The Big Bang Theory Is True

The Secular big bang has many problems with it. Too many to list. Here's somePotentialOne huge problem with the big bang is that it has a possibility of being wrongIf it is possible the big bang is wrong, then the big bag is wrong. Since if the big bang is true, it can't possibly be wrong! So since its possible that the big bang is wrong, then the big bang is wrong.AntimatterAccording to the Big Bang cosmology most evolutionists assume that there should be an exact counterpart to matter known as antimatter right down to the same mass. Each particle of antimatter is an exact copy of of its identical matter particle except that each antimatter particle has the opposite charge.[1] These assumed predictions of the Big Bang have lost a lot of credibility because we have not found nearly the amount of antimatter in the universe that could be accepted under such a model [2][3]Inflation? Noflation!Many problems were supposedly solved by the inflationary theory. Such as the horizon and flatness problem. But inflation has the hidden assumption of aristotelian physics. Since it says the inflation was acted upon by a motion of triangulating particle mechanics. That must be a natural resting state. Also theres no plausible inflationary mechanism. The only way that this can happen is if a hypothetical particle called the "inflaton" by theorists exists. This particle must have the properties of certain particles observed in physics laboratories called "zero spin". However, unlike particles observed with this characteristic, the inflaton must have a property that has never been observed: it must experience a very peculiar potential energy character that slowly decays. Such a feature has never been observed in any laborites.Now lets look at the positive evidence. Unfortunately subati thinks he can wow the voter with perty pictures of the universe. Don't be amazed at the perty pictures! Listen to the facts!I. Homogeneity of the Universe On paced examination we realize his evidence is bullsh*t. The universe isn't really that homogeneous. In the year 2000, a survey of the red-shift found that it has an inhomogeneous distribution to a scale of at least 200 Mpc. This shows that there are no trends toward homogeneity even on scales up to 1000 Mpc. The Big Bang requires large-scale homogeneity. There is many new discoveries that are disproving time and time again the homogeneity.The largest large quasar group LQG ever has been discovered, stretching an enormous 4 billion light years from end to end. That is 40,000 times larger than our Milky Way galaxy which is only 100,000 light years across. This LQG contains 73 quasars!“The quasar group appears to violate a widely accepted assumption known as the cosmological principle, which holds that the universe is essentially homogeneous when viewed at a sufficiently large scale.” [4]On the CMBRWhile CMBR exists, it is not the only cosmology that cosmic microwave background (CMB) comes naturally out of, though others like the White Hole Cosmology were developed after the discovery of CMB. II. Galatic EvolutionIt is not really known how much of quasars' red shift is due to expansion. So little is known about them that it cannot be said for certain that any of their high red shifts are expansion related. If they are dense objects, their red shift would be caused by gravity rather than expansion. [5]Blue stars are seen to be poor in heavy elements. According to Russell Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology theory, water was expanding out of a white hole. The normal distribution of elements in a gravitational field would naturally result in outer galaxies being poor in heavy elements. III. Abundance of ElementsThe fact is that to get the observed abundance of these elements requires the proper adjustment of variables specific to each element. The universal abundances of most elements were predicted correctly by Hoyle in the context of the original Steady State cosmological model. This worked for all elements heavier than lithium. The Big Bang co-opted those results and concentrated on predicting the abundances of the light elements. Each such prediction requires at least one adjustable parameter unique to that element prediction. Often, it’s a question of figuring out why the element was either created or destroyed or both to some degree following the Big Bang. When you take away these degrees of freedom, no genuine prediction remains. The best the Big Bang can claim is consistency with observations using the various ad hoc models to explain the data for each light element [6]IV. Dark MatterPhysicists, in this respect, are like children who are afraid of the dark. They cannot explain the empty closets opposite their beds. The child reasons thus:Why is my closet so empty, so dark? Surely there should be something in my closet; closets are after all, according to my explanatory framework, made for things. Indeed I remember putting my toys away just yesterday. And besides, Stephen Hawking says there just must be stuff in my closet. But I can’t see it! Therefore: monsters.This is exactly how physicists think about Dark Matter. They see an empty darkness, they haven’t any notion of what is happening, and so they create invisible monsters as explanations.Here is how it works Dark matter is so halrious. It was actually created by novelists [7]. Belief in Dark Matter has roughly the same validity as a small child’s belief that there is a monster in his closet. He can’t see anything, his parents aren’t home, the closet is dark, and its properties don’t fit with his explanatory theory which has been accepted by his epistemic peers in the scientific community. Therefore there must be this ridiculous substance to explain his yucky feelings. Thinking I’m out on a limb on this one? Well, don’t take my word for it. According to smartest man in the world and noted scientist Noam Chomsky, Physics is in a situation in which something like 90% of the matter in the Universe is what is called dark matter — it’s called dark because they don’t know what it is, they can’t find it, but it has to be there or the physical laws don’t work. So people happily go on with the assumption that we’re somehow missing 90% of the matter in the Universe. [8] There you have it, from an official and mainstream scholar of the natural sciences. What more do you need? Astrophysicist Pavel Kroupa in a review article to be published in a major astrophysical journal [9] noted that dark matter as a new particle has been falsified by the observation that dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way are aligned in a plane and consistent with having no dark matter at all. The fact that dark matter particles do not exist (in spite of decades of searching, none have been discovered) and the fact that the Big Bang is dependent on the existence of such "dark matter particles" means that Dr. Kroupa has been able to convincingly falsify the Big Bang hypothesis. Kroupa's falsification of the Big Bang has been receiving growing attention from an astronomical community that is beginning to realize that there is no support for the fairy tales of an old, naturalistic universe [10].V. Hubble's LawHubble's law also works with white hole cosmology [1] http://www.answersingenesis.org... [2] Lamicella, Paul W. "Antimatter and the Big Bang." Answers in Genesis, March 2006. Accessed August 15, 2008.[3] http://creationwiki.org... [4] http://www.foxnews.com... [5] http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu... [6] www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.janushead.org... [9] http://web.archive.org...[10] http://web.archive.org...