Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory?

"Sound of Trumpet" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.


You will run into the same wall I ran into. An infinite Universe of
countless constituent universes unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case
may be, will have the same identical collapsed remote background horizon --
representing the sheer Unity (the sheer '1') of an infinite Universe -- in
common to all of those countless constituent local or foreground universes.
There would be nothing outside that background constant of Unity except all
of the countless constituent foreground universes of it, and there would be
nothing before [and] after that background constant of Unity except, again,
all of the countless constituent foreground universes of it. "Before [and]
after" being one and the same time, indistinguishably so; a circle or loop
permanently, forever, closed in on itself to, again, Unity ('1'). All
distant arrows of time -- observably -- pointing straight to Unity ('1').
While here in each foreground universe, all time forwardly orientated should
run past (-1) via future (+1) always and forever to now (0), or (-1+1=0).

If you hadn't noticed, Earth's Moon is approximately 1.3 light seconds
from Earth, or offset in time [toward] that distant "collapsed remote
background horizon" by a factor of -1.3 seconds from foreground zero (0)
Earth. An astronaut or other traveler from Earth, to get to the Moon with
regard to space-time, has to actually physically process the equation -1.3
seconds +1.3 seconds = 0 (past (-1.3 seconds) via future (+1.3 seconds) to
now (0 (foreground (Moon))). The Earth is then, or it should be then,
approximately 1.3 light seconds from the Moon and that astronaut on the
Moon. Earth then being offset in time [toward] that distant "collapsed
remote background horizon," that background constant of Unity ('1'), by a
factor of -1.3 seconds from foreground zero (0) Moon.

Now exchange the Moon for the Andromeda galaxy, and the Earth for the
Milky Way galaxy. The Moon 1.3 light seconds (-1.3 seconds) from the Earth
(0) for the Andromeda galaxy 2.2 million light years (-2.2 million years)
from the Milky Way galaxy (0). The astronaut [inertialessly] crosses the
distance in space and time from the Milky Way to Andromeda in a local time
of one year, physically processing the equation -2.2 million years +2.2
million years = 0 in a local time of one year. Or, past (-2.2 million years)
via future (+2.2 million years) to now (0 (foreground (Andromeda))), within
a local span of time of one year. Andromeda was offset in time [toward] that
distant "collapsed remote background horizon" by a factor of -2.2 million
years from foreground zero (0) Milky Way, before the traveler started out.
At arrival at Andromeda one year later, the Milky Way should be offset in
time [toward] that distant "collapsed remote background horizon" by a
factor -2.2 million years. The Milky Way should now be 2.2 million light
years from both Andromeda and the astronaut now within its frame of
reference.

The farther away you place the traveler ('0') from his point of origin
('0'), the farther [toward] that constant of the "collapsed remote
background horizon" ('1') you observably place -- in time relative to the
traveler ('0') where in space he now is in time ('0') -- that same damn
point of origin ('-1').

GLB

On 24 Sep 2006 16:09:03 -0700, "Gene Ward Smith"
wrote:

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

Neutrinos have been detected. As far as I've read, Dark Matter and
Dark Energy have not.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on
Um, we've observed dark matter, sorry.

Where? I haven't seen anything about it being observed, detected,
or measured. Could you point me in a direction to look?

I keep thinking back to the Ptolemeaic vision of the Solar System,
with Earth at the center. In order to explain the observed motions of
the planets, they had to add epicycles upon epicycles... until
Copernicus and Kepler came up with the idea that the Sun was at the
center. A far simpler model that explained everything.

Maybe the Universe has a far simpler explanation than we've come up
with yet... that doesn't need unobservable phenomena to plug the
holes. :-)

Just my opinion...

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:21:42 GMT, David Johnston
wrote:

Because they weren't "observed".
Science is _full_ of things that are the product of indirect
observation but are still very useful.

BUT - until they *are* observed... DIRECTLY... the idea is still
suspect.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:30:17 -0500, "El Puerco"
wrote:

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

The three most powerful words in Science are...

"I Don't Know"

Instead of throwing around terms like Dark Matter and/or Dark
Energy, simply say that you have no idea why things are happening the
way they are... and let other minds chew on the problem. Eventually,
someone will come up with a theory that's observable, verifiable, and
consistent with past observations.

You have no understanding of religion or science.
Please shut up your ignorance.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:21:42 GMT, David Johnston
you decided to say:


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.

You can make all of the claims you want, but you have not
provided any facts. You know what I said is true, which is
why you snipped it and falsely claimed that dark matter is
indirectly observed.

__

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.

: Len Lekx
: BUT - until they *are* observed... DIRECTLY... the idea is still suspect.

In what sense is the observation of a neutrino "direct"?
You "observe" cherenkov radiation, which in the theory is due to
some particle exceeding lightspeed in water (or whatever fluid),
which in turn is in theory because of the neutrino capture.
And this you class as more "direct" than "you observe an object
falling, which in the theory is due to mass"?


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:38:39 GMT, David Johnston
you decided to say:


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.

A good scientist does not make up invisible matter that can't
be detected in any way and claim it's a fact that it exists.

The truth is, you snipped almost all of my post, because you
knew it was truth.

I choose not to waste my time with someone who refuses to
confess to the truth of a statement. Again, this only proves
the desperation of those who wish it to be so. (:

Goodbye now.

__

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.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:30:17 -0500, "El Puerco"
you decided to say:


"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?

You have made a claim. You claim matter is there. That is
not evidence.

__

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.

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:34:00 GMT, Giant Waffle
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:38:39 GMT, David Johnston
you decided to say:


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.

A good scientist does not make up invisible matter that can't
be detected in any way and claim it's a fact that it exists.

They don't "make anything up".

It's merely something they can't see but know is there because it
balances the equations. And it is defined parsimoniously - unlike your
pretend friend you imagine we should all take as seriously as you do.

The truth is, you snipped almost all of my post, because you
knew it was truth.

The truth is that you are an ignorant liar who invents non-existent
motivations for others.

I choose not to waste my time with someone who refuses to
confess to the truth of a statement. Again, this only proves
the desperation of those who wish it to be so. (:

You are a sanctimoniously nasty individual who arrogantly posts his
ignorance and bull**** in inappropriate newsgroups and arrogantly
tells the regulars what he will respond to.

And who then lies about the negative reaction to this.
Goodbye now.

__

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.