Is the Big Bang Theory in Trouble? | Hugh Ross

[@daric_]

A six-hour defense with nearly two-hour deliberation among the committee...mine was probably a couple hours or so with a half-hour deliberation. That must have been exhausting.

[@earldowningproject]

Hugh Ross has had a fantastic influence on me. Having said this, this is good to listen to if you can't sleep.

[@Nashmax]

😂

[@rebanelson607]

Wonderful lecture. So much is happening and I appreciate Dr. Ross's insights.

[@carolspencer6915]

Good morning Reasons to Believe and Hugh Super interesting. Thank you for your many decades of work. Truly grateful for our universe and all we have still to discover. 💜

[@tanrbilimi2276]

Thank you for the lecture, blessings

[@damo780]

Praise the Lord

[@msvvero]

Always fun to hear these accounts.

[@earleneschmitt3326]

Dr Ross, in terms of the cosmological principle, how can we account for the big ring(1.3 bill Ly), clowes campusano(2 bill Ly), and others go beyond 1 bill Ly?

[@williambillycraig1057]

It was a great show, but we still have Young Sheldon, so that is good.

[@jmctigret]

No because something has a beginning

[@nihlify]

That makes no sense. What was before your pathetic god then? You'll say nothing and look like an idiot

[@jerrybowen2869]

Very interesting! Acc to e-universe plasma cosmology quasars appear to occur within energy flow filaments and the longitude lines up with the filaments. I have no clue, obviously.

[@davidrichards2113]

How many people have sufficient background to understand these ideas?

[@MichaelMcDonald-lu3et]

Not me

[@MichaelMcDonald-lu3et]

@@hughross131 appreciate that

[@djsarg7451]

Those that think the James Webb Space Telescope as challenged the Big Bang theory, those are the one Hugh is talking to.

[@MsBear3333]

[@waynesimpson9706]

Jeremiah 51:15 KJV [15] He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding. I don't buy the whole big bang model that creationist support that says the God over a billion years expanding an finite point into what we have now called the universe. The God of the Hebrews is much too powerful to be limited to a naturalist ideology about how the universe began. It was the secular atheist scientist in the 1900s that needed a infinate decimal point and whole lot of time to have a chance at a uncreated beginning not thiest. I agree with what Jeremiah is saying here that God stretched out the heavens or universe by His understanding something mere mortals struggle to comprehend. That's why no one has seen with an observable eye a galaxy or a planet forming in any capacity. what they keep on seeing are fully formed planets and galaxies where every they look.

[@trninfan]

Psalms 137:9 KJV [9] Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

[@andrettanylund830]

If the big bang is proved wrong how would that effect the Bible and Christianity

[@markmcflounder15]

It's because atheists have believed in an eternal universe & atheist scientists still continue to avoid an absolute beginning of the universe

[@allen_tor]

That would be hard to do. You'd have to come up with a theory with more explanatory power to adequately explain, the solutions to Einstein's relativity equations, the red shift data, the cosmic background radiation, and the borde-guth-vilenkin theorem, all of which are adequately explained by the big bang theory.

[@squirrelfrendotcom]

The Bible is what is True. Dudes, come on🤦‍♀️ Our Creator, Created Everything, both visible and invisible. That's not a theory, it's a fact.

[@djsarg7451]

It would not be good, but that is in the past. The age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 200 million years. Hugh point is only the type of big bang is testable, not if it is true.

[@therick363]

@@markmcflounder15at the time it made sense the universe was a steady state. When we gathered new data we changed our minds. Scientifically speaking we don’t know if the universe had a beginning. It seems like it did yes. And if it did that doesn’t make a god real or responsible.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

8:40 I wonder what we'll know in 10-20 years?

[@PaulineLawrence-j3m]

There was not just a big bang. What there was was An explosion and simultaneous implosion Nano second event !!! Pauline , Ph.d. Europe

[@andrettanylund830]

Does that mean they were there before the big bang?

[@TIMEPHYSICS]

Google "The physics of the day of judgment"

[@PaulineLawrence-j3m]

A QUASAR IS A STAR UDERGOING 99.99 % FUSION REACTION . A 100 % FUSION EVENT IS WHAT A SUPER NOVA IS . PAULINE

[@therick363]

I think it’s important to discuss these things. It’s also important to establish some basics-so please creationists What was the Big Bang?

[@richiejourney1840]

Still looking for that way out to avoid God Rick?

[@therick363]

@@richiejourney1840 why did you ignore my question? Are you actually expecting me to answer your question?

[@djsarg7451]

The Big Bang describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature from nothing. The theory of general relativity: the universe began at a “singularity” (Big Bang) where all matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at an infinitely small point and expanded outward from there. Space-time Theorems recognizes the union of space and time. General relativity has been proven to be true. The universe has mass, and the universe is expanding. Thus the universe had a singularity/Big Bang/beginning from extra dimensions. Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago.

[@therick363]

@@richiejourney1840 well?

[@therick363]

@@djsarg7451 no it doesn’t say from nothing. You know that while GR is great it’s also incomplete….. As such we can’t use only that.

[@MaryJones-d7e]

Martin Michelle Lopez Ruth Walker Laura

[@mesenteria]

I think we should soon adopt the policy, and convention, of addressing such things in the past tense. It isn't really appropriate to be saying that a QUASAR 'is' anything because we should understand that they can't possibly exist today. A galaxy is much longer lived, so we can talk about M31 or NGC 2119 in the present tense in almost all cases. A supernova isn't what is was ten hours previously.

[@willperrot4877]

Our past is in fact gone, if we do not learn from it, don't you feel that is wrong?

[@philhellenes]

"Are these discoveries signs of a cosmic mystery, or do they affirm the biblical predictions of a beginning that aligns with the expansion of the universe?" THAT is dishonesty masquerading as a question. Disgusting.

[@joaminow6943]

Now that is a scientific analysis.

[@williamschlosser]

Genesis makes a whole lot more sense than Big Bang. It says God organized the chaos into various things we know. It does not say the universe sprang from a single point with no dimensions, as BBT does. Genesis is analogous to Plasma Cosmology, which says that electromagnetic forces organized the plasma which permeates the universe, into stellar objects.

[@djsarg7451]

Genesis 1:1 is the same as the Hot Big Bang. Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago.

[@DuelScreen]

No, the Genesis account is not analagous to whatever that is.

[@timkhan3238]

My Galileo, you're a Doctor of what, why don't you use it logically: THE PRESENT PHYSICAL LAWS ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL Why do you conclude something when you've never ever experienced? NOT EVEN IN YOUR DREAMS.

[@djsarg7451]

Astronomers can only look at the past, as light takes time to travel. Astronomers have proven laws of physics are unchanging, just as Jeremiah 33 correctly states, as we look back in time (more distant stars) they behave the same as close stars.

[@josephndaira7601]

So by the same logic, you werent there at the original either lol. So hard to take your word for it 🤪. I do love how Gods word does explain the “why” though. Look fwd to him coming to live with us soon 😊

[@timkhan3238]

@@josephndaira7601 lol, do you understand PERFECT?

[@djsarg7451]

@@josephndaira7601 In a way Astronomers were there. Astronomers can only look at the past, as light takes time to travel. The Why is so good: Hugh wrote a complete book on the topic: "Why the universe is the way it is" a Book by Hugh Ross.

[@VincentCMercandetti]

Yes, it looks like future research will prove the universe is eternally bouncing from singularity to full universe and back again, driven by Dark Energy. There is no need for a Creator now!

[@Ollemhebb]

This is not a scientific prediction. This is faith.

[@trninfan]

Research has found, very conclusively, that galaxies are moving apart. Not only that, but they are accelerating away from each other

[@DuelScreen]

There is an astronomical test for this. When last I checked, the results said that the universe is either going to expand infinitely or eventually balance out perfectly. Rebounding is not an option. There is no Big Crunch coming.

[@VincentCMercandetti]

@DuelScreen That's old research. Current new theories, derived from recent James Webb Telescope observations, postulate an oscillating universe driven by Dark Energy.

[@rentlastname2824]

He defends the mainstream view because, as he constantly reminds his audience, his credibility and reputation are built on it. However a proper understanding of the thermal spectrum of our Sun reveals that it is composed of liquid metallic hydrogen. Start from this evidence-based foundation and you’ll find there is no need for Ross’s beloved ad hoc band-aid theories of cosmological expansion, dark energy, black holes or big bangs.

[@DuelScreen]

*plasma, not liquid

[@hughross131]

About a quarter of the universe's mass is helium and about 2% are elements heavier than lithium.

[@rentlastname2824]

@@hughross131 Yes, according to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, around 24-25% of the universe's mass should consist of helium-4, allegedly produced within minutes of the Big Bang through nuclear reactions. This predicted value seems to align closely with the observed helium-4 abundance in metal-poor regions, which is considered a strong confirmation of the Big Bang model. However, the interpretation of the abundance of helium-4 is actually quite complex and still highly debated. The problem lies not in a significant discrepancy between predicted and observed values but in the challenges of measuring and interpreting these abundances accurately. Measurement Challenges 1. Helium's Stability: Helium-4 is highly stable, locking in its abundance soon after formation. However, today's measurements reflect helium altered by stellar processing in galaxies and gas clouds. 2. Spectral Detection Complexity: Unlike hydrogen, helium’s spectral lines require significantly more energy to excite, making them weaker and harder to detect. In energetic environments like H II regions around hot, young stars, ultraviolet radiation ionises helium, leading to strong He I (neutral helium) and He II (singly ionized helium) emission lines. In low-metallicity, less energetic environments-where primordial helium is expected-weak ionisation makes helium lines faint or invisible, further overshadowed by bright hydrogen lines. Primordial Helium Estimation. Astronomers estimate primordial helium by observing low-metallicity galaxies with minimal stellar processing, aiming to approximate early universe conditions. Since direct detection is challenging, they rely on extrapolation methods. They estimate stellar contributions to helium over time using star formation histories and the region’s age and subtract this from the observed helium to infer the primordial fraction. However, this process is fraught with uncertainties: • Unlike stars, gas clouds lack clear age markers, requiring indirect methods with inherent uncertainties. • Assumptions about cloud homogeneity, stellar evolution, and gas interactions can skew results. Key Challenges 1. Systematic Uncertainties: Accurate helium measurements depend on emission line readings, but variables like gas density, temperature, and instrument calibration introduce potential errors. 2. Ionization Corrections: It’s often assumed all helium-4 is ionized, but if some remains neutral, helium abundance may be underestimated. 3. Chemical Evolution Models: Post-Big Bang helium production models rely on assumptions about stellar and galactic evolution, which, if flawed, affect the estimation of primordial levels. 4. Alternative Interpretations: The plasma cosmology model, suggesting continuous nucleosynthesis, challenges the idea of a fixed primordial helium fraction and questions the BBN framework and the Big Bang model itself. Although helium observations generally support Big Bang Nucleosynthesis predictions, the uncertainties and assumptions involved complicate definitive conclusions. These challenges point to an alternative interpretation. They highlight the limitations of current methods and the standard model of cosmology that has been constructed in an attempt to explain the origin of the universe without God. Anomalies with deuterium and lithium also highlight big problems with the standard Big Bang model and point to an alternative explanation of the processes that regulate elemental abundances throughout the universe. Deuterium Persistence Problem: Deuterium, a fragile isotope of hydrogen, is easily destroyed in stellar interiors through nuclear fusion. Under the high temperatures and pressures of stars, deuterium quickly fuses into helium-3 and heavier elements. Given this process, the deuterium produced during the Big Bang should have been significantly depleted over billions of years. Yet, we continue to observe relatively high levels of deuterium in the interstellar medium (ISM) and distant quasars. This persistence challenges expectations, as deuterium should have been largely consumed by ongoing stellar activity over cosmic time. Lithium-7 Abundance Discrepancy: The Big Bang model predicts that for every 10 billion protons, there should be about one lithium-7 nucleus, corresponding to an abundance ratio of ~10⁻¹⁰ (lithium-7 nuclei relative to hydrogen nuclei). However, observations of old, metal-poor stars-thought to preserve their primordial chemical composition-show a lithium-7 abundance only one-third of the predicted value. This discrepancy, known as the "Lithium Problem," poses a significant challenge to BBN predictions and demonstrates that this view of early nucleosynthesis or lithium depletion processes in stars is incorrect.

[@David-lq4tq]

The Webb is cartoons, there is no space. We are under a solid firmament, have you read Genesis??

[@Stecer2007]

Solid firmament? What do you think the atmosphere is? Have you thought at all?