes age. Hubbles law however is directly observable and the winding back of the observed expansion leads to an educated guess of the time that everything should be squashed into a singularity, all other things being equal.

Its not like they pinned all the available theories on a wall and threw darts at it. Im absence of other data its a pretty solid theory.

...

>Whenever someone tells you the universe is "x" billion years old, the truth is that he is guessing.
>It's more likely the universe had no beginning and will have no end. The universe is most likely not expanding.

Thanks for not guessing, as well. Dumbassniggercunt.

Tillman's crest and the little dipster.

Why don't people understand that we know literally nothing? We assume. We don't know. And you don't know either faggot.

Why do people always act like this is a given law that can't be wrong in any way? All we "know" is our best guess to explain a certain problem.

tl;dr just off yourself

not how science works, buddy. its the best explanation until the next best explanation appears.

You ignore the instances where the red shift scores make no sense. They are not a reliable indicator of distance. The red shift values are not understood.

lol i never said i knew, but it's clear the big bang theory is wrong, that is all that is known

There are thousands of people around the world who are twice as smart as anyone who has ever posted on Sup Forums and whose lives are dedicated to making scientific discoveries that would have a tiny fraction of the historical importance of producing real evidence against the Big Bang... but OP has got it all figured out, and this is the venue that he decided to use to convince people of it.

This is the next best explanation. That's how science works.

You don't get it do you?

Faith is those people is the exact same as faith in god. The people in the documentary have the decency to tell you they have no explanation as to why red shifts are the way they are. I'd rather put my faith in honest people.

Understanding that scientific progress is not made on YouTube is not faith, it's elementary scientific literacy.

You enjoy believing in whatever you're told to believe. A couple hundred years ago, you'd believe that everything revolves around the earth.

No one wants to believe he's one of the stupid people. That explains you.

Yea, I'd say that everyone involved in this discussion isn't a scientist. BUT the people in the documentary are.....so listen to them instead.

The arrogance that a NEET watching conspiritarded youtubes thinks he knows more than the combined scientific community is astounding.

I hope this is bait....

When people call alternate scientific explanations for the cosmos "conspiracy theories," something else is wrong.

The arrogance of the scientific community is really what astounds me. Just think about it. Everything we know about the universe is observed from earth. We have very few vessels that have ever acquired data from locations different than earth, and we have never really acquired any data from outside the sol system. Nothing the scientific community ever spits that purely holds data from such an isolated place as earth can ever really be considered fact. It's only factual in the given circumstances. For all we know, the cosmic background radiation could by anything really, or something completely different. We will never know. We can only really speculate.

Take math for an example, can you confidently say that it was invented or discovered?

Once 'alternative' theories provide evidence that stands up to rigour and peer review and actually provides a better explanation to observed phenomena then they will no longer be alternative and inherit the status of the current theory.

To quote Tim Minchin: "what do you call alternative medicine that actually works?"

..... "medicine"

THIS
No, the model is incrementally perfected. Big Bang is pretty much scientific consensus today regardless of particulars, there's been a good half a century of increasingly accurate observations and modeling has been proggresively tweaked.

Science is by its nature an approximation of truth, we don't give up on relativity because quantum mechanics nor viceversa, we know we are somewhere near to a good description of the universe, no one claims at this point that it is 100% accurate.

Too many videos OP. Explain it concisely or get the fuck out.

I'm not watching your stupid fuckin shit nigger. All your "likely's"are just dumb shit kike guesswork as well. The only fact in this world is that everything is a theory and humanity don't know shit.

Dear faggot,

Typically one provides a theory when striking one down. Explain or gtfo.

Because the alternative is relativism and nothing can be known because assumptions. You have to work on those if you want to get past cogito ergo sum and most of us understand this, science isn't dogma. Having said that there is such a thing as scientific facts, working on some basic existential assumptions, and solipsistic thought is a dead end. It's like choosing SJW philosophy in which all opinions are valid no matter how irrelevant and stupid or just taking the measured approach that most sane adults will be able to repeat any given observation...

>This is called Hubble's Law. Basically, each galaxy has a "red shift" score based on its observable light emission. According to the law, galaxies with high red shift scores are farther away.

This thread is bullshit, do not bother replying

Don't try arguing with hillbilly scientist, they remain convinced only unanswerable questions are valid since this allows them to think there's validity in their pet theories...

Agree, don't really have the patience to go through all of that just to squash some lame Christian attempt at disqualifying established scientific thought. If something as fundamentally important as the Big Band had been discredited I think we'd be reading about it in journals like Nature, not watching it on fucking Youtube...

It's not that I don't have the patience, I'd just rather not spend an hour and a half listening to bullshit points that I've probably already heard brought up. That's probably what you meant though.

/thread

why don't you go ahead and debate actual scientists then? lmao

What's your point? Any scientist that says what we know about the Universe is pure fact is lying. Who doesn't know that?

>Take math for an example, can you confidently say that it was invented or discovered?
didnt read anything but that, and yes, we can confidently say it was invented. math is a human concept used to make things easier to understand in our language. are you fucking retarded?

are you 10 years old?

Are you? Who gives a fuck if the best we can do is speculate?
>We will never know. We can only really speculate.
How do you know?

I am not going to argue with you about how there are many things in this observable universe that can be considered as fact, BUT considering that most of our observable universe is observable through what we call consciousness and we know very very little about this simple thing that allows us to experience EVERYTHING, shouldn't we try to explore a little more about what it means to be conscious and delve into a little epistemology before claiming to KNOW scientific facts on a cosmological scale.

ITT: stoner logic

There isn't a severe need to explore the universe on that scale yet and you're whining about there not being an answer for the question of universe origin. BB Theory is an approximation of a series of truths gathered over our entire existence, you imply that scientists who support it refuse alteration of it but it does happen, just not at the rate of which you find satisfactory.

i support this theory the most

Underrated post

/thread

your attitude screams you're 10.

>who cares about anything!! all we can do is guess and estimate so who cares!
speculation are educated guesses based on inconclusive evidence. you already fucking knew that if you even attended elementary school you fucking dumbass.

a theory is a well substantiated, documented, and supported explanation of our observations. our knowledge based on these theories have a role to play in advancing our education.

you aren't doing anything. you're worthless and your opinions are also worthless. have a read and goodbye, i have a policy not to deal with special educated nuts.

fritzwagner.com/ev/tools_for_analysis_3.html

not a Christian here, though the big bang theory fits nicely with the belief in creationism

that's something you and neo-christians have in common

Holy shit dude chill. I was calling out the guy I responded to for precisely that. Maybe you misinterpreted me. Maybe I misinterpreted him, I don't know.

this is just a resource for people who'd like to know what other scientists think about the big bang theory

the idea that everyone who doubts the big bang theory is a nutjob is more based in sociological reasons than actual science

one day, the next newton or einstein or whoever will come around and blow everyone's minds

it takes no sacrifice to believe what everyone else believes on the assumption that the majority is right

the majority is usually pretty stupid

Don't associate creationism with the scientific method, creationism doesn't change save when it needs to lure more idiots into it's rank and file.

If the universe has no beginning then how are stars formed?
>Every fucking one knows that stars consume hydrogen and helium and produce heavier elements what they distribute into space after their lifetime.
>Also everyone can see the spectrum of the stars and determine how many heavy elements are in there due to spectral lines. Everyone can see how small stars that are older because they burn longer have less heavy elements than young big stars that just exist for a few million years.
>If the universe was eternal, why isn't the universe full of heavy elements already?
>And where does all the new hydrogen come from to maintain the >90% hydrogen containment of the interstellar space?
None of your bullshit videos can explain that with a static universe.

>the universe is most likely not expanding

I see you have no idea what you are talking about and are just guessing.

We know the inverse us expanding because we can observe it

We know how far away things are because we can me sure it

We know the big bang happend because we can still detect it.

You need to go back to school before you feel the need to make stuff up and pretend you know what you are talking about.

Remember kids the big bang was discoverd by accident through observation, no one set out to look for it we discoverd it because observations indicated it.

Somebody get OP some burn heal...

...and checkum.

>You need to go back to school
can you imagine that nigga in school? the teacher will start explaining how black holes work and dis nigga will probably jump out of his seat in his Sonic costume telling the teacher he's wrong and to look at youtube videos.

That's because OP is wrong has no idea what hes talking about abd his videos are more fictitious than ancient aliens

He's just reached that age (around 14 15) where he wants to feel he's more enlightend than everyone so he starts acting retarded to feel special

>mom I'm a genius and know more about cosmology than everyone else because I can't possibly be wrong!

We can tell the universe is expanding because things further away from us that are MOVING further away from us have a REDSHIFT, because red is the longest wavelength in the spectrum.

Also, remember this important detail??? COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION.

It's the radiation that still exists throughout the universe from the uncomprehendingly fast expansion from a singularity.

you are no better than a flat earth theorist.

Lol yeah

He's like that autistic kid on the back of the room who thinks he's smarter than everyone and says things like "I'm doing bad in school because it's beneath me" "I should be in working at NASA right now but I need the pointless degree I already know more about than most graduates" "stupid teacher didn't know anything I should be teaching the class"

But when you talk to them everything they say is wrong and when you correct them they yell and get louder.

Dumbfuck, the redshift shit has nothing to do with distance. Scientists use it (the doppler effect) to judge somethings speed and direction relative to earth. It's just one of a number of things they factor in to calculate distance, they still have to triangulate based on the origin of the universe and our distance from that same point. If something is shifted red it just means that it is moving away from us.

I literally have that kid in my class I didn't even realise it was that common holy fuck fucking autists

also nice trips

wait t'il OP finds out about the Doppler effect

>The universe is most likely not expanding
Actually it's contracting. The reason that light from every direction seems to be redshifted isn't because those light sources are moving away, it's because the wavelength of light (like everything else in the universe) was larger when that light was emitted. On the small scale, the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces keep everything in proportion as it shrinks, but over extremely great distances (such as the distances between galaxies) inertia wins out. The galaxies remain the same distance from each other, but are shrinking. Since everything in each galaxy, including the measuring standard (the wavelength of light) that we use to judge the distance to the next star, is shrinking the measurement seems to be constantly increasing because the ruler we're using is shrinking along with everything else.

We already concluded OP is retarded for mixing up redshift observations with parallax distence triangulation.

...

>nothing to do with distance
>use it to calculate distance

wow a contradiction v nice top science

Back in both junior high and highschool I knew someone like that, it's like the autism makes it impossible for them to think "perhaps I don't know more than the people who spent decades reserching it"

Said no cosmology ever

>We know the inverse us expanding because we can observe it
This is actually incorrect. The fact that everything in the universe *seems* to be moving away from us at the same speed no matter which direction you look is a clear indication that we're misinterpreting something. The observations we have made, those to which you refer, have been interpreted as evidence that everything is moving away from earth at the speed of light. The problem with that is that it could only possibly happen if the earth were the center of the universe, and we already know that we're orbiting a smallish star way out at the end of one arm of our medium-sized galaxy which is rather off-center of the observable universe.
The concepts of everything moving away at the speed of light and anything moving toward us (the Andromeda galaxy, for example) are mutually exclusive.

The universe isn't infinitely expanding, there has to be something else causing the apparent redshift.

fucking realest shit ever

I don't understand why society won't let people euthanise autistic kids or kids with Downs like they bring nothing to society apart from pity

they just waddle through life and make shitty threads like this

>measure
Forgot that one too.

>Mfw I don't think they are trolling

Mr President, that's not...entirely accurate.
Try googling "the universe is shrinking" and prepare to shit bricks.

Damn I'm on fire with GETS today.

>cosmology has a good modell that can explain shit
>I DONT LIKE IT
>LETS CREATE SOME TOTALLY RETARDED EXPLAINATION BECAUSE FUCK YOU SCIENCE THATS WHY

Snap-back theory

Yeah, like when people could CLEARLY see that the earth was flat, but some asshole had a problem with that and made up some new explanation because FUCK YOU.
Fucking scientists, why can't they just believe the ancient texts like everyone else?

>guys, let's halt all scientific progress and only continue to think about the world once we've finally fully figured out what consciousness is and how it works.

>it could only happen if the earth was the center of the universe

In cosmology all points are the center as the universe all expanded from the same point and observations from every location would look the same.

But yeah no, you are right and every cosmologist who has advanced degrees and decades of reaserch are wrong.

Yep that MIST be it because you with no degree and no formal education can't possibly be wrong

And there's your problem faggot.
You didn't understand, and you base decisions on it.

Red and blue shift have nothing to do with distance, it's due to 2 objects moving towards or away from each other.

>our medium-sized galaxy which is rather off-center of the observable universe

you know that our galaxy is literally smack bang in the centre of our observable universe, right?

the whole universe, well who knows. but the definition of observable universe is a sphere radiating out from... well, us.

Wow a theory postulated by one scientists that has yet to be verified abd peer reviewd is 100% correct!?

Oh wait science dosnt work that way

Womp Womp

This

The center of the universe is where ever you happen to be observing from

No fucking scientist ever believed that the earth was flat. The diameter of the earth was already calculated by Sumers, Egypts and later Greek mathematicans simply with measuring the lenght of shadows at different points on earth at the same time of the year. That's something children learn in school today. You would know that, had you been there for once.

>every cosmologist who has advanced degrees
>thinking the one theory you've heard popularized the most is the only one there is and is universally accepted
>hurr i click one link, therefore the guy in that link is the only guy there is
There are over seven billion people on this planet. Do you REALLY think you've already heard every idea already, and that anything you aren't previously exposed to must be the imagination of the person from whom you first hear it?

No we haven't heard every idea and most likely all our current ones are only part of the picture.

But you are acting as if 100% fact the shrinking model is true because one petson belives it.

His idea may be correct but it has no validation through experimentation and is just a hypothesis right now.

>observer dependent universal boundaries
Why don't you just wear a crystal and sacrifice a goat if you're going to spout bullshit like that, user?
Neither you nor your observations (thankfully) are the center of the universe. Fuck off.

nice dubs.

there is a few mathematically valid hypothesis that the universe is eternal and has no actual boundary, and the only definition that counts is the observable portion of the malaise, which is by default centred on the observer.

>because one petson belives it.
How obtuse can you be?
The fact that it makes sense to me means at least two people believe it. And you're arrogant as fuck for presuming that every one of the other 7.5 billion people in the world agree with you.

Not to mention the fact that popular belief has NEVER been an accurate measure of scientific fact, or there would only be four elements.

But please, do explain how else the redshift could indicate the same speed in every measurable direction (without magically making yourself the center of the universe) and I'll give your theory equal consideration.

No you don't get it there is no center of the universe In cosmology and as such the center is where ever it's observed from.

It's not metaphysical mumbo-jumbo it's perspectives.

If you observe the universe from Earth earth is the apperently center, if you do the same on a planet in Andromeda tgat planet is the apperently center.

Look up the center of the universe and you will find its "everywhere and nowhere"

Hell even Stephan Hawking talks about it, but I guess you are smarter than him huh?

They universe will eventually restart. you know that?

I'm saying that just because it makes sense to you dosnt mean it's right, until it's validated through experimentation it's just a hypothesis.

You arn't the end all be all of facts, what you belive isn't guerenteed correct, you get mad at others for thinking like than than say you are 100% right because I belive it...

I think you may have autism.

the universe is constantly restarting, even as we speak. only problem is you cannot travel between or pass information between universes. you are stuck in this one.

as for our universe, it is most likely flat. in the absence of an external massive force it will just burn out.

>you are arrogant because you and the rest if the scientific comunity belives one model that may not be correct

>I am superior because I belive a model that is 100% correct lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalala

Found the autist was talking about guys

lol, nope.
i just called bullshit on you asserting that only one person believes it, i didn't claim to be the end all be all, nor did i get mad.
It is a workable theory, not some uneducated bullshit that I made up, and the fact that you hadn't heard of it before does not invalidate it.

Again, please do offer any explanation as to how all points in the universe appear to be uniformly moving away from us. The shrinking theory does that, the expansion theory does not.

>off-center of the observable universe.
>observable universe

You know why it's called that, right? Because it's what we can see of the universe. The Earth IS the center of the observable universe because that's where we're observing from you dipshit.

>The fact that everything in the universe *seems* to be moving away from us at the same speed no matter which direction you look is a clear indication that we're misinterpreting something.

You are wrong, the question isn't whether or not everything is moving away from everything else at an increasing speed, that has been tested and confirmed hundreds of times by independent scientists, fuck, I've done it myself in my modern physics lab. The question is "Why is this happening?"

That's the really interesting thing to question.

Do please point out where in my post I claimed a 100% correct model. I don't recall even mentioning a unified field theory.
I think you're just inflating what you *thought* i said because you can't disprove what I *actually* said.

Went to walmart came back and i see you still replying to this 15 year old attention whore. Just tell me why Sup Forumsros

Serious question here. Why do scientists refer to objects far away from earth as "from the past"? Like, when referring to a quasar, for example, they say looking at them is like looking into the past. But aren't quasars old as fuck compared to us? Weren't they created first? Since they have existed for longer, isn't it more accurate to say looking at them is like looking into the future?

>The question is "Why is this happening?"
That's called a "hole" when it happens in a theory. It's an observed phenomenon that cannot be explained by the framework of the theory.
And you're spazzing like a fundamentalist at the insolence of an alternate theory that has no trouble explaining that phenomenon.

Why is this happening?

I'm not a cosmologist I don't know, we will have to wait and see if the theory holds water, but remember lots of theories in cosmology fall away or are disproved through observation and experimentation.

You can belive what ever you want but you need to change your views as new evidence cones to light, I'd it's found the shrinking model is correct I will gladly accept it, until then it's just an interesting hypothesis put forth by one guy.

I hope he continues his reserch.