If The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics,why do some still fall for it?

Additional Details

Yes the Big Bang theory violates the first law of thermodynamics, it amazes many physicists that there is still a "quasi religious" following of this ridiculous theory. See the links below and for serious investigation follow the references http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09... The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new space filled with � �zero-point energy� � be continually created between the galaxies. [48] To put the above point in another way: the "funny small object" which "exploded" to "form the Universe"
had to come from somewhere, this claim violates the first law of thermodynamics Joule did not agree with the "Big Bang"If anybody wants to look further into this do some research into his work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Presc... Jimbo, I cannot put it better than the references in the link which I repeat below Jimbo, I cannot put it better than the references in the link which I repeat below. The 67 references clearly explain this , they are nearly all from different physicists. The link is repeated here>

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09... See reference 18 :18] E.J. Lerner (1991), The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House, New
York, pp. 23 & 28. charcinders. The steady state universe does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Olbers' paradox is no longer accepted and it is also regarded as false. charcinders.The first question must be answered namely: Where did the matter "created" by the "Big Bang" come from. ??? Without an answer to this other questions are meaningless KTDykes That is why I put "exploded" in inverted commas Actually I expected a quasi religious war over the " Big Bang" people never like false beliefs questioned. For further discussion take your points to the 67 references provided Jimbo, once again I cannot get an answer to a simple question which must be answered, not to answer it simply hides the question behind a wall of words about occupation time constraints etc..I repeat:


If the Big Bang actually happened (as I understand it all material came "into existence" from a small piece of material) .Where did the piece of super dense material came from? Jimbo. I can find all of the references easily for some reason. Here is a book by in my opinion a highly intelligent man who has described the Universe correctly. He rightly rejects the so called "Big Bang". Reject his opinion if you wish but I think he has it right.
This is as you say not a forum, my motives are scientific in that I do not want people to be fooled en mass by a nonsensical theory however widely believed it may be.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php... Jimbo, I have realised why you cannnot reach the references. You must use the APEIRON website first. My papers on that website are in a different name so no fear of getting into another discussion. http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives... i have read Eric J. Lerner 's book you refer to above and others. Eric J. Lerner is right the Big Bang never happened but u have a hell of a job convincing people of that. It is equivalent to criticising the Koran or Bible The second law of thermodynamics indicated that in order to obtain something there has to be a price attached to it. Humans are unable to get something for nothing. There could surely be no greater critic of Big Bang than Fred Hoyle and his Steady State is probably the best alternative in the last 40 years, yet even with his modified QSS theory, he couldn� �t convince many cosmologists. Until the LHC provides some answers, I'm afraid we're stuck with it. As the laws of physics happen to be products of the origin of the universe, they're not necessarily applicable to the event that gave rise to the universe.

<>

The big bang has nothing to do with any explosion.

I looked at your reference and immediately started to pick holes in it.

(1) The steady state universe violates the second law of thermodynamics.
(2) The background radiation of space is not distant starlight. See Olbers' paradox.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but on the quantum scale it can be borrowed. The entire universe was once at the quantum scale. QED.

True, the first law implies energy must, as you quote, "come from somewhere". That's the real issue. However, a universe is defined as a complete space-time continuum plus its contents. "come" implies an external time and "where" implies an external space. An entire universe therefore, by definition, cannot "come from somewhere", The first law, therefore, can only be applied to objects within it. A universal feature of all physics problems is the requirement for initial conditions.

Like a lot of rules and laws, the laws apply during "normal" circumstances but may no longer be true under extreme conditions.

So the first law of thermodynamics works perfectly well when thinking about stuff on our planet etc., but doesn't apply to the pretty extreme circumstance of the Big Bang.

Surely it is the big bang that created the first law of thermodynamics, along with everything else. The rules 'before' the big bang were obviously different than today.

The first law of thermodynamics could be wrong.

I don't know, is the simple answer. As a physicist, I specialise in molecular physics, not the physics of the big bang, therefore I don't understand it nearly well enough to be able to answer this question. I assume that you, however, do? In which case, you need to provide an alternative which has the same success in describing the universe as we see it, before people will start abandoning it as a theory.


Edit:

I looked at your reference. It is an interesting document, but it is not, cucially, a scientific paper. It cites scientific papers, but I can't access most of them, and anyway, don't have the time. Also, most of the refernces are now 10 years or more old, the article itself is 6 years old! My point, and in fact my original point, which you seem to have missed, is that this is an issue for big-bang astrophysicists, which I am now starting to doubt you are yourself? The involvement even of the rest of us physicists in this debate is absolutely pointless, we have nothing to contribute to what is a high-level scientific study. You need to pose this question at big-bang symposia, not Yahoo! Answers!


Another Edit:

At risk of treating this site like a forum, it sounds like you are trying to stir up a 'quasi-religious war', which leads me to suspect that your motives are more philosophical than scientific. The trouble is that the scientific community is not so dogmatic that a theory cannot be replaced (e.g. relativity replacing newtonian mechanics), although it may be slow to shift. The fact is that when the big-bang theory is disproved, it will be rejected. I have trust enough in those in my department who study it to know that it remains at worst the best available model.

Combination of things.
1. Too much invested with videos and entertainment industry.
2, An amazing in ability of academia to say "I DON'T KNOW" or "I WAS MISTAKEN"

Sometimes called the Fonzie Syndrome.

oh stop goin on about it its getting boring now or is that how sad ur life is u can only talk about this? thought so get a life

Huh?......

#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#

Your name: E-mail: Telphone: Your comments: If you have any other info about If The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics,why do some still fall for it? , Please add it free.