论坛风格切换切换到宽版
  • 2458阅读
  • 343回复

[宇宙物理]宇宙大爆炸:最大的科学真理,还是最大的科学谎言? [复制链接]

楼层直达
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 20楼 发表于: 2015-08-23  粉丝: 4   好友:3
权威
现在一般认为,星系的中心都会有一个大质量黑洞,假如这个星系在运动,例如银河系就有一个每秒600公里的本动速度,它的中心黑洞也一定跟着以相同速度运动。但这点起码的常识却与广义相对论不相容,按照广义相对论,黑洞的中心是个本性奇点,不会跟着运动。广义相对论有问题,最好不要听宇宙灭亡论专家们的胡言乱语。在我们的理论中,就算是黑洞,不发生相互作用时,也是匀速运动的。爱因斯坦说:“我曾经嘲弄权威,命运却让我也变成了权威。” 俗话说:人一旦变成了神,悲剧也就开始了。
离线gqy_97517

发帖
1191
盟币
3476
威望
11
魅力值
34
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
材料
(毕业)院校
女子学院
只看该作者 21楼 发表于: 2015-08-24  粉丝: 6   好友:0
这才会激励不断去探索。
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 22楼 发表于: 2015-08-24  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(6) NO WAY TO CLUMP IT—On earth, gas never clumps into a solid. Out in space, where everything is a near-vacuum, it would be totally impossible—impossible in the extreme——for this to occur. Throughout the voids of space between the stars is to be found various gases, the primary one of which is hydrogen. These gaseous compounds never move away from an area of vacuum into an area of congestion or density. Never, never, never. It just does not happen. The hydrogen gas observed by astronomers through telescopes is gradually expanding. None of it is packing together. There are no exceptions! Slow expansion of gaseous matter in outer space is normal, and in accordance with physical laws.
"Scattered through the vast darkness between stars, the molecules of interstellar space range. . These molecules of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and scores of other compounds generally make up a tenuous soup—a trillion trillion times less dense than stars or planets." —*Allan Fallow, et. al.,Between the Stars (1990), p. 65.
Frankly, after examining item after item of scientific facts in this chapter, we will find the Big Bang theory to be only a connected series of tiny tot stories. Repeatedly, we will find that the theories run counter to the facts.
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 23楼 发表于: 2015-08-24  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(7) NO WAY TO PRODUCE STARS—That outrushing gas from the Big Bang that was not able to stop or clump, we are told then did so. And more, it began forming itself into the intricate patterns of planets, stars, and galaxies! This is an important point; in fact, it is a key one. The laws of physics provide no mechanism by which outwardly exploding gas could clump together into stars This is a crucial point.
"Probably the strongest argument against a big bang is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.), the theory is able to explain so little." —*G. Burbridge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" in Nature, 233:36-40.
Gas floating in the vacuum of outer space cannot form itself into stars. Once a star is formed, it can hold itself together by gravity, but there is no way that gas in outer space can get the operation started.(All gas clouds in outer space are more rarified than that found in the most rarified vacuum-bottle pressures that man is able to produce on earth.) Yes, once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. It will remain just loose, floating gas.
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 24楼 发表于: 2015-08-24  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(8) NO WAY TO PRODUCE COMPLEX ATOMS—*George Gamow and his associates decided that, after the initial explosion, outflowing emptiness first changed itself into hydrogen and helium atoms, with their nuclei, protons, electrons, and all the rest. These two elements are very complex in their structure, even though they have less atomic units in them than do the other elements. (There are 81 stable chemical elements; 90 natural elements; 105 total elements discovered to date; of carbon compounds alone there are thousands.) How can such nuclear complexity emerge from nothing? It cannot be done, yet *Gamow theorized that all the hydrogen and helium in the universe magically brought itself into existence.
(It should be mentioned that only in the intense heat of a nuclear explosion can hydrogen even change into helium.)
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 25楼 发表于: 2015-08-24  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(9) NO WAY TO GO PAST THE HELIUM MASS 4 GAP—In a thermonuclear explosion, hydrogen may be changed into helium, but it is much, much more difficult (some consider it impossible) for hydrogen to go past the "helium mass 4 gap" and produce the heavier atoms in an explosion.
The Big Bang theory requires an atom-building process after the initial explosion. This initial atom-building process is based on successive neutron-capture reactions to achieve elements of increasing atomic weights in a stepwise manner, starting with, according to one Big Bang theory, a 100 percent neutron content of the primordial ylem. According to the theory, at the end of the first 30 minutes slightly more than half of the ylem has been converted into hydrogen, with slightly less than half into helium. But it is quite another thing to go past helium! Physicists know well that, among nuclides that can actually be formed, a gap exists at mass 5 and 8. The first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium.
It is true that some scientists believe that a hydrogen bomb explosion can produce elements beyond helium, but there is also evidence (which we will discuss later in this chapter) which would indicate that this is not so.
"In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8 . . This basic objection to Gamow's theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea. —.*William A. Fowler, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90 [California Institute of Technology].
For additional information, see the quotation supplement, "3 - The Mysterious Elements," at the end of this chapter.
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 26楼 发表于: 2015-08-24  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(10) NO WAY TO COMPRESS LOOSE GAS—Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together. Both hydrogen and helium are very much like fog. Have you ever seen fog push together into balls? It never does. Stars do indeed have helium and hydrogen—and once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well. But getting it together In the first place is the problem.
"There is no accepted theory as to how the hot gas clouds of hydrogen and helium arising out of the big bang condensed into galaxies, stars and planets. It would seem that the possibility of such a condensation is similar to the probability for all of the air in a room to collect in one corner—just by random motion of the molecules." —H. M. Morris, W, W, Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.
All the gas in those marvelous gas clouds of the cosmologists begins like all the gas clouds now in outer space: with a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum bottle in any laboratory in the world! If men cannot push cold hydrogen into a solid on earth where we have lots of barometric pressure from the atmosphere to help us—how do they expect hydrogen to have done it by itself in the near-total vacuum of outer space?
Gas will not naturally compress itself under conditions existing on earth or in outer space. Have you ever seen fog push itself together into solids? This is an important point which we will return to. All hydrogen gas in outer space now is slowly expanding outward; it is never contracting inward.
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 27楼 发表于: 2015-08-24  粉丝: 4   好友:3
(11) NOT ENOUGH TIME
11) NOT ENOUGH TIME—Astronomers tell us that the diameter of the universe is over 20 billion light years. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 20 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. Evolutionary theorists only allow about 21/2 billion years from the time of the Big Bang till hydrogen and helium had spread throughout the universe, and another 21/2 billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the fairly recent discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss in greater detail later in this chapter).
Scientists now say that the distance from our world to the farthest-known quasars (those with a red-shift of 400 percent) are at least 15 billion light-years! That would make them at least 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory.
We have no evidence that hydrogen or helium anywhere in the universe travels at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second). But even if it could, it would take 15 or 20 billion years for hydrogen and helium to reach the farthest part of the universe—or over a trillion years if it went at the speed that hydrogen gas is currently traveling outward from super-novas.
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 28楼 发表于: 2015-08-24  粉丝: 4   好友:3
(11) NOT ENOUGH TIME
After reaching the edge of the universe (if there is an edge), it would then take a long, long time for the thinly spread-out hydrogen and helium fog to devise a way to lock together (if the gas had the brains to figure out such a pressing problem).
So there is just not enough time in the evolutionary timetable from the Big Bang till the universe was filled with stars. The Big Bang theorists are divided on when it occurred; some say 20 billion years ago, others 10 billion. We will here assume the longest timeframe: 20 billion years. But quasars have now been found which, by Big Bang-accommodating theories, are "15 billion years old." This does not provide enough time for the gas to spread outward throughout the universe, form itself into stars, then wait while billions of supernovas repeatedly explode (to produce heavy elements [if they could do so]), reform into stars, explode more times, and finally form into our present orbiting stars, galaxies, clusters, and superclusters.
Before concluding this section, we will try to tack down the Big Bang dates. Generally, the Big Bang itself is supposed to have exploded 10 to 20 billion years ago, with the first formation of stars occurring 250 million years after the explosion. At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into "first generation " stars, most of them exploded, and then, 250 million years later, reformed into "second generation" stars. Our sun is thought to be at least a second generation star, having previously exploded at least once, and perhaps twice. Apparently, no one ever dates the Big Bang earlier than 20 billion years ago. Here are several representative statements:
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 29楼 发表于: 2015-08-24  粉丝: 4   好友:3
(11) NOT ENOUGH TIME
"Big Bang: According to a widely accepted theory, the primeval moment, 15 to 20 billion years ago, when the universe began expanding from a single point." —*Kirk D. Borne, et. al, Galaxies (1988), p. 134.
"Until 250 million years after the Big Bang, Gamow maintained, matter took the form of a thin gas, evenly spread throughout space . . Each cloud began to condense and break up into myriad stars ." —op. cit., pp. 113-114.
"What is the universe like? If it had a beginning, how did it begin? How did it evolve to make galaxies, stars, planets, and ultimately human beings? These are the sorts of questions astronomers are trying to answer as they aim their large telescopes toward the depths of outer space.
"In this century, they've developed a picture of the universe as having an explosive beginning, which they call the Big Bang. According to Big Bang cosmology our universe began around 10 billion years ago. Then came a time when the galaxies were made as matter collected into islands in space in which stars were born." —*Star Date (radio broadcast), October 2, 1990.
"When did the big bang take place?. . A figure that is generally accepted as at least approximately correct is 15 billion years. If an eon is 1 billion years, then the big bang took place 15 eons ago, although it might just possibly have taken place as recently as 10 eons ago or as long as 20 eons ago. "—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 44.
离线gaobo118560

发帖
37
盟币
3
威望
2
魅力值
1
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
只看该作者 30楼 发表于: 2015-08-24  粉丝: 2   好友:0
还需要实践检验!
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 31楼 发表于: 2015-08-25  粉丝: 4   好友:3
类星体
类星体的红移量之大,使天文学家非常吃惊。 类星体是人类迄今为止观测到的最遥远的天体,大都距地球一百亿光年以上。二十世纪八十年代初期,澳大利亚的天文学家观测到的一个类星体距离地球竟达二百亿光年,也就是说,我们现在观测到的形成这个类星体图像的光是在二百亿年以前发出的!这一下子把人类对宇宙认识范围扩大到二百亿光年之遥。如果真是这样,那么它们自身的能量比一般星系能量还大上千倍。
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 32楼 发表于: 2015-08-25  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(12) NO WAY TO PRODUCE ENOUGH OF THE HEAVIER ELEMENTS—We now know of 81 stable elements, 90 natural elements, and 105 total elements. It requires a sizable number of books to explain all that we have learned about their unusual properties and intricate orbits. Where did all those elements originate? It is theorized that explosions of large stars (super-novas) produced them. But, although it is thought that a small amount of heavier elements are made by high-thermal explosions within stars, yet (1) there is great uncertainty whether, aside from hydrogen and helium, such explosions could produce many light elements, much less those of the post-helium ("heavy") elements, and (2) there is no evidence that such explosions could produce enough of the heavier elements to provide for all the post-helium elements in the universe, much less in our own planets. The Big Bang theory simply does not account for the abundance and variety of heavier elements.
Normally, because of the helium mass 4 gap, explosions of hydrogen can only produce helium. At first, Big Bang theorists maintained that that initial explosion produced all 90 elements. But later, recognizing the helium mass 4 gap, they admitted that even if the Big Bang explosion could make "something out of nothing," that primeval explosion (the Big Bang itself) —and even explosions of small stars (novas) —could only produce hydrogen and helium. For this reason, they looked to explosions of very large stars—super-nova explosions—to change hydrogen into the heavier elements.
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 33楼 发表于: 2015-08-25  粉丝: 4   好友:3
12) NO WAY TO PRODUCE ENOUGH OF THE HEAVIER ELEMEN
But then came more obstacles. Although it is thought that the intense heat inside a large star is such that a few heavier elements might actually be produced, this would not solve the theoretical problem for two reasons: (1) Only a super-nova explosion is thought powerful enough to produce the heavy elements, and there have been relatively few super-nova explosions. More on this later in this chapter. That is problem enough, but (2) even those scientists that believe that super-nova explosions could produce heavy elements admit that only a small amount of such elements could possibly be produced by an exploding super-nova, and that would not be sufficient to produce enough heavy elements. The quantity of post-helium elements in the universe is too great for them to have come from super-nova explosions.
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 34楼 发表于: 2015-08-25  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
13) ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF PLANETS AND MOONS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT FOUND IN STARS—Here on earth we find large quantities of the heavier elements. We have 90 natural elements; where did they come from? Each nuclear test explosion is thought to produce an extremely small amount of certain elements, but not enough quantity or variety is produced.
The lighter elements tend to be found in larger quantities in the stars (although heavier elements have been identified in them as well as in interstellar gas). Science cannot explain why our earth is composed of such heavy elements. If stars produced our world, why does our planet have such different elements than the stars have?
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 35楼 发表于: 2015-08-25  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
A leading astronomer, Fred Hoyle explains that the problem is a major one that has evolutionists baffled:
"Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they [the heavier elements] amount to only about 1 percent of the total mass. . The contrast [of the sun's light elements with the heavy ones found on earth] brings out two important points.
"First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. Its composition would be hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this contrast is that it is the sun that is normal and the earth that is the freak. The interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of material like the sun, not like the earth. You must understand that, cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You yourself are a rarity. You are a cosmic collector's piece." —*Fred C. Hoyle, Harper's Magazine, April 1951, p. 64.
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 36楼 发表于: 2015-08-25  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(14) RANDOM EXPLOSIONS DO NOT PRODUCE INTRICATE ORBITS—Extremely complicated factors are involved just in maintaining the proper rotations and revolutions of galaxies, stars, and planets. How could haphazard explosions result In the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars, and galactic systems!
And, within each galaxy, millions to billions of stars are involved in those interrelated orbits!
"Galaxy: a system of stars, gas, and dust that contains from millions to hundreds of billions of. stars." —*Kirk Borne, et. al., Galaxies (1988), p. 135.
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 37楼 发表于: 2015-08-25  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
The complex obedience to natural law that we find everywhere in the universe is astounding. Were these careful balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers—or they would all fly apart!
The careful balancing of gravity vs. centrifugal force that we now see throughout the universe in the orbits of the spheres is a continual marvel. All the stars and galaxies should separate or crash. But instead, they just keep going around in circles. —And we are to believe that all this started because something—pardon me—nothing— exploded?
Random explosions never produce orbits! Shall I say that again? Random explosions never produce orbits. No type of explosion can produce the intricate, carefully balanced orbits of the stars, planets, and moons. The universe is filled with orbiting bodies. All available evidence indicates that every outer-space object in the universe orbits something else! Evolutionary theory cannot explain those orbiting bodies.
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 38楼 发表于: 2015-08-25  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(15) WHY DID THE EXPLOSIONS STOP— When a star explodes, it is called a nova. When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months, and is called a "supernova." The theory of the Big Bang includes the idea that billions of stars have exploded and most of them several times. But there is nothing in the theorized mechanism to start the process,—and there is nothing to stop it either.
According to the theory, it is the explosions of the very large stars that produced all the heavier elements. Such super-nova explosions are said to have occurred by the millions and billions for long ages of time. Why then did the explosions stop? They are said to have ceased exploding 5 billion years ago—and why? Frankly, for the convenience of the Big Bang theorists! As mentioned earlier, when the theory was first devised in the 1940s, the farthest star was said to be 5 billion light years distant, so it was decided that the super-novas stopped exploding 5 billion years ago! Is that scientific? Millions of stars were theoretically blowing their tops, but just before we could look out into space and see starlight from stars 5 billions light years away—the fireworks suddenly stopped.
在线henryharry2

发帖
2207
盟币
1546
威望
2
魅力值
6
版主工龄
0
宣传币
0
从事行业
物理
(毕业)院校
东南大学
只看该作者 39楼 发表于: 2015-08-25  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
If the theory be true, the explosions should be going on now. We should see over a thousand explosions nightly. (The theorists tell us our own sun has exploded and reformed three times!) Large numbers of gigantic super-nova explosions should be occurring right now on an immense scale, for there are multitudes of stars out there and super-nova explosions are obvious when they occur. Some become as bright as our own planets; some become brighter.
It is a cardinal requirement of evolutionary theory (uniformitarianism, it is called) that whatever happened earlier in time is happening today. That is a strict point of evolutionary theory, everything that happened earlier is happening today, and conversely, everything happening today is the way things happened earlier. According to evolutionary theory, the same quantity of explosions should be occurring now as before. Yet with the naked eye we never see such happenings, and through their telescopes few astronomers have ever seen a supernova that has even recently exploded.
"A supernova explodes in an average galaxy only once every 100 years or so." —*Reader's Digest Book of Facts (1987), p. 394.
At the present time, the farthest known objects are said to be—not 5 billion—but 15 billion light years distant, which would eliminate the time needed for all or most supernova explosions to produce elements. Research astronomers tell us that about one supernova explosion is seen every century, and only 14 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now.