论坛风格切换切换到宽版
  • 2450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 60楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
大尺度结构
广泛的星系巡天已经揭示了一些真正奇特的天体。这些难以置信的结构和它们的运动不能由宇宙灭亡论解释。星系的巨大片状结构和邻近的空洞实在太大,哈勃年龄为140亿年,就引力而言,它不足以在哈勃时间内单枪匹马地集中普通物质并把它们分布到如此巨大的纤维和巨泡的结构中。在哈勃元年时,迫使物质进入这一大尺度结构的计划必然已经到位。可见这些大尺度结构都是宇宙永恒论的有力证据。
星系红移巡天计划的研究以及其他类似研究项目的结果令人震惊。它们揭示了宇宙具有海绵状或气泡状的结构,大星系团排列在薄薄的羽片和纤维之间,散布着巨大的空洞,其中罕有可检测的发光物质,典型的跨径是几亿光年,已知跨径最大的是牧夫巨洞,其直径达4亿光年。这些巨洞是星系测绘图上的主要特征,并占据了空间的90%。这是对宇宙灭亡论的不利证据,宇宙永恒论的有力证据。
在宇宙已知的单个结构之中,有一个星系构成的羽片状结构,称为长城。长城位于距地球2.5亿光年处,有5亿光年长、2亿光年宽,但是厚度只有2千万光年。这个庞然大物由超星系团组成,质量相当于太阳的1亿亿倍。另一头怪兽名为巨吸引子,它显然正在吸引宇宙一角的几百万个星系,其中包括我们的本星系群和其他邻近星系团。巨吸引子在半人马座的方向上。星系被拖曳着以每小时36万千米的速度扑向它的怀抱。这些都需要宇宙永恒论来解释。
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 61楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
29) ANGULAR MOMENTUM AND MOMENTUM-MASS RELATIONSHIP— Throughout the universe a delicate relationship exists between the mass (size and weight) of an object and its angular momentum (the rapidity with which it rotates). Why is this? The bigger the object, the slower It tends to rotate. Big Bang theorists cannot explain this. It cannot just be a coincidence.
"Pick any astronomical object. Divide its angular momentum by its total mass and also by its average density raised to the 1 /6 power. The resulting number (call it Q) will be equal to the mass itself raised to roughly the 0.7 power.
"Numerological hocus-pocus? No, it seems that this is a universal property of bodies. Whether you pick a lowly asteroid, a star, a galaxy, or even the mighty Virgo cluster of galaxies, it works. The relationship is decisively shown by the straight line on the logarithmic chart. . prepared by L. Carrasco, M. Roth, and A. Serrano at the Mexican Institute of Astronomy." —"How Things Spin, " Sky and Telescope, 64:228 (1982).
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 62楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(30) MANY STARS ROTATE TOO FAST—If stars were caused by the collapse—or inward gravitational pull—of hydrogen gas, then stars should not have the high rotational speeds which they exhibit.
"There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of the sun, but it is not condensing. Greenstein of the Mount Wilson Observatory believed that the known stars rotate so fast they could never have been formed by a condensation process. In fact, many stars have a rotation speed one hundred times that of the sun! With this speed, such stars should not be able to hold on to their surface layers. But if this is happening, how did such stars collapse in the first place? The initial gas clouds should have developed a stable circulating motion without collapsing into stars." —John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 58.
"Greenstein of Mt. Wilson Observatory believes that the 'known stars rotate so fast that one must conclude that they could never have been formed by a condensation process.' "—H.M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 90.
If stars have been caused by "the inward gravitational collapse of hydrogen gas clouds," then why do the stars rotate? They should not have their high rotational speeds. In fact, those very rotational speeds would throw off loose gas, not pull it inward.
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 63楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(31) HIGH-SPIN STARS—There is no way that stars could spin (rotate) or orbit (revolve) if, before star formation, there was only outward exploding gas (from a *George Gamow Big Bang origin) or even randomly floating gas (from a *Fred Hoyle steady state origin). Either way, there would be no means by which the turning movements could start. (More on the steady state theory later in this chapter. Eventually repudiated by its originator, it teaches that empty space between galaxies is continually changing itself into hydrogen!)
Nevertheless, theorists have tried to patch together an idea how the gas could somehow have started turning. They tell us that stars in some unknown way somehow manage to start spinning, but later slow down with age.
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 64楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
Yet stars have now been found which spin faster than either "younger" or "older" stars! Not only does this discovery work havoc with the "spin-down with age" theory, but it would require a mechanism for adding larger amounts of angular momentum for a whole class of stars. Our sun rotates once every 25 days, but these newly-discovered high-spin stars complete a single rotation in less than a day! The fastest of them, Hz 1883, has a spin period of only 6 hours! Matter-origins theories are totally confounded by such facts.
The large percentage of these high-spin stars is surprising, as *Soderblom and *Stouffer have noted:
"Spectroscopic study by David Soderblom and John Stouffer of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., of the Dopplershifted broadening of spectral lines that rotation causes, confirmed the ultra-fast rotation of 30 percent of the approximately 60 stars they observed in the Pleiades." — *D. E. Thomsen, "Stellar Evolution Spins a Surprise Stage," Science News, 125:388 (1984).
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 65楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(32) STARS THAT ORBIT BACKWARDS—In chapter 3 (Origin of the Solar System), we will learn about planets that orbit the wrong way, confounding theories of planetary evolution. But there are stars that do it also!
Certain very small stars (called "subdwarfs") orbit opposite to that of other stars.
"These subdwarfs. . are not traveling with the sun in its giant orbit around the hub of our galaxy, and consequently they are moving with high speeds relative to the sun and in one general direction—that opposite to the direction which the galactic rotation is carrying our sun." —*M. and *G. Burbidge, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe of Motion (1984), p. 137.
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 66楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(33) STARS THAT MOVE TOO FAST—There are high-velocity stars which are traveling far too fast to accommodate the evolutionary theories of matter and stellar origins. Pulsars, as a class, possess very high velocities. Some apparently exceed galactic escape velocities. For more on this, see *David Helfand, et. al., "Pulsar Proper Motions," Astrophysical Journal, 21311 (1977).
"It has been found that many, probably most, of them are moving rapidly, with speeds often exceeding 100 km/sec. Furthermore, the average of the height of the pulsars above the galactic plane is considerably greater than is normal for the objects from which they presumably originated." —*D.B. Larson, Universe of Motion (1984), p. 230.
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 67楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
遥远伽马射线暴(GRB)照亮了富含重元素星系
腾讯科技讯(编译/古木)据国外媒体报道,科学家们新近观测到哈勃纪年只有18亿岁时,一颗遥远的濒死恒星发出的伽马射线暴(GRB)照亮了一对星系,揭示了关于它们化学组成的惊人细节。
GRB 090323是美国宇航局的费米空间望远镜在2009年3月23日首先探测到的,接着是雨燕卫星和智利MPG/ESO 2.2米望远镜上的地基GROND系统(伽马射线暴光学和近红外探测器),以及欧南台的甚大望远镜(VLT)先后都观测到这一现象。VLT的观测揭示出这个伽马射线暴的光穿透了它的主星系和另一个邻近的星系,两个星系的红移都是3.57,相当于120亿年前。
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 68楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
遥远伽马射线暴(GRB)照亮了富含重元素星系
通过分析GRB的光被星系内的气体吸收的方式,星系的冷气体的化学成份能够被确定。“我们探测到那些在遥远星系内常见的元素,例如:锌、铁、硫、硅,但这些元素的丰度比通常的更加丰富,”德国的马克斯-普朗克地外物理学研究所的Sandra Savaglio说。“太阳的绝大部分是由氢和氦组成的,所有的其它元素-我们称之为金属元素--约为总量的1.4%(粒子数量)。在我们观测到的这两个星系内,所有的其它元素相对于氢和氦,其丰度几乎是太阳的两倍多。”
这个发现令人惊讶,因为按照大爆炸理论描述的早期宇宙主要由轻元素组成,比氢和氦重的元素由巨恒星内部的核反应合成,当它们在生命的终点爆发时,把那些重元素注入当地的星际介质中。因此随后的数代恒星,它们的重元素丰度变得越来越丰富,但是这些新结论表明,某些星系已经富含这些重元素,即使是在哈勃元年后二十亿年里。“宇宙比通常认为的在化学组成的演化方面更加快速,”Savaglio说。
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 69楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
星星、宇宙谁的年龄大?
从宇宙膨胀的观点出发,利用哈勃公式反推到过去宇宙中所有天体应该聚集于一点,由于某种原因在它内部产生了"大爆炸"。诞生了现在的宇宙,从而得出了时间是有开端,空间是有限的结论。宇宙从大爆炸到现在究竟经过了多少时间,即宇宙的年龄是多少,这取决于哈勃常数H的大小。最初哈勃常数仅500(公里/秒/百万秒差距),这样算出的宇宙年龄比地球的45亿年的年龄小很多。以后改为50~100之间。若取100,宇宙的年龄只有100亿年,而银河系的球状星团的年龄是150亿年,矛盾很大。若取50,宇宙年龄为200亿年,矛盾不那么明显,因此被大爆炸宇宙论者所赞同,但在观测上,这个数值有些勉强。究竟是多少,一直没有定论。近年来用哈勃太空望远镜观测的结果倾向于取80。这样算出的年龄为120亿年,矛盾还很明显。
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 70楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
庞加莱原理
几十年来,全世界的理论家们在完全不知道现实如何的情况下,完全凭着信仰发展了弦理论,我们一下子把弦理论与现实等同起来。把弦理论的全息原理拿过来,可以知道宇宙位于一个五维虚拟黑洞的四维视界上(我们的理论有一个虚拟维),于是宇宙的体积是固定的,既不膨胀也不收缩,因而是永恒的。至于哈勃红移则是引力红移,按照庞加莱原理,普通物质间的引力等同于牛顿引力,光子和普通物质间的干涉强一倍,这可以解释太阳引起的光线偏移,两个平行的光子之间没有吸引力(采用广义相对论也可以得出这个结论),而两个反平行光子之间的引力由于量子干涉将是牛顿引力的四倍,正是这一项使宇宙中的光子获得了哈勃红移,和这个光子平行的光子之间没有引力,而和这个光子反平行的引力额外地大,大体上宇宙中总有一半光子和某个光子平行、一半的光子和某个光子反平行,从而宇宙是永恒的。
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 71楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
大爆炸理论的反例
天文观测中出现了许多令大爆炸理论家恼火的反例,下面我们就罗列一下这些反例。同银河系中最老的恒星比较,星系群和星系团是宇宙中的后来者。星系团内星系的运动只比星系内恒星的速度大几倍,但星系团要大成百倍;所以自大爆炸理论预言的大爆炸以来,外围的星系还来不及穿过星系团一次。
在本星系群中,银河系和M31正在首次落到一起。银河系至少是在100亿年以前形成其星盘的,它怎么“知道”自己会在一个松散群中度过一生呢?那些在红移z≥2时已经充满年老恒星的椭圆星系,怎么会在它们所在的富星系团形成以前很久就发展成典型的星系团成员了呢?但遗憾的是大爆炸理论不能给出答案。
星系团不只是星系密度较高的地方:属团星系本身是不同的。最大的红星系,椭圆星系和cD星系住在富团的致密区,而恒星形成活跃的旋涡星系和不规则星系则住在稀疏区。这种分化令人困惑,因为椭圆星系的恒星可以几乎有130亿年一样老,而我们看到,星系团今天仍在来到一起。当一个星系形成时,它怎么能够知道自己最后是到达星系团核的“市中心”,还是作为郊区的旋涡星系呢?
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 72楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
大爆炸理论的反例
S0和Sa星系平均说来比Sd和Sm星系亮,它们的质量一般也较大。不清楚光度较高和质量较大的星系怎么会知道它们必定成长为较早的类型之一,而较小的系统则变为Sd和Sm星系。虽然S0、Sa和Sb星系比Sd星系倾向于具有较高的中心面亮度,但也找到了一些低面亮度的S0星系。某些S0星系并不如某些Sm星系亮。Sc星系拥有巨大的光度范围:巨星系UGC 2885,光度比本群的M33大200倍。
星系各种性质的这种部分连接使大爆炸理论家极为恼火。因为如此之多的星系特性是有关联的,在研究任何特定性质时必须小。关于旋转曲线的早期工作提供了一个警世寓言。
类星体是亮得使它们的宿主星系失去光辉的活动核。类星体是已知最亮的天体,在红移z>6已经被观测到,按照大爆炸理论,那时宇宙还没有目前大小的七分之一。奇怪的是,类星体的光谱在所有红移看来都非常相似。很难估计宽线云的成分,但谱线的相对强度显示,它们至少具有太阳的重元素丰度。刚刚小于大爆炸理论预言的宇宙开端十亿年,是谁产生了这些金属?
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 73楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
引力自能
John K. Webb(Webb等,Phys Rev Lett,1999)等人研究60亿~100亿年前的类星体的红移率z时发现:同一个类星体中,不同元素的吸收光谱线彼此之间的波长间距不同于现在实验室中的波长间距。这一现象用宇宙膨胀的Doppler速度红移是无法解释的。因为同一吸收云中的不同元素有同一宇宙膨胀速度,从而有完全相同的红移率。因此,不应该有上述波长间距不同的现象产生。以前宇宙膨胀的多普勒速度红移在解释一些观测事实方面也遇到不少困难,例如反常红移和类星体红移远远偏离Hubble定律等。
类星体0841+12的吸收线的红移率z = 2.476和z = 2.375明显地大于该类星体发射线的红移率z =2.20,这是哈勃红移为特殊的引力红移的有力证据。假如哈勃红移是宇宙膨胀的速度红移,则决不可能同一类星体的吸收线的红移率反而高于发射线的红移率。宇宙膨胀红移无法解释类星体吸收谱线的观测结果。当哈勃红移是一种特殊的引力红移,则不同种类离子间的谱线间距过去的与现在的不相同,是由引力的自能产生的。
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 74楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
暗物质粒子
由于众所周知的原因,暗物质粒子看不见、摸不着,但我认为用暗物质粒子解释海王星的轨道异常是比较合适的。由于宇宙自能作用,暗物质粒子会从发生哈勃红移的光子那里获取额外的能量来源,如果太阳系中有大量暗物质粒子,它们倾向于分布在太阳系的外围,从而影响海王星的轨道(海王星是太阳系最外围的大行星)。
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 75楼 发表于: 2015-08-28  粉丝: 4   好友:3
哥白尼原理
地球是个二维球面,宇宙则是四维球面。观测上也对我的看法有利,人们在132年光年之外发现了一个几十亿倍太阳质量的黑洞,按照宇宙学家的标准看法是无法解释的,只能是修修补补,越修就越奇怪。地球可以由哥伦布证明是圆的,但怎样证明宇宙也是圆的却需要很多人和强大的天文设备。我还是有很多支持者的,不过他们的想法有问题,认为宇宙有个中心,这违反了哥白尼原理;我认为宇宙是圆的,则不需要宇宙有一个中心。可能宇宙在总体上大体保持不变,不管什么时候看都差不多,就像地球一样,但在局部经历着沧海桑田的变化。
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 76楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(34) UNIVERSAL ROTATION—Evidence is accumulating that, not only do asteroids, planets, and stars rotate, —but the entire universe does also! Such a fact would, of course, greatly increase the positional stability of the universe. But it does not agree with explosion theories of matter (Big Bang, etc.), nor with continuous hydrogen creation theories (steady state).
Evidence for universal rotation includes position angles and polarization's of radio sources, and vorticity as seen in microwave background radiation, and other statistical asymmetries.
For more on this, see *P. Birch, "Is the Universe Rotating?" Nature, 298:451 (1982); "is There Really Evidence for Universal Rotation?" Astrophysical Journal, 28711 (1984).
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 77楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
(35) THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ANTIMATTER—Any type of initial origin of matter would produce equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter are ever found in space.
The Big Bang theory includes the requirement that it had to produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter (positrons, antiprotons, etc.). Two expensive neutrino detectors (the Kamiokande-II in Kamiokia, Japan, and the IMB near Cleveland, Ohio) maintain an ongoing program of neutrino detection and analysis. But only very small amounts of neutrinos and other antimatter are found in space. Little strikes the earth and it comes from all directions.
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 78楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
That fact may seem insignificant, but to astronomers it is a serious obstacle to the Big Bang theory.
"We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter." —*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe, " in American Scientist, 71 (1983), p. 479.
Most of the "antimatter" in the universe is to be found in the imaginative theories of evolutionists. It does not really exist.
"Antimatter: Matter made up of antiparticles. Antiparticles are identical in mass to matter particles, but opposite to them in properties such as electrical charge." —*R.M. Somerville, Cosmic Mysteries (1990), p. 132.
"Antimatter. It is believed that all particles have antimatter counterparts, particles with identical mass and spin as the original but with many other properties (such as electric charge) reversed . . Few such particles exist in nature . . Presently, there is no evidence for antigalaxies."
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 79楼 发表于: 2015-08-29  粉丝: 4   好友:3
45个可否定大爆炸理论的事实依据
Antimatter is simple enough: It is just a regular atom with its spin direction reversed. Its south magnetic pole is, therefore, up instead of down. Because its charge is reversed, it normally unites with matter as soon as it is formed and destroys both.
Although most types of "antimatter" do not actually exist outside an experimental laboratory, yet the facts about its nature produce serious problems for the theory. First, theoreticians cannot figure out how antimatter could have separated from matter after the Big Bang, and, second, prior to separating from each other, they should have destroyed one another!
"What ultimately seems decisive is the difficulty of imagining how matter and antimatter in the early universe could have become segregated into distinct regions. It seems more likely they would have simply annihilated each other everywhere." —*F. Wilczek, "The Cosmic Asymmetry between Matter and Antimatter," in Scientific American, December 1980, pp. 82-83.