论坛风格切换切换到宽版
  • 2448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
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 40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
(16) TOO FEW SUPERNOVAS AND TOO LITTLE MATTER FROM THEM— As mentioned earlier, in addition to occurring very infrequently, supernovas do not throw off enough matter, to make additional stars, and the smaller stellar explosions (novas) cast off an extremely small amount of matter. Yet, according to the Big Bang theory, the only source for all the heavy elements in the universe had to be super-nova explosions.
A small star explosion, or nova, only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter; a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent, yet even that amount is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets, interstellar gas, and stars.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 41楼 发表于: 2015-08-26  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
"In a typical novas explosion, the star loses only about a hundred-thousandth part of its matter. The matter it throws off is a shell of glowing gases that expands outward into space . .
"A supernova throws off as much as 10 percent of its matter when it explodes. Supernovae and novae differ so much in the percentage of matter thrown off that scientists believe the two probably develop differently. A supernova may increase in brightness as much as a billion times in a few days. Astronomers believe that about 14 supernova explosions have taken place in the Milky Way during the past 2,000 years. The Crab Nebula, a huge cloud of dust and gas in the Milky Way, is the remains of a supernova seen in A.D. 1054. Super-novae are also rare in other galaxies." —*World Book Encyclopedia (1971), p. N-431.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 42楼 发表于: 2015-08-26  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
Early in the morning of February 24, 1987, such an explosion was observed simultaneously by three astronomers, working in Chile, New Zealand, and Australia. It occurred in the Veil Nebula within the Large Magellanic Cloud. This was the first bright, close supernova seen since A.D. 1604, when the German astronomer Johannes Kepler spied one in the constellation Ophiuchus! So few super-novas have occurred, that we know the dates of many of them. The Chinese observed one in A.D. 185, and another in 1006 which was 200 times as bright as Venus and one tenth as bright as the moon! In 1054 a phenomenally bright one appeared in the constellation Taurus. It produced what we today call the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks. Both the Chinese and Japanese recorded its position accurately. In 1572, another extremely bright one occurred in Cassiopeia. Tycho Brahe, in Europe, wrote a book about it. The next bright one was seen in 1604, and Johannes Kepler wrote a book about that one. The next bright one occurred in 1918 in Aquila, and was nearly as bright as Sirius—the brightest star next to our sun. Some have been found in other galaxies, but they are equally rare events. (A bright one occurred in the Andromeda galaxy in 1918.)
So supernovas—Gamow's fuel source for nearly all the elements in the universe—occur far too infrequently to produce the heavier elements of the universe.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 43楼 发表于: 2015-08-26  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(17) "TOO PERFECT" AN EXPLOSION—On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into our present world cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting, "too perfect," according to knowledgeable scientists. Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.
The theorists have tried to figure out some possible way in which a primeval explosion could have accomplished everything they need it to accomplish. Most aspects of their theory are impossible, and some require parameters which would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits:
"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 109 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been .1 percent less and the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-s of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-t 2 gm/crn3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars." —*R.H. Dicke, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 44楼 发表于: 2015-08-26  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(18) NOT A UNIVERSE BUT A HOLE—*Roger L. St. Peter in 1974, developed a complicated mathematical equation which revealed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium (which supposedly later formed itself into stars and galaxies). In reality, according to St. Peter, such an explosion would have fallen back upon itself and formed a theoretical black hole. This would mean that one imaginary object would have been swallowed by another one.
"The alleged big bang would never have led to an expanding universe at all; rather it would all have collapsed into a black hole." —Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 198 [referring to *St. Peter's calculation].
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 45楼 发表于: 2015-08-26  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(19) NON-REVERSING, NON-CIRCLING— The outward-flowing gas from the initial explosion would just keep moving outward forever through frictionless, gravitationless space. But, in order to produce the stars and galaxies which today exist, that gas would have had to pause, change directions, circle, clump, and do a number of other exotic things. It would have had to change direction of travel several times.
A vacuum is not subject to gravity, but this vacuum was different: it supposedly was drawn inward to a common center, then changed into outward, moving gas, which then veered away from straight-line motion—into circles! Then the gas made itself into all the stars of the heavens!
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 46楼 发表于: 2015-08-26  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
Imagine firing a shotgun with billions and billions of pellets out into frictionless space, Out it goes, then it stops, while some of the pellets travel backwards into the area they came from, and congregate into groups and then, of all things, begin circling one another! And these circling groups then begin revolving around still other distant groups, and continue doing so forever. Would shotgun pellets fired in outer space do that? Why then should we expect that floating gas would do it?
From the above illustration, it is obvious that an explosion in outer space would produce neither stars, galaxies, planets, nor complicated orbiting systems. Following an initial explosion, all the material having shot outward, would just keep moving outward forever. In space, there would be no friction to stop it.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 47楼 发表于: 2015-08-26  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(20) MISSING MASS— Mathematical astronomers tell us there is not enough mass in the universe to meet the demands of the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory.
The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This "missing mass" problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts, but also to the "expanding universe" theorists. Observations of stars, clusters, and galaxies indicates there is only about one-third of the mass required to close the universe (that is, eventually halt its theoretical expansion). (More on the "expanding universe" theory, another corollary needed by the Big Bang enthusiasts, in the next chapter.)
" 'Most attempts to fit a cosmological model to observations have in fact implied that the total mean density of matter in the universe is much greater (maybe 100 times) than the mean density of luminous matter.' McCrae says that whether or not the universe contains this 'missing mass' is 'perhaps the most important unsolved problem of all present day astronomy.' "—*W H. McCrea, quoted in H. R. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 48楼 发表于: 2015-08-26  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
"Creationists (for example Slusher) have shown that there is insufficient mass for galaxies to hold gravitationally together over billions of years. Evolutionary astronomers have sought to explain away this difficulty by postulating some hidden sources of mass, but such rationalizations are failures. Rizzo wrote:
" 'Another mystery concerns the problem of the invisible missing mass in clusters in galaxies. The author evaluates explanations based on black holes, neutrinos, and inaccurate measurements and concludes that this remains one of the most intriguing mysteries in astronomy.' [*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries of the Universe, " in Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150.]
"The obvious solution is that there really is no hidden mass, galaxies cannot hold together for billions of years, and galaxies have not been in existence long enough to fly apart." —Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1984, p. 125.
*Hoyle says that, without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.
"Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology." —*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 49楼 发表于: 2015-08-27  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(21) ONLY HYDROGEN AND HELIUM FOUND IN SUPER-NOVA EXPLOSIONS—According to the Big Bang theory, chemical elements heavier than lithium that are present outside stars (in planets, comets, meteorites, dust, or gas) and/at the surface of stars—should have been set free by supernova explosions.
Since Big Bang theorists depend on supernovas to produce the majority of the elements, it should be rather easy to turn a spectroscope toward an exploded supernova and see all those elements in the outflowing gas from the former star.
*K. Davidson did just that. A 1982 report told of his analysis of the Crab nebula. (The Crab nebula is the result of a super-nova explosion in the year A.D. 1054.) Its spectrum revealed that the outflowing gas from this earlier supernova showed no additional heavier elements of any kind, except, of course, helium. This is important and would indicate that a supernova explosion does not produce heavier elements. Such a fact points us toward the possibility that the hydrogen mass 4 gap is never bridged, no matter what the temperature of the explosion! This would mean that hydrogen never changes into heavier elements.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 50楼 发表于: 2015-08-27  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
In his report, *Davidson describes his search for such an enrichment of heavy elements in the best observable SRN ("supernova remnant") in the skies: the Crab nebula. He carefully analyzed the visible and ultraviolet bands of its spectrum, and found that the explosion had produced no extra oxygen at all, likewise no carbon, and no other elements except helium! (See *Nigel Henbest, "Crab Nebula's Halo Betrays Hidden Past, " in New Scientist, Vol. 93, 1982, p. 436.)
Physicists, of course, know why: The gap at mass 5 and 8 would prevent nuclides from forming new elements beyond helium. The only element which hydrogen normally can change into is helium—and nothing else! In addition, it is only within a star—with its high temperature—that hydrogen can change into helium. It could not have done it in an initial explosion of nothing. Why not? Because "nothing exploding" would generate no heat, much less hydrogen!
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 51楼 发表于: 2015-08-27  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(22) OLDER STARS DO NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL HEAVY ELEMENTS—The Big Bang theory also teaches that stars which have not exploded are also regularly producing heavy elements within them. In addition, the theorists have identified the stars which they believe to be "younger," middle-aged," and "older." If stars are regularly producing heavy elements, then we should be able to find more heavy elements in the older stars than in the younger ones. The older ones should have more heavy elements at their surface than the "younger" stars. But this theory is also contradicted by scientific evidence. Stars believed to be "young," such as the Bo star tau Scorpli, and stars thought to be very "old," such as the red giant epsilon Virginis, as well as stars in between—all show essentially the same chemical composition.
Spectroscopic analysis reveals that all stars—from "young" to "old"—have the same amount of heavier elements. All show essentially the same chemical composition. This fact negates the theory that stars are constantly changing hydrogen into heavier elements. The gap at mass 5 and 8 would prevent that from occurring.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 52楼 发表于: 2015-08-27  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(23) INTERSTELLAR GAS HAS A VARIETY OF ELEMENTS—According to the theory, gas floating in space outside of the island universes is leftover gas from the Big Bang, and therefore can only consist of hydrogen and helium. But *Rubins has shown that this is not true; extra-galactic gas has a variety of heavier elements in it.
"Astronomers were startled to learn that the hot intracluster gas [gas between the galaxies of a cluster of galaxies] identified by its X-ray emission, is not the pristine hydrogen and helium famed shortly after the Big Bang and left over after galaxy formation, but is rich in heavy elements such as iron." —*Vera Rubin, "Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos: The Past Decade, the Next Decade," in Science, Vol. 209, 1980, pp. 64-71.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 53楼 发表于: 2015-08-27  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(24) STARS AND GALAXIES EXIST—We have said that if the imaginary Big Bang had actually occurred, It could only have produced outward-moving gas. Not one star would ever form. So, the very existence of stars disproves that theorized original giant explosion!
A principle of physics is involved here: The evenness of the initial explosion would send out hydrogen through space with no matter, wind, or energy to conflict with it. The hydrogen fog would flow outward, never stopping, never clumping. It would continue moving on outward forever.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 54楼 发表于: 2015-08-27  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
"The so-called background radiation rapidly converted most doubters to belief in the Big Bang itself, but it did not square with at least one of the Big Bang's presumed consequences.
"Events in the earliest epoch after the momentous instant are assumed to have determined the distribution of matter throughout the expanding cosmos. To explain the large-scale structures seen in the universe today—most obviously, galaxies— Big Bang proponents suggest that within the first few minutes there were variations in the concentration of mass from region to region. Called density fluctuations, these variations would cause matter to clump together into ever greater concentrations.
"The problem was to reconcile the apparent evenness of the early expansion, as indicated by the steady background radiation, with the observed large-scale structures [stars, planets, etc.). A perfectly smooth cosmic explosion would have produced only an increasingly rarified [ever thinner] gas cloud." —*Peter Pocock and *Pat Daniels, Galaxies (1988), p. 117.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 55楼 发表于: 2015-08-27  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(25) ONLY INCREASINGLY RARIFIED CLOUD—All a Big Bang could produce would be an increasingly rarified (ever thinner and less dense) gas cloud. It would not become thicker, but ever thinner, with each atom moving farther and farther away from neighboring atoms.
There would be nothing in the total emptiness of space to cause the theorized "density fluctuations," that *Gamow and his associates would like to imagine as a possible solution to the problem. The above quotation is clear enough: all a "Big Bang" would produce would be "an increasingly rarified gas cloud." That means that, out in space, the gaseous particles would continually spread farther and farther apart from one another. That is all that would happen after a Big Bang. That is a scientific fact and cannot be controverted.
"With no friction in space to stop it, the exploding material from the bang would keep moving onward forever. Eventually most of the universe would again be empty—with the exploded matter off on the edges, still traveling outward. Never packing together, never slowing, it would speed on through frictionless space forever." —*Richard Johnson, No Way Out (1963), p. 432.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 56楼 发表于: 2015-08-27  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(26) THERE ARE STARS AND GALAXIES ALL THROUGH SPACE—Another interesting point is that, if the Big Bang really occurred and could actually produce stars and galaxies—those stellar objects would only be found along a narrow strip at the outer edges of the universe. This is due to the fact that matter exploding outward from the initial Big Bang would flow outward forever, with nothing to slow or stop it. If it were possible for the gas to produce any clumped objects, they with the remaining gas would just keep on journeying outward. There would be nothing—gas or stars—in the middle!
Most of space would be empty, with the exploded matter off on the edges in a gigantic wave, ever on the go. Never clumping, never slowing, ever moving outward, it would continue onward through frictionless space. In addition, along any given portion of the outer perimeter strip, that outward movement would be in only one direction.
But astronomical observations clearly reveal that the universe is everywhere filled with the bright forms of stellar objects. Nor are they moving in one direction only.
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 57楼 发表于: 2015-08-27  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(27) DISPROVED BY DISTANT UNIVERSE—According to the theory, the farther we look out into space, the farther back into past eons of time we are gazing into. This would mean that the more distant stars and galaxies would be much younger than those nearest us, but this does not square with the facts which we observe through optical, radio, and other radiation telescopes. The more distant stars are like those nearby.
Assuming that the speed of light is constant, in accordance with *Einstein's theory (although his theory is questioned by several reputable astronomers), as we look out into space we are looking far back in time—millions of years back.. If this be true, then in the far reaches of space we should see evidences of a very young universe, but instead we find that the most distant parts are like those nearest our own planet.
"The farther out into scattered space we look, the further back in time we should be seeing. And as we look farther back in time, we should (according to the current theory) see a more densely packed universe, as it was when much younger. In fact, we find just the opposite. This might be called the Big Bang Paradox, and it shows that the Big Bang Theory cannot be correct."—A. W. Mehlert, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1983, p. 23 [emphasis his].
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 58楼 发表于: 2015-08-27  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(28) UNEXPLAINED ANGULAR MOMENTUM—Origin of matter and origin of universe theories cannot explain angular momentum. To put it in simpler terms, why do the stars turn? why do the galaxies rotate? why do planets rotate about suns and stars about galactic centers? why do stars orbit in binaries and stellar clusters?
There is no doubt but that that circular action is vitally necessary for planetary, stellar, and galactic stability. It has to be that way or everything would fly off here and there and crash into one another. But how could rotation(turning) and revolutions (orbiting) have started? How could angular momentum be put into such perfectly balanced orbits all through space?
离线henryharry2

发帖
2194
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 59楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
大爆炸模型的反例
研究星系形成和演化的困难在于:人的寿命乃至天文学的历史同星系的寿命(100亿年以上)相比实在太短,绝无可能跟踪个别星系的演化历程。幸而由于光速的有限性,我们可以用星系的距离来推断其年龄的上限:如果星系都是在距今137亿年的大爆炸之后某个时刻产生的,那么一个距离我们37亿光年的星系年龄将不会超过100亿年,而离我们100亿光年的星系年龄将不超过37亿年。正如处于不同地层的化石揭示了生物的演化史一样,处于不同距离的星系也将反映出宇宙中星系的演化史。不过,星系距离越远,我们能收到的光就越弱,地球大气的消光和抖动对观测的影响就越严重。为了看到真正年轻的星系,人们建造了口径2.4m的哈勃空间望远镜和一批口径8-10m的地面望远镜,积累了大量不同距离(也即不同年龄)星系的形态、测光和分光资料,为直接考察星系的形成和演化提供了前所未有的宝贵信息。目前观测到最远的星系红移接近7,表明星系形成的时刻应该不到宇宙目前年龄的6%(哈勃元年之后8亿年)。同今天的星系相比,年轻星系尺度约小10倍,这看来有利于星系从小到大逐级并合的冷暗物质宇宙学模型。该模型预言,像银河系这样的大型星系只能在红移约为1时形成。可是最近用双色判据(BzK)却发现了一批红移2左右的大型星系;而斯隆数字巡天发现,包含十亿至百亿太阳质量黑洞的亮类星体甚至在红移大于6的宇宙早期已经存在,这些观测事实又为上述“标准”宇宙学模型提出了严峻的挑战。