Alternative theories vs standard model

[Sparky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standa ... ambiplasma

One of the major successes of the Big Bang theory has been to provide a prediction that corresponds to the observations of the abundance of light elements in the universe. Along with the explanation provided for the Hubble's law and for the cosmic microwave background, this observation has proved very difficult for alternative theories to explain.

Theories which assert that the universe has an infinite age, including many of the theories described above, fail to account for the abundance of deuterium in the cosmos, because deuterium easily undergoes nuclear fusion in stars and there are no known astrophysical processes other than the Big Bang itself that can produce it in large quantities. Hence the fact that deuterium is not an extremely rare component of the universe suggests that the universe has a finite age.

Theories which assert that the universe has a finite life, but that the Big Bang did not happen, have problems with the abundance of helium-4. The observed amount of 4He is far larger than the amount that should have been created via stars or any other known process. By contrast, the abundance of 4He in Big Bang models is very insensitive to assumptions about baryon density, changing only a few percent as the baryon density changes by several orders of magnitude. The observed value of 4He appears to be within the range calculated.

[orrery]

Wiki editors are totally full of #%?$ shit its laughable. Sadly, I am not laughing. There are kids out there that might think this bullcrap is true.

[Sparky]

Agreed...thank you....since this wiki is mentioning EU, could someone add some comments in favor of EU?

Anyone, please pick a point and offer an argument...

thank you....

[celeste]

My favorite is: "the explanation provided for the Hubble's law". A single point on which they are wrong twice. First, they had to posit dark energy just to get Big Bang theory to match Hubbles law, and second, Hubbles law itself is not right.
So let's rephraase for them:
"One of the major successes of the Big Bang theory is that if we apply a large enough fudge factor we can make it match a law which doesn't exist".

[Sparky]

make it match a law which doesn't exist".

that's great!...

way too many speculations quickly become "laws".

[jjohnson]

Watch out for those speed limit signs posted by Those-in-Charge: "c — it's a law we can live with"!

Re-read Dr. Eric Lerner's little classic, The Big Bang Never Happened, and point out a few of the Failures to Predict Successfully he described. Talbott & Thornhill's The Electric Universe points out numerous anomalies with the Big Bang and Cold Dark Matter standard model in vogue today, as well.

The EU paradigm (remember; it's not yet a theory) does NOT claim that the Universe is of infinite age. A proper reading reveals that it is thought to be of indefinite age, as there is no reliable way of actually dating something that has existed for such deep time that we simply cannot imagine it, and whose "birth" has no living, sentient witnesses available.

It may be younger than scientists think, but even at the half-assed guesstimates of distance to the farthest galaxies we can observe, it likely isn't. On the other hand it may be of a finite age, but it could be substantially older than the consensus age guesstimate range, as well. Or, it could be of infinite age, but the difference between infinite and indefinite is profound, and basically in the domain of mathematics, not cosmology. The EU really can't make any falsifiable scientific claims about this subject, so it doesn't belong in a work which could be leading to a theory. Ref: Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Jim