Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "5 Major Problems With The Big Bang Theory | Answers With Joe" video.

  1. Except the BB theory, which we save by adding new 'funny' physics to save it. (Inflation, Dark Energy).
    35
  2. Todd Willoughby - 'Bogus' physics is everything that the astronomers come up with to save the BB theory, instead of scarpping it and create a better theory. 'Inflation' was invented to save the BB theory. 'Dark Energy' was introduced to save the BB theory. CMB = Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. The BB theory hinges on one and one assumption alone - that the galacatic redshift we see is caused by he doppler effect of galaxies moving away from us. This gives the idea that the universe is 'expanding' (in the 4th dimension - allowing us that live on the surface (3rd dimension) to experience that all things move away from us). Now, the issue is that we don't know if galactic redshift is actually caused by the doppler effect - we have no collaborating evidence to support this hypothesis.
    26
  3. Todd Willoughby - They should go back and take a very good look at their 'discoveries' and I'm sure they'll find the correct answer that doesn't rely on bogus physics. My personal guess would be that the universe is infinte, flat and without a start or end. Matter is generated and consumed constantly, CMB is probably related to that.
    22
  4. Todd Willoughby - To my knowledge (I'd be happy to be shown wrong), there is no proof that galactic redshift is caused by the Doppler effect. It is an assumption. No other measurement technique exist to validate this assumption, and no experiment exist that can validate the fact that space is apparently expanding.
    21
  5. Winter isn't leaving...
    8
  6. Pity BB theory hasn't derived anything though. It's been modified to fit with observations, and patched up. It has no scientific value in regards to its ability to predict anything.
    5
  7.  @Iluvme-c5d  - we cannot measure any expansion of the universe in a lab. Just redshifting caused by velocity. Say my method of calculating distance was to use the force exerted by a very long spring connected to the item in question. Double the force means, double distance to the item. Works great! Then I try to measure some real long distances, and I get the same weird result every time. There seems to be something making the tension in the spring drop. <Astronomers be like - insert new physics>. My point here is that you cannot automatically assume some locally working indirect measurement method will always work, if applied to a new environment. Especially if it gives the same strange reading for everything in that new environment. To my knowledge there are no other method (indirect or direct) to measure the velocity of far away objects. We therefore have no way of knowing if these velocity measurements are even valid after X amount of light years. But the consequence of assuming the measurements can be taken at face value, means inventing a lot of 'magic' physics that we have no evidence for (and adding more 'magic' as the number of issues mount). Well that rubs me the wrong way. If your theory hinges on 'magic' physics (Big Bang, Inflation, Expansion of fabric of Space, Dark Energy), then I'd say your "theory" is a "hypothesis" until at least some 'magic' can actually be detected by other measurement methods.
    2
  8.  @lowkey_entertaining9723  - think you got me confused with some of the other nutcases in this very long comment thread. I'm an atheist and very much pro physics.
    2
  9. We don't even know that it is expanding. We see red-shifted light, that's all. Expansion hasn't been proven to exist at all.
    2
  10. Right, so that we know for sure. And there is no way there can be any other (yet unknown) mechanisms at play at the same time? At the same time we're open for 'Dark Matter', 'Dark Energy', 'Inflation' - just because we understand that we might not understand everything (lets not mention that all of these might just be related to getting the Redshift->Speed relationship wrong). When a hypothesis (BB) hinges on one pretty big assumption, and this hypothesis ends up requiring exotic physics to even match with observations - then I say it's time to have a much closer look at the underlying assumption here. Therefore, until someone pulls out 'Dark Energy' or 'Dark Matter' from a lab/experiment, or prove the Redshift->Speed relationship (Doppler effect) in some other way on galactic scales - I'll remain a skeptic. I predict therefore that when telescopes get powerful enough, we will easily find galaxies that are older than 13.8 billion years (current BB time estimate). I also predict that when this happens, the BB theory will be amended so that it fits with the new data - if it requires some new 'physics' - that will not be a problem - and it will be invented to fit the observations.
    2
  11. Comparing observed galactic redshift with gravity is stretching it pretty far. Gravity can be tested here on earth. Galactic redshift, not so much. There is a big difference between seeing some faint light from millions of light years away and deducing exact cause and effect, comparted to be able to repeatedly perform experiments in a laboratory. Well, if we do see galaxies that are 15 or 16 billion years old (very high redshift) with new telescopes, then what? Would you consider ditching the BB theory, or would you be happy to let that fly, as soon as and 'adjusted' model where introduced. (Long history of adding epi-circles in astronomy).
    2
  12. Measurement issues and interpretation issues should be investigated a lot more, before making crazy theories - like the BB theory.
    2
  13. Yupp, that too. Only the geocentric world view has had more problems than the BB theory. Astronomers like to get it wrong, and keep at it for decades. Look forward to the day the BB theory packs up.
    1
  14. I really really hope you don't have any kind of science background. If it is wet outside, and I tell you it must have been raining - cause its wet outside - therefore you must be pretty dumb not to accept that. Never mind the kid that was playing with water-hose 30 minutes ago...
    1
  15.  @bautibunge737  - well, if the universe itself is neither expanding or contracting - then it would be an infinite empty void. Now, we know it has stars and stuff in it, so those will need to be generated somehow. Since we're skipping BB, matter/energy will probably be created 'randomly' and continuously, matter also need to disappear (of course this is pure speculation - Nobel price to whoever figures out this mechanism, but some quantum fluctuation would be my guess). Also assume that light looses energy as it travels great distances, then you get red-shifted light from far away galaxies. Its funny how the CMB has the spectrum like black body radiation btw? I don't see why an infinite spacetime with limited light speed, limited light duration (stars only live that long), limited range of light (red-shifting/energy loss) and presence of dust needs to be much brighter than what we currently observe.
    1
  16.  @swirvinbirds1971  - I point out there doesn't exist any observational evidence to support a direct red-shift -> doppler effect (velocity) conversion for galactic redshifts. And when it comes to 'believe in something you can not provide the physics for' - I think astronomers wins that context hands down. Here is a small sample of an ever increasing list: Big Bang, Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy.
    1
  17.  @swirvinbirds1971  - and unless you connect red-shift with doppler effect and velocity, you don't get a Big Bang. Hubble correctly identified an observed relationship between distance and redshift. Linear may/may not be correct. But the cause of redshift was not identified, and attributing it to Doppler effect is an assumption. This assumption leads to an expanding universe, Big Bang, Dark Energy, Inflation all of which are 'magic' events. If the cause is of galactic redshift is something else (which it very well might be, since we don't have any proof it is caused by doppler effect) - then the need for all of these 'magic' events goes away.
    1
  18.  @swirvinbirds1971  - I'm just stating the facts. Fact is that Galactic Redshift = Doppler effect (aka velocity) is an unconfirmed assumption. This assumption leads to bucket-loads of theoretical and observational problems and issues. So yes - our best understanding of the universe - what thousands of astronomers have spent the last 70 years on - is based on an unconfirmed assumption! Please point to where I'm wrong.
    1
  19.  @ChadDidNothingWrong  - we can indeed measure redshifting, and we can see that Doppler effect causes it here on earth. However, this doesn't mean that there for example couldn't be a way for light to lose energy when traveling millions of light-years through "empty" space. When light loses energy it becomes redshifted. If this is the case, then the universe isn't expanding, all our distance and velocity measurements are wrong - and much of 70+ years of astronomy must be discarded. But there isn't any experiment out there that can prove my hypothesis wrong, which is pretty bad for a hard-science field.
    1
  20. @ReligionlessFAITH - that was a great analogy, and one that I've never heard before. Would it work out in 3D space, or does it require a 4D 'waterfall'? What astronomers observer (redshift) and the interpretation (expanding universe, Big Bang) are two very different things. There might be a lot of other explanations fitting better than the current interpretation.
    1
  21.  @mr.h4267  - Doppler effect exist and all far away galaxies are redshifted. Does that mean that this galactic redshift is caused by Doppler effect (alone)? I'm pointing out that this relationship is not proven, it is a hypothesis. In fact astronomers think it is caused by the space itself expanding, not by intrinsic velocity of the galaxies. I can say it is caused by unobtanium in intergalactic space, and me and the astronomers have about the same evidence for our claims - namely 0.
    1
  22.  @mr.h4267  - that's nice of it. Relevance?
    1
  23.  @Iluvme-c5d  - well, 'Dark Matter' is another topic, and of course it works, because it is a 'fudge factor'. You can sprinkle as much or as little of it as you like on a galaxy and it will work the way you want. It's just a hack, and until the underlying cause is found, I will treat it as a 'hack'. I'm fine with the Big Bang being a working hypothesis for now. But until we can actually collaborate any of the "magic" with real physics or direct measurements, it should stay that way. People walk around thinking it is a "fact".
    1
  24.  @Iluvme-c5d  - well, that is of course a very good question. The universe could have been created without it having to be a 'bang' were everything just came into existence at once. I'm much more inclined to believe 'spacetime' itself has been around forever, but matter is being created and destroyed all the time by some (random?) quantum mechanical process. Our brains are not really designed for answering these types of questions though.
    1
  25.  @Justwantahover  - sorry to burst your bubble. But BB theory and theory of evolution isn't related at all. I'm definitely not a creationist. Those people are just religious nutcases.
    1
  26. God did it, still not falsified.
    1
  27. We have maths, and machines. Even if we cannot every comprehend a forth spatial dimension, we would be able to infer it's existence and calculate how things would react should it be there.
    1
  28. Dark Matter is needed to save the BB theory. Without the BB theory as a backdrop, no need for Dark Matter.
    1
  29. Tried reading it - but it wasn't in English, and it contained a lot of unsubstantiated claims and bad formatting.
    1
  30. Seems particles can instantaneously come into existence - so I think that's probably how it works. The universe is created one atom at a time.
    1
  31. Or the CMB has nothing to do with this stuff at all.
    1
  32. Magic, like the rest of the theory. Btw - you also assume something has to be created from something.
    1
  33. Hooknosed Jack - Can you please elaborate on exactly how we know that galaxies are racing away from us? I'll help you out: The only thing we can detect is that light is red-shifted. That in it self might be caused by movement, but it might not (or it could have multiple components to, not all related to relative speed). There is no (to my knowledge) collaborating ways to measure the relative speed of things millions of light-years away (closer stars we can use triangulation) - so it's all based on interpretation of redshift. If it doesn't work exactly like we think, then the entire BB theory falls and a lot of 'mysteries' dies with it too.
    1
  34. Yes, I know the theory behind the Doppler effect. Same as we know why it rains, and when someone sees its wet outside, therefore it must have rained. (Never mind the guy with the garden hose). Rain explains the wet ground perfectly - therefore it must have rained - is not necessarily true. As I'm pretty sure BB didn't happen, it follows that the universe has galaxies waaay older than 13 billion years. So I'll be happy to reconsider, if it turns out that we don't find anything older than 13.8 billion years (assuming the telescopes are good enough). And I hope the astronomic community would seriously reconsider their pet theory if they find 14,15,16,....30+ billion (whatever the telescopes are capable of detecting) year old galaxies.
    1
  35. Funny Frog analogy, I liked it.
    1
  36. God started it, and Harry Potter adjusted it. Let me write a paper on how Harry's magic worked. I'll make up the physics as I go along. If any new discoveries arrive, I'll update my paper afterwards. Yeah - science!
    1
  37. Computers only calculate based on the assumptions given to them. So if the assumptions are wrong, the results will be wrong. Computers cannot prove anything.
    1
  38. That irks me too. BB theory is presented like it is on the same level as Theory of Gravity. While it actually has extremely limited observational evidence for it, and quite a lot against it. It's an hypothesis, and dodgy one at that.
    1
  39. The Anthropic principle.
    1
  40. Don't apply logic on the BB theory or it will collapse. BB follows Magic (TM) physics rules, and doesn't need stupid limitations like preservation of energy, speed of light, entropy etc.
    1
  41. Which one? We've got hundreds to choose from.
    1
  42. Or more closely, because BB theory doesn't need to be constrained by filthy physics.
    1
  43. It's a dodgy hypothesis, not a real theory.
    1
  44. In order to save the BB theory, they needed that 'Inflation' hack. Otherwise the theory would (and should)have been falsified. At the moment the BB theory is tried saved using any hacks they can come up, as observations disprove the theory.
    1
  45. Nothing comes out of nothing - might not be correct, and is an assumption on your part.
    1
  46. I'd like to see some evidence for the hypothesis that the universe is in fact expanding. We see that faint light from far away (assumed) light sources appear red-shifted. From that single observation, to concluding categorically that the universe is expanding (in the 4th dimension) is quite a leap in my head.
    1
  47. The Big Bang theory does need to break all known laws of physics to work. So they break them. Speed of light, no issue.
    1
  48. Why - ignorance is bliss:)
    1
  49. You can only see the milky-way with your eyes. Andromeda is a faint smear. So it would look the same.
    1
  50. Can you even prove that the universe is in fact expanding? I've yet to see any direct measurement of this fact.
    1
  51. People tend to accept whatever they are told when young.
    1
  52. No one knows. We have only observed the universe from within our solar system.
    1
  53. Exactly, BB theory doesn't need to conform to known physics. That's why it always win.
    1
  54. That's my current belief as well, after rejecting the BB after looking into it more closely. The universe is much much (probably infinitely) big. Better telescopes will just allow us to see more and more distant galaxies - predating the BB easily.
    1
  55. About the same amount.That's why I don't buy it.
    1
  56. So does Harry Potter's magic wand.
    1
  57. It could be - but you need some nice evidence for it.
    1
  58. You fail to realize there isn't any real evidence for an expanding universe at all. There is no direct measurement that collaborates this assumption, we only see that light is red-shifted from far away galaxies - what that really means is speculation.
    1