As per so called modern scientists, the Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe. The key idea is that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago (billions of years taking cue from Srimad Bhagwad Gita – Before 19th century scientists used to rely on earth being thousands of years old, following biblical’s arc theory), which is thus considered the age of the universe based on citings from Vedas.
Thereafter scientists devised that after the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei formed within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, thousands of years passed before the first electrically neutral atoms formed. The majority of atoms produced by the Big Bang were hydrogen, along with helium and traces of lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.
We Are Taught Wrong Theories on Creation of Universe
Big Bang Theory is False and Full of Flaws
The Somehow Theory of Modern Science extended even to cosmology which Scientists should be ashamed of before claiming to be experts of Science and Cosmology
The recent scientific theory of creation is that there was a big bang, which created the material elements (earth, water, gases, chemicals etc..). These material elements then somehow combined together and created the various planets somehow and one species of living beings somehow. These living beings then somehow changed their bodies and became another species, and so on. In this way the millions of species of living beings we know of were created – SOMEHOW ?!. These unproven theories are backed by another theory termed as evolution, thus one body changes into another and so on.
The scientific theory of creation leaves many unanswered questions.
- What or who caused the big bang?
- How earth, water, gases, chemicals were created, when there was nothing to create them?
- If a big bang created all the Universes and millions of Planets. Then according to this scientific logic, it should be possible to create a small planet or something with a small bang. Can any scientist create anything with a bang?
- Some chemicals mixed together created the first living being. The scientists have all the chemicals in the world; can they mix them and create a living being?
- What gave life to those living beings, how they came to know their natural simulation?
- All the millions of planets are shaped like a sphere, is this by chance?
- The sun has been giving exact amount of sunlight to the various planets including Earth for millions of years. Is this by chance? Too much sun or too little can destroy all life on Earth. Even +/-10 percent rise/drop of sudden change in temperature cause huge climatic change in Earth. How is this managed so precisely by whom?
- If Evolution theory is correct – then why not even single intermediate staged fossil of at least one of the species were found by these Scientists or Physicists – that could have shown that evolution lead to species changing shapes.
It is already shown in previous posts that Evolution is/was a convenient way for the Scientists to shy away from logical explanation of emergence of such vast variety of animals, plants and aquatic lives.
Click on the Big Bang image below for enlarged view
Top Big Bang rebuttals highlighted by Michael Turner
(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.
Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained, Occam’s razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters – the static universe model.
(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K ), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum.
Such a fog also explains the otherwise troublesome ratio of infrared to radio intensities of radio galaxies. The amount of radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths, as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies absorption. Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more easily absorbed by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly uniform while doing so. It must instead result from the radiation of microwaves from the intergalactic medium. This argument alone implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us from a distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang theory cannot be correct.
None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big Bang were close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow’s upward-revised estimate of 50°K made in 1961, just two years before the actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction, the Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball” becomes indistinguishable from the natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space. But none of the predictions, which ranged between 5°K and 50°K, matched observations. And the Big Bang offers no explanation for the kind of intensity variations with wavelength seen in radio galaxies.
(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
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. Examples: for helium-3; for lithium-7; for deuterium; for beryllium; and for overviews.
(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
The average speed of galaxies through space is a well-measured quantity. At those speeds, galaxies would require roughly the age of the universe to assemble into the largest structures (superclusters and walls) we see in space, and to clear all the voids between galaxy walls. But this assumes that the initial directions of motion are special, e.g., directed away from the centers of voids. To get around this problem, one must propose that galaxy speeds were initially much higher and have slowed due to some sort of “viscosity” of space. To form these structures by building up the needed motions through gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of 100 billion years.
(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
According to the Big Bang theory, a quasar at a redshift of 1 is roughly ten times as far away as one at a redshift of 0.1. (The redshift-distance relation is not quite linear, but this is a fair approximation.) If the two quasars were intrinsically similar, the high redshift one would be about 100 times fainter because of the inverse square law. But it is, on average, of comparable apparent brightness. This must be explained as quasars “evolving” their intrinsic properties so that they get smaller and fainter as the universe evolves. That way, the quasar at redshift 1 can be intrinsically 100 times brighter than the one at 0.1, explaining why they appear (on average) to be comparably bright. It isn’t as if the Big Bang has a reason why quasars should evolve in just this magical way. But that is required to explain the observations using the Big Bang interpretation of the redshift of quasars as a measure of cosmological distance.
By contrast, the relation between apparent magnitude and distance for quasars is a simple, inverse-square law in alternative cosmologies. Arp shows great quantities of evidence that large quasar redshifts are a combination of a cosmological factor and an intrinsic factor, with the latter dominant in most cases. Most large quasar redshifts (e.g., z > 1) therefore have little correlation with distance. A grouping of 11 quasars close to NGC 1068, having nominal ejection patterns correlated with galaxy rotation, provides further strong evidence that quasar redshifts are intrinsic.
(6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
Even though the data have been stretched in the direction toward resolving this since the “top ten” list first appeared, the error bars on the Hubble age of the universe (12±2 Gyr) still do not quite overlap the error bars on the oldest globular clusters (16±2 Gyr). Astronomers have studied this for the past decade, but resist the “observational error” explanation because that would almost certainly push the Hubble age older (as Sandage has been arguing for years), which creates several new problems for the Big Bang. In other words, the cure is worse than the illness for the theory. In fact, a new, relatively bias-free observational technique has gone the opposite way, lowering the Hubble age estimate to 10 Gyr, making the discrepancy worse again.
(7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
In the early 1990s, we learned that the average redshift for galaxies of a given brightness differs on opposite sides of the sky. The Big Bang interprets this as the existence of a puzzling group flow of galaxies relative to the microwave radiation on scales of at least 130 Mpc. Earlier, the existence of this flow led to the hypothesis of a “Great Attractor” pulling all these galaxies in its direction. But in newer studies, no backside infall was found on the other side of the hypothetical feature. Instead, there is streaming on both sides of us out to 60-70 Mpc in a consistent direction relative to the microwave “background”. The only Big Bang alternative to the apparent result of large-scale streaming of galaxies is that the microwave radiation is in motion relative to us. Either way, this result is trouble for the Big Bang.
(8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and the universe with ever-increasing amounts of this invisible, not-yet-detected “dark matter” to keep the theory viable. Overall, over 90% of the universe must be made of something we have never detected. By contrast, Milgrom’s model (the alternative to “dark matter”) provides a one-parameter explanation that works at all scales and requires no “dark matter” to exist at any scale. (I exclude the additional 50%-100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by, e.g., MACHO studies.) Some physicists don’t like modifying the law of gravity in this way, but a finite range for natural forces is a logical necessity (not just theory) spoken of since the 17th century.
Milgrom’s model requires nothing more than that. Milgrom’s is an operational model rather than one based on fundamentals. But it is consistent with more complete models invoking a finite range for gravity. So Milgrom’s model provides a basis to eliminate the need for “dark matter” in the universe at any scale. This represents one more Big Bang “fudge factor” no longer needed.
(9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.
The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be “primitive”, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the “earliest” quasars and galaxies. Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be the “dark age” of evolution of the universe, when the light of the few primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds.
(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
Inflation failed to achieve its goal when many observations went against it. To maintain consistency and salvage inflation, the Big Bang has now introduced two new adjustable parameters: (1) the cosmological constant, which has a major fine-tuning problem of its own because theory suggests it ought to be of order 10120, and observations suggest a value less than 1; and (2) “quintessence” or “dark energy”. This latter theoretical substance solves the fine-tuning problem by introducing invisible, undetectable energy sprinkled at will as needed throughout the universe to keep consistency between theory and observations. It can therefore be accurately described as “the ultimate fudge factor”.
Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could easily defend such a position. This is a fundamentally different matter than proving the Big Bang did not happen, which would be proving a negative – something that is normally impossible. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory.
The entire rebuttal section of Mr Turner is filled with contradictions
If you suggest controlling the parameters of Universe and then further adjusting it even by other means of formation of new and old galaxies – then one basic principle of driving force he is missing…who is controller and who is adjuster ? How can it be logical to suggest theories for infinite occurrences with finite mediums and sources ? When there are billions of creations/annihilations of stars, galaxies, universes happening at a time then how can one-logic-fits-for-all work here – when there are endless different and unique compositions of elements, chemicals resulting in each of the phenomena?
The further rebuttals on logics explained by Mr Turner are basics of Science, some of them, we see everyday in our lives and experiments.
Srimad Bhagvatam is one of the greatest Puran which cover creation of Universes, planets, living beings and dwell into even their destructions.
There are billions of Universes, galaxies with trillions of planets – each occurring under unique set of circumstances. A common man with limited set of materialistic features can only subscribe to theories of dark energy and evolution – as it is impossible to reveal such distant secrets of cosmos with limited mental ability, devoid of consciousness.
Now when the above material science fails, Science of Consciousness takes over.
Lord Krishn in Srimad Bhagvatam clearly states that the knowledge which is relevant to earthly people will be revealed to them – so that they move to higher planets with their good Karmas. On the same lines, the Supreme Godhead suggest not to use your mind while researching for things which are beyond human beings. Submit your mind to Lord Krishn and then began your expedition.
While Vishnu is asleep, a lotus sprouts of his navel (note that navel is the root of creation!). Inside this lotus, Brahma resides. Brahma represents the universe which we all live in, and it is this Brahma who creates life forms.
Brahma being controller, represents our universe which has birth and death, (a big bang and) a big crunch from a navel singularity. Vishnu being protector, represents the eternity that lies beyond our universe which has no birth or death and that which is eternal! Many such universes like ours exist in Vishnu.
Vedas say that thousands of brahmas have passed away! In other words,this is not the first time universe has been created.
This cosmic creation is 155 trillion years old – 1000’s of Brahmas means – 1000’s X 2 X 155 trillion years of creations have passed
“The Hindu dharm (Sanatan dharm) is the only faith in the world dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only dharm in which the time scales goes beyond those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang or creation. And there are much longer time scales still.” A Modern Physicist
But still to revoke some of the basic apprehensions, Lord Krishn gave great insights through Sukhdev Ji in Srimad Bhagvatam.
- The total lifespan of the Universe is 311 trillion and 40 Billion years.This Universe is 155.522 trillion years old and it will end in 155.518 trillion years time. This calculation is based on the life of Brahma.
- There are millions of Universes with millions of Planets, with living beings. This Planet Earth is simply a drop in the ocean of Planets.
- All Universes have life, are closed, of different size and properties.
- The whole material creation with Millions of Universes constitutes just a quarter of creation. The other three quarters of creation is Spiritual, called Vaikuntha.
- During the lifetime of each Universe, there are partial creations and annihilations. At the beginning of each day of Brahma there is creation and at the end of each day there is partial annihilation. One day of Brahma is 4.32 Billion years; the night is also of the same duration. We are currently half way through the current day of Brahma, thus we have existed for approximately 2.16 Billions years in the current small cycle.
Not all these species are present on this planet. There are 4 ages or Yugas in which we keep circulating one after another.
Satya Yuga: The age of the truth and true religion. Everyone in the world is truthful and follower of the only religion in the world, the Vedic religion. The yuga (age) lasts 1.728 million years and the lifespan of humans is up to 100,000 years.
Treta Yuga: The introduction of ignorance takes place in this age. The Vedic religion is the only one in the world. The yuga (age) lasts 1.296 million years and the lifespan of humans is up to 10,000 years.
Dvapara Yuga: Increased decline in the truth and religious values takes effect in this age. The Vedic religion is the only one in the world. The yuga lasts 864,000 years and the lifespan of humans is 1,000 years.
Kali Yuga: The age of irreligion and ignorance. Lifespan of 100 years, later at the end of Kaliyuga only 12 years. There is complete decline in religious principles. In the first few thousand years there are many religions, which will gradually completely disappear from the face of the Earth one by one. Only the Vedic religion will survive, but there will be very few followers. By 15,000 years into Kali Yuga, 99.9% of the humans in the world will become atheistic. Things will get so bad in Kali Yuga such that parents will eat their own children. There would be no family tradition – the piouness among parents to children would diminish and they would soon behave like animals. Corruption, loot, deceit, hatred, animosity would be some of the traits of respectable human beings. We are currently 5000 years into Kali Yuga.
The knowledge of Science of Consciousness from Lord Krishn has 1000’s of factual evidences found today in the museums world over in the form of bones, skulls, artifacts, tools used by humans spanning into millions of years, further proving that civilized humans did existed for millions of years.
Till 18th century no Scientist talked with conviction about World being round, billions of years old – leave alone talking about Universes, they didn’t had completely translated Vedas at that time to suggest existence of Universes with scientific proofs.
But later after lifting Vedic theories and Srimad Bhagvatam concepts they changed their stance. So indeed, Human race being millions or even billions of years old as informed to all of us in Srimad Bhagvatam, is true.
What Does the Vedic Scriptures State about the Age of this Universe and Humans.
This Universe has existed for 155.522 trillion years and this is just in the current cycle of creation and annihilation. Before this cycle there were countless other cycles and after this cycle which will end in 155.518 trillion years time. There will be countless other cycles. The cycle of creation and annihilation is based on the life of Brahma, the engineer of the Universe. At the beginning of each day of Brahma, he creates everything in this Universe and then at the end of each day, there is partial annihilation Each day (12 hours) of Brahma is 4.32 billion years. Brahma lives for 311 trillion and 40 billion years, after this time there is complete annihilation of this Universe and the current Brahma dies. Then there is another Brahma and cycle repeats itself. This Universe is the smallest in Gods creation. There are other Universes, which are thousands and even millions of times bigger than this Universe.
Within each day of Brahma, there are 14 Manus. We descend from the 7th Manu. Manu is the first man created by Brahma, and his wife, the first woman is called Satarupa.
There is a vast difference between the teachings of the Vedic scriptures and non-Vedic scriptures. The Vedic scriptures are eternal and the Vedic knowledge comes from God himself. The fact that the Vedic scriptures are the oldest on the Planet proves that it’s the absolute truth. And time and again theories of modern scientists fall flat in front of great teachings of Vedas and Lord Krishn.
No comments:
Post a Comment