Big bang theory

Ok. I'll make a half-hearted effort. Why half-hearted? Because I know its a waste of time. Pro asks for definitions in Round one. The first thing he may want to define is the Big Bang. The Big Bang Theory does not describe the creation of the Universe. In fact, the Theory does not describe, what banged, why it banged, what started the bang, what powered the bang, what stopped the bang, it doesn't even describe the universe immediately after the bang, in fact it requires all the known Laws of Physics to collapse and then be randomly turned off and on like a light switch, not only does it not provide " a good explanation for the galaxies and solar systems" it cannot describe 96% of the Universe at all. These cheats were simply added to theory over time to save the theory. Albert Einstein never accepted the theory, he simply tolerated it because he couldn't work out something better. In fact, the observational evidence is so strongly against the Big Bang Theory that it would not be taken seriously if it was invented today. Actually, defining the Big Bang Theory is impossible, since it consistently fails every test it is subjected to, the theory has to be rewritten about every two seconds. The Big Bang is in fact actually a term of derision. Given that it is the only Theory that most people alive today have been taught, it may come as a a great shock to realize how recently this theory was accepted by the establishment. This acceptance was based mostly on two factors. 1. The prediction of the abundance of light elements. (which has now been debunked) Replication of Big Bang reveals flaws in theory of atom formation Fusion experiments show that the Big Bang can't account for lithium. http://arstechnica.com... 2. The CMB, (which has now been proven by 3 different satellites to say the Earth is the Center of the Universe.) Which in my opinion, proves the CMB is NOT what scientists have been claiming and is not really anything important at all. Lawrence Krauss is a Prof. of Theoretical Physics at Arizona State and arguably the loudest spokesperson for Atheism on the planet. He states - That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun " the plane of the earth around the sun " the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. https://www.edge.org... Researchers at MIT were looking over data from NASA's WMAP satellite when it was noticed that there IS a special direction in space. Cosmologists have dubbed this the "Axis of Evil". You can read more about this here - Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? http://www-personal.umich.edu... Dragan Huterer is a theoretical cosmologist and a professor in the department of physics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. At first, scientists simply laughed this off as some kind of fluke or mistake, because it just couldn't be real. Even though the findings were confirmed by looking back at the earlier COBE satellite data , rather than admit what they had discovered, NASA tried to prove the WMAP satellite was broken. quote - So perplexing is the axis of evil that Hinshaw and WMAP's principal investigator, Chuck Bennett, have obtained a grant for a five-year examination of the WMAP data. They hope to explore the possibilities that the WMAP instrument was in error, or that something else went wrong. "There's no question there's stuff that looks unusual," says Bennett. We will have to wait and see whether the study reveals the axis of evil to be a cosmic mirage, or shows the big bang model to be in serious trouble. http://www.independent.co.uk... After about 10 years of failed attacks on the WMAP data, the scientists figured that the European Space Agency's PLANCK Satellite would finally discredit the data. Here's what they found - Finally, the strange anomaly WMAP first observed in 2001 at the largest scales is still there. Some people held out hope that the WMAP results were a fluke, an error arising from the observatory's basic construction. However, Planck is sufficiently different in design to make that hope futile. The effect is real. (Some sources made this sound like it's something new, but maybe that's because cosmologists tried not to call attention to it in the last decade.) https://galileospendulum.org... Matthew R. Francis is a physicist, and was director of the MD Anderson Planetarium from 2007-09. The Planck satellite's lead cosmologist took this approach - "Why characteristics of the CMB should relate to our solar system is not understood. ... I was explicitly told not to say anything about God in this talk " which I've just violated," Efstathiou said half-jokingly. http://www.nbcnews.com... George Efstathiou is a Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge and director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology . The approach our so-called "Scientists" have taken toward this data is to simply pretend it doesn't exist. Quoting from the above linked article- "but maybe that's because cosmologists tried not to call attention to it in the last decade." That sure is a funny way to conduct science...... Here are some other "definitions" we will need to discuss the "funny science" behind the Big Bang. Dark Matter - something cannot be found, no matter how hard we look for it, but must exist to save the Big Bang Theory. Dark Energy - something cannot be found, no matter how hard we look for it, but must exist to save the Big Bang Theory. Parallel Universes - something cannot be found no matter how hard we look for it, but must exist to save the Big Bang Theory. Alternate Dimensions - something cannot be found no matter how hard we look for it, but must exist to save the Big Bang Theory. Inflaton -something cannot be found no matter how hard we look for it, but must exist to save the Big Bang Theory. Cosmological Constant/Lamda - Something that must be set to 1 part in a Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion. And that's just getting started...