Big Bang Debunked?

[power2012]

One time I was trying to explain to some Christians, that the universe was not created in 6 days, but rather, it formed through what has been called the Big Bang theory. They basically laughed at me, and then showed me this evidence, which they claimed refuted and disproved the Big Bang theory.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0905104549.htm

ScienceDaily (Sep. 5, 2006) — The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background.

A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies.

"These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.

"If you see a shadow, however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don't see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not."

Other groups have previously reported seeing this type of shadows in the microwave background. Those studies, however, did not use data from WMAP, which was designed and built specifically to study the cosmic microwave background.

If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background.

These findings are scheduled to be published in the Sept. 1, 2006, edition of the "Astrophysical Journal".

Taken together, the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted - an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky.

"Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu. "One possibility is to say the clusters themselves are microwave emitting sources, either from an embedded point source or from a halo of microwave-emitting material that is part of the cluster environment.

"Based on all that we know about radiation sources and halos around clusters, however, you wouldn't expect to see this kind of emission. And it would be implausible to suggest that several clusters could all emit microwaves at just the right frequency and intensity to match the cosmic background radiation."

Predicted as early as 1948 and discovered in 1965, the cosmic microwave background is a faint glow of weak radiation that apparently permeates the universe. Because it is seen coming from every direction in nearly uniform power and frequency, cosmologists theorized that the microwave background is afterglow radiation left over by the Big Bang that created the universe.

If that were the case, the background microwave radiation reaching Earth today would have traveled billions of light years through space from the furthest edges of the universe.

Galaxy clusters are the largest organized structures in the universe. Each cluster can contain hundreds of galaxies like the Milky Way, each with billions of stars. The gravity created at the center of some clusters traps gas that is hot enough to emit X-rays.

This gas is also hot enough to lose its electrons (or ionize), filling millions of cubic light years of space inside the galactic clusters with swarming clouds of free electrons. It is these free electrons which bump into and interact with individual photons of microwave radiation, deflecting them away from their original paths and creating the shadowing effect. This shadowing effect was first predicted in 1969 by the Russian scientists Rashid Sunyaev and Yakov Zel'dovich.

Like shadow puppets on a wall, however, these shadows would only form if all three ingredients (light, object and observer) are in the correct order. If an object casts no shadow, it might be because the light source is closer to the observer than the object. That might mean that the cosmic microwave background didn't originate at the far edges of the universe, although there are no obvious or popular alternative sources.

The WMAP dataset is available to the public and other scientists are already testing the UAH group's results, Lieu said, although no one has yet reported finding any flaws in their analysis.

Just over a year ago Lieu and Dr. Jonathan Mittaz, a UAH research associate, published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (but weren't) if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant.

Reference: Lieu, Mittaz and Shuang-Nan Zhang, UAH, "The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters: A comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed decrement," Astrophysical Journal, Sept. 1, 2006, Vol. 648, No. 1, p. 176

I didn't know what to say really....

[Mog]

Who are these Christians that you speak of, and what exactly is the alternative that they propose that is implied by the article that you just presented?

I mean the facts in the article doesn't exactly go at all well with the 6 days of creation story, so it seems like a funny thing for these "Christians" to bring up, doesn't it?

Its sort of like Christians telling us that Evolution is debunked just because biologists argue about whether evolution is punctuated or gradual. It doesn't mean a thing.

[Whisper]

Power, I feel you are beginning to present not as a concerned agnostic/atheist, but as a theist trying out arguments in an atheist forum, to see how we respond. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but that's the feeling I get from most of your posts.

[psychodiva]

yeah ditto-

Power - just admit you are a theist in atheist clothing - it is getting boring- all your so-called arguments have been seen and refuted before- all you so-called evidence is utter bullshit- just give it up

power2012 wrote

One time I was trying to explain to some Christians, that the universe was not created in 6 days, but rather, it formed through what has been called the Big Bang theory. They basically laughed at me, and then showed me this evidence, which they claimed refuted and disproved the Big Bang theory.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0905104549.htm


I didn't know what to say really....

What you say is that Big Bang is one of the better weapons we have, if we want to argue on natural grounds. Big Bang points to something coming into existence that did not exist before, which is perfectly consistent with what Christianity teaches. But whatever begins to exist must have a cause (this is the Kalam cosmological argument which, despite, the resident sneer meister is logically sound, as any deductive argument is, if the premises are true). You can google it.

6 days of creation is not only ridiculous but Genesis does not actually make such a claim. That is why the early theologians like Augustine and Jerome warned against taking everything in the OT literally. You might look at a thread called "is Genesis Scientific?" (or some such thing) for details. There have been a number of related discussions in the last couple of years.

[Choobus]

power2012 wrote

I didn't know what to say really....

Why don't you say nothing then you fucking troll cunt.

[power2012]

Mog wrote

Who are these Christians that you speak of, and what exactly is the alternative that they propose that is implied by the article that you just presented?

Forum guys, it was on a forum that I was shown this by christians. Also I know many in real life. One guy on some forums was calling himself "Salutations" and he totally believed in protestantism and literal 6 day creation and all of it, another was called "Iron Maiden". The Iron Maiden guy would just insult me and verbally abuse me, said Big Bang was shit, evolution was shit, worse than you guys here have by far. I wanted to shut hm down, I dont even care if he's catholic or christian or whatever, he was a jerk.

I mean the facts in the article doesn't exactly go at all well with the 6 days of creation story, so it seems like a funny thing for these "Christians" to bring up, doesn't it?

Its sort of like Christians telling us that Evolution is debunked just because biologists argue about whether evolution is punctuated or gradual. It doesn't mean a thing.

How it was explained to me, was that every scientific theory eventually gets disproven , and then replaced with a new theory, that then gets disproven , and on and on forever. Every theory eventually gets proven wrong.

I feel like I lost some arguments to christians, and yet I feel like they were still wrong even though I couldn't defeat them.

[Choobus]

Not wrong you simple fool, just incomplete. No theory is ever complete. Was Newton wrong? No he fucking wasn't, he just didn't take into account what happens when you go really fast. If I say that you are a wanker, and it turns out that you're a wanker and a troll does that mean I was wrong?

[power2012]

Lily wrote

6 days of creation is not only ridiculous but Genesis does not actually make such a claim. That is why the early theologians like Augustine and Jerome warned against taking everything in the OT literally. You might look at a thread called "is Genesis Scientific?" (or some such thing) for details. There have been a number of related discussions in the last couple of years.

Oh, this is very interesting! Could you please elaborate? If I could prove that the BIBLE DOESN'T EVEN MEAN A LITERAL 6 DAY CREATION, that would make so many people feel really stupid!

power2012 wrote

Oh, this is very interesting! Could you please elaborate? If I could prove that the BIBLE DOESN'T EVEN MEAN A LITERAL 6 DAY CREATION, that would make so many people feel really stupid!

That isn't quite the right attitude, nor is it the right way to go about it. You will not convince anyone who holds to a position by throwing facts in their faces. You are a virtual voice on the Internet. Why should they believe you? A change such as the one under discussion here comes through reflection on what credible writers and speakers say over time.

Having said that, see what you find of use here:
http://ravingatheists.com/forum/show...5&postcount=23

See also post 50. Most of the thread was quite interesting, apart from the usual hostile peanut gallery.

[power2012]

One time I got this guy who had professional training in textual criticism to actually come to a religious forum, he proved, through analysis of texts such as the Codex Sinaiticus, that the Bible originally never referred to Jesus as the "Son of God". Christians freaked out, pissed their pants, kicked, screamed and cried, but at the end of the day I could see they were made to be very uncomfortable and the facts did get into their head and had an effect on their thinking, as well it humbled them greatly.

So I think hard facts can convince religious people to re-evaluate their beliefs, or at the very least piss them right off and make them feel a bit smaller.

[Eva]

there's always a bunch of theists that are incredibly stupid, but they don't feel stupid because they are so stupid they are unaware of their stupidity.

i say it is one of our (unofficial) duties to point to them their stupidity...

[psychodiva]

Lily wrote

That isn't quite the right attitude, nor is it the right way to go about it. You will not convince anyone who holds to a position by throwing facts in their faces. You are a virtual voice on the Internet. Why should they believe you? A change such as the one under discussion here comes through reflection on what credible writers and speakers say over time.

.

Exhibit A

[Eva]

power2012 wrote

One time I got this guy who had professional training in textual criticism to actually come to a religious forum, he proved, through analysis of texts such as the Codex Sinaiticus, that the Bible originally never referred to Jesus as the "Son of God". Christians freaked out, pissed their pants, kicked, screamed and cried, but at the end of the day I could see they were made to be very uncomfortable and the facts did get into their head and had an effect on their thinking, as well it humbled them greatly.

So I think hard facts can convince religious people to re-evaluate their beliefs, or at the very least piss them right off and make them feel a bit smaller.

well, this is how it should be.
good job.

that is why we're now working on you. so, please understand.

power2012 wrote

One time I got this guy who had professional training in textual criticism to actually come to a religious forum, he proved, through analysis of texts such as the Codex Sinaiticus, that the Bible originally never referred to Jesus as the "Son of God". Christians freaked out, pissed their pants, kicked, screamed and cried, but at the end of the day I could see they were made to be very uncomfortable and the facts did get into their head and had an effect on their thinking, as well it humbled them greatly.

So I think hard facts can convince religious people to re-evaluate their beliefs, or at the very least piss them right off and make them feel a bit smaller.

Only if your facts are right.