Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory?

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/


An Open Letter to the Scientific Community



(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,
things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark
energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a
fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and
the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted
as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would,
at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the
underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict
the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed,
because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now
more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature
and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on
Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes
contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.
Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big
bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the
light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the
universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years
younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative
predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The
successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to
retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of
adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of
Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding
the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state
model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end.
These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic
phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements,
the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background
radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with
distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently
observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not
explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely
surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a
complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives
cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of
ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard
Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology
today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn
to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the
standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying
so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter,
judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big
bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances,
and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.
This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of
free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology
are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources,
and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by
supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang
within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the
scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework
undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the
constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction
makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we
urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a
significant fraction of their funding for investigations into
alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang.
To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds
could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field
of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and
its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our
most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Sound of Trumpet wrote:


http://www.cosmologystatement.org/


An Open Letter to the Scientific Community



(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,
things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark
energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a
fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and
the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted
as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would,
at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the
underlying theory.


Maybe we should do what the Christians do, and just ignore the
contradictions?

--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com

Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/


An Open Letter to the Scientific Community



snip...


Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding
the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state
model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end.



LOL! Do you know what is steady state universe, Ray? It is universe
that always existed, universe without beginning - something that is as
anti-biblical as you can get.

When was Big Bang proven to exist, your people were screaming from the
rooftops: "Bible says that universe had a beginning and science agrees!
Science proves Bible true!"

Do you really want to flush your Bible down the toilet, Ray?

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,
things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark
energy are the most prominent examples.

If they are needed to explain observations, then why doesn't that count
as being observed?

Without them, there would be a
fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and
the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted
as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation.

Sure, physicists never come up with stuff like the neutrino. Dumbass.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict
the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed,
because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now
more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature
and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Of course, if God did it you wouldn't need inflation to do it.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on
Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes
contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.

Um, we've observed dark matter, sorry.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative
predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.

Such as the cosmic background radiation? Expansion of the universe?
Primordial abundence of the light elements?

Dumbass.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding
the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state
model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end.

Which, however, don't fit the observational data.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and
its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our
most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Right. We have some ideas which don't seem to work, so let's fund them.

On 24 Sep 2006 16:09:03 -0700, "Gene Ward Smith"
you decided to say:


Gene (May I call you Gene?),

I hope you aren't personally offended by my response,
but you were very blunt in your post and so, I will also
be quite blunt in my response. Please understand, it is
not meant as an attack.


Sound of Trumpet wrote:

The big bang today relies on a growing number
of hypothetical entities, things that we have never
observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy
are the most prominent examples.

If they are needed to explain observations, then why
doesn't that count as being observed?

Because they weren't "observed".

They were invented from pure fantasy.

The fact is, that you are willing to believe a fairy tale and
then claim that because a fairy tale was invented, that means
that it should be counted as "observed". Huh?

I'm sorry if this offends you, but you said it, not me.

Imagine that you run across the situation that there is not
enough matter in the universe to hold it together. What do
you do?

What has been done in this particular case (and is not at all
uncommon), is to invent this "dark matter" out of sheer
imagination and without any observation whatsoever of it.

It cannot be detected. They claim that the fact that there
is a "missing mass" problem proves that it is there. Huh?

It cannot be seen. They claim that this proves that it
exists. Huh?

It cannot be measured. They claim that this is irrelevant
and that they can tell how much there is, by the amount
that's missing. Of course, when they later found out that
the numbers didn't add up, what did they do? Well, since
it cannot be confirmed to exist, let alone measured, they
just increased the amount and claimed that it was a new
finding of how much "dark matter" there is (supposedly).

But the decision was to claim that it does exist and that it
explains the problem. Then further, the claim is that it does
exist and that it has been observed. And what support is
there for this claim that it has been observed? What exact
observation has supported this "dark matter" concept?

Why that's simple! As I said already...

"There isn't enough matter in the universe to explain
the universe."

Yup! That's it! That's the *whole* of the evidence for this
"dark matter".

And so they are basically saying the following things
(and whether you want to believe it or not, this is
basically how it went)...

1) We know that there isn't enough matter in the universe
to hold it together.

2) How can we explain it? Hey! I just thought of something!
Let's claim that more matter exists that we can't see and
let's call it "dark matter".

3) When someone asks how we know and when we first detected
it, we'll tell them that it cannot be seen and cannot be
measured, because hey, it's "dark matter"! And we'll just
say that we observed it indirectly. And when they ask
how, we'll just say that we observed it, by observing that
there isn't enough matter in the universe to hold it all
together. And so, what we're REALLY doing, is claiming
that the lack of matter that caused the question, is proof
that we have solved the problem! So basically, we'll be
claiming that the question; the problem we saw, is proof
that the answer we just made up out of sheer imagination,
is the proof that it exists! And ye folks, we'll label
this as "science"!

4) Oh gee, the original numbers didn't work out and now
we've found that the figures we used don't add up,
because now we know, given our latest findings, that
more matter is needed. Oh, hey, no problem! Since
this "dark matter" that we invented can't be measured,
we'll just increase the numbers! After all, who can
tell the difference, right?

5) And what evidence will we give that there is actually more
of this "dark matter" out there? Oh, that's easy! Once
again we'll say, "Well, there isn't enough matter in the
universe, so...". (:

You buy into whatever you want. I will be critical of
whatever I want. My way is scientific. Yours is not.


Without them, there would be a
fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and
the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted
as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation.

Sure, physicists never come up with stuff like the neutrino. Dumbass.

They come up with "stuff like" the gluon. Do you know what
that is? As a non-scientist, probably not. And it's okay to
be ignorant of these things. Ignorant just means "uninformed"
and that can be fixed. But when you take an attitude such as
yours toward someone else, when it is obvious that you are
no scientist, nor do you appear to even be educated at all
in the various sciences, that is when it turns from ignorant,
to "willing ignorance". And this is especially apparent to
those who know that what he stated is a cold hard fact of
science. Is this your goal? To reject out of ignorance any
facts that you don't like and to proclaim this willing
ignorance as a banner, for all to see?

I don't mean to be insulting, mind you. You must bear in mind
that I am responding to your rudeness, which you base on your
ignorance. I'm sorry if that comes off harsh, but those are
your words above, not mine.

People can rail against the truth all they want, but when all
I see is insults in response to cold hard data, that tells me
that the other person doesn't much care what the truth is.
They are going to believe what they want to and call it
"science", while railing against Christians and claiming
that's what they're doing, which makes the "railer" nothing
more than a hypocrite. Again, is this your goal?

Now do you know what a "gluon" is? It is an imagined up part
of an atom, that has no evidence for its existence whatsoever
and is another example of desperate people throwing out
desperate ideas, with desperate lay people, willing to accept
whatever they throw out and who are too willingly ignorant
to question it.

Within an atom, assuming that the theory is correct (it too,
was made up), you have Protons, Neutrons and Electrons.

Proton = positive charge

Neutron = neutral

Electron = negative charge

Now since the protons are within the nucleus (which is
at the center of the atom) and since they have like charges
and since like charges repel each other and since they
couldn't explain why the protons didn't push away from
each other, rather than questioning their "invented" atom,
they instead chose to make up out of thin air, another
part of the atom, called the "gluon" and claim that it
holds them together and keeps them from flying away
from each other, which would destroy the atom.

Of course, they have yet to explain why it doesn't make
the protons literally stick together and unable to move
separately.

And yes, the name is "gluon", because it supposedly
does what it sounds like.

Now you swallow this kook, line and sinker. I choose
to question it. My way is scientific. Yours is not.

Science is based on questioning. Without questions,
we have nothing. And theories are corrected, because
someone questions them and not because they are
blindly accepted.

These ideas however, do not qualify as "theories".
They are claimed to be such, but theories require
facts that support the theory. Stating that there
is "missing mass", does not prove that it is dark
matter that makes up for the missing mass. And
so, "missing mass" cannot be claimed as a fact
that supports "dark matter". Rather, the missing
mass is itself the problem presented. One cannot
make a claim of a solution and then point to the
problem and claim it's the answer. That would be
like writing an answer to a math division problem
and when the teacher ask you to do the long division
and prove that your answer is correct, you then point
to the math problem and claim that just the fact that
a math problem exists is proof that your answer is
correct.

Huh??? Yet that's what you buy into. (:

Now you may say that the problem can be worked out
and proof can be given. I agree, but that's my point.
You can work the problem out. With this "dark matter"
issue, that cannot be done and so, all you have is the
fantasy of the desperate. (:

__

Giant Waffle

After seeing the way that usenet is, I post this word
of advice as my signature...

I don't bother with peoples' railing comments, nor with
comments meant to distract from the discussion, because
you are unable to answer the hard questions that may arise
as a response to claims that you might make, nor do I play
games with God's word.

If you wish to be rude, go find a mirror and see if the
person you see there would appreciate it. And if the
person you find in that mirror wouldn't, then you know
why I have ended my conversation with you. Rather,
I have chosen to ignore and forget you, at least until
you learn some common decency and respect.

And yes, there is a difference between being insulting
and being direct. And no, that does not mean that being
insulting and calling it "the truth" means that you are
being direct. It means that you are being insulting.

Do not pretend to be my brother, while stabbing me in
the back and then quoting Bible verses that speak of
good men, falsely applying them to yourself, as those
who are wolves in sheep's clothing often do. (:

This obviously does not apply to everyone. Just to those
who wish to act in the manner described. To the rest,
please ignore this word of advice.

An Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:09:03 -0700, Gene Ward Smith schreibt:

Um, we've observed dark matter, sorry.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/di...ml#dark_matter


dark matter
Name given to the amount of mass whose existence is deduced from the
analysis of galaxy rotation curves but which until now, has escaped all
detections. There are many theories on what dark matter could be. Not one,
at the moment is convincing enough and the question is still a mystery.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:49:00 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

On 24 Sep 2006 16:09:03 -0700, "Gene Ward Smith"
you decided to say:


Gene (May I call you Gene?),

I hope you aren't personally offended by my response,
but you were very blunt in your post and so, I will also
be quite blunt in my response. Please understand, it is
not meant as an attack.


Sound of Trumpet wrote:

The big bang today relies on a growing number
of hypothetical entities, things that we have never
observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy
are the most prominent examples.

If they are needed to explain observations, then why
doesn't that count as being observed?

Because they weren't "observed".

Science is _full_ of things that are the product of indirect
observation but are still very useful.

"Emmanual Kann" wrote in message
news
An Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:09:03 -0700, Gene Ward Smith schreibt:

Um, we've observed dark matter, sorry.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/di...ml#dark_matter


dark matter
Name given to the amount of mass whose existence is deduced from the
analysis of galaxy rotation curves but which until now, has escaped all
detections. There are many theories on what dark matter could be. Not one,
at the moment is convincing enough and the question is still a mystery.

Still, there is clearly something (matter) there that we can't see (dark).
What else should we call it?

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 01:49:00 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:


Why that's simple! As I said already...

"There isn't enough matter in the universe to explain
the universe."

Yup! That's it! That's the *whole* of the evidence for this
"dark matter".


That is not correct. What they actually say is that there isn't
enough detected matter in the universe to explain the motions of
galaxies. Now they could of course throw up their hands and give up
on figuring it out, but then they could have thrown up their hands and
given up on the difficult question of why Mercury wasn't in the right
place according to Newton's laws. It's just not what a good scientist
does.

"Gene Ward Smith" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sound of Trumpet wrote:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,
things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark
energy are the most prominent examples.

If they are needed to explain observations, then why doesn't that count
as being observed?

Without them, there would be a
fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and
the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted
as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation.

Sure, physicists never come up with stuff like the neutrino. Dumbass.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict
the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed,
because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now
more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature
and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Of course, if God did it you wouldn't need inflation to do it.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on
Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes
contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.

Um, we've observed dark matter, sorry.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative
predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.

Such as the cosmic background radiation? Expansion of the universe?
Primordial abundence of the light elements?


Don't forget the small fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation. These were predicted long before the first observations by the
COBE satellite; the only question was the actual amplitude of the
fluctuations, which would then fix previously unmeasured parameters such as
how close the Universe was to critical density.

Dumbass.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding
the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state
model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end.

Which, however, don't fit the observational data.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and
its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our
most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Right. We have some ideas which don't seem to work, so let's fund them.


--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)