• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

The Big Bang Never Happened

xman

New Member
arg-fallbackName="xman"/>
I saw this documentary titled The Big Bang Never Happened and it's not what you might first think in that it has nothing to do with creationism. There were a number of very prominent cosmologists who point out a number of problems, namely quasar red shift and the requirement of dark energy and dark matter. They instead hypothesise a different model, a plasma model to explain our universe.

Now I'm not a physicist or a mathematician so I don't have the foggiest idea if they could be right or not. Does anyone know about this and how likely is it that the big bang model is that wrong?

X
 
arg-fallbackName="ExeFBM"/>
Yeah, Plasma cosmology is generally rejected by most cosmologists. It's an alternative to the big bang, that doesn't rely on general relativity. It's had few successful predictions compared to the big bang, and doesn't explain the cosmic microwave background radiation. Wikipedia has an article on, but I don't follow all of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
xman said:
I saw this documentary titled The Big Bang Never Happened and it's not what you might first think in that it has nothing to do with creationism. There were a number of very prominent cosmologists who point out a number of problems, namely quasar red shift and the requirement of dark energy and dark matter. They instead hypothesise a different model, a plasma model to explain our universe.

Now I'm not a physicist or a mathematician so I don't have the foggiest idea if they could be right or not. Does anyone know about this and how likely is it that the big bang model is that wrong?

X
I don't understand the science completely, but my understanding of the academic politics is that the plasma model was an interesting hypothesis in the 1960s that has mostly failed to explain and predict the results of experiment and observation over the past 4 decades. Call it the cosmology version of the Darwinian vs Lamarckian explanations for evolution.
 
arg-fallbackName="xman"/>
I've found out that the debate surrounded Quasars which prduced seemingly odd redshift at great distances in early galaxies. The qasars were found eventualy to have massive gravity and produced a redshift of their own because of it. This would eventually lead to tthe notion that the centre of the Milky Way and many othe galaxies house super massive black holes.
 
arg-fallbackName="TheFearmonger"/>
xman said:
I've found out that the debate surrounded Quasars which prduced seemingly odd redshift at great distances in early galaxies. The qasars were found eventualy to have massive gravity and produced a redshift of their own because of it. This would eventually lead to tthe notion that the centre of the Milky Way and many othe galaxies house super massive black holes.

Sorry if this seems dumb, but I thought black holes pulled stuff in, and the galaxy is expanding. How would that work?
 
arg-fallbackName="nasher168"/>
Sorry if this seems dumb, but I thought black holes pulled stuff in, and the galaxy is expanding. How would that work?
The universe is expanding, not the galaxy.
I don't know how much evidence there is for it, but there is at least a hypothesis suggesting that there is a supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy holding it together.
 
arg-fallbackName="Mapp"/>
I thought plasma cosmology was conclusively disproved when measurements of background radiation supported the Big Bang model, but I'm not a cosmologist.
 
arg-fallbackName="DrunkCat"/>
nasher168 said:
Sorry if this seems dumb, but I thought black holes pulled stuff in, and the galaxy is expanding. How would that work?
The universe is expanding, not the galaxy.
I don't know how much evidence there is for it, but there is at least a hypothesis suggesting that there is a supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy holding it together.

I'm pretty sure it's more than a simple hypothesis.
 
arg-fallbackName="xman"/>
Mapp said:
I thought plasma cosmology was conclusively disproved when measurements of background radiation supported the Big Bang model, but I'm not a cosmologist.
Yeah. I think there are some aspects of the plasma model which still apply given the state of the early universe, but there is an overwhelming amount of observation which points to a rapidly expanding universe.
 
Back
Top