Scientifically, the "big bang" theory is? (not a creation question)?

Question

Old argument? Sorry. Okay, creation science notwithstanding, I was looking into this idea of the "big bang" and was directed to this not-a-creation-science website, which states that the big bang is not the only theory for understanding the history of the universe, but that researchers who do not use its framework as a basis for understanding are vastly underfunded, so that true scientific inquiry is being undermined. They state: "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." http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Please look into this website and assess the validity of these scientists' position, and let me (and Answers) know where to find information on the "other theories".

Answer 1

In contrast to what this petition states, the steady state view fell because it could not explain the cosmic background radiation. Also, the big bang cosmology with inflation added *does* make very specific predictions that have been observed. The background radiation is just one example. The specific form for the background radiation (a black-body spectrum) is very specific and has not been adequately dealt with from other models.

One prediction of the BB was the distribution of anisotropies in the background radiation. This prediction was made long before we had the refinements to measure the distribution (I have a cosmology book from 1998 that talks about what this distribution would tell us). At one point, there was even a concern that the anisotropies would not actually show up (they are incredibly small). They did and the model survived.

I think it should be pointed out that the infl;ationary scenario was not the conventional viewpoint when it was first presented. It wasn't until much later that evidence accumulated that it is correct and it became the standard view. This just shows that new theories *do* get a hearing if they are not completely 'ad hoc' and can explain some observed phenomena.

Answer 2

All currently viable theories of Cosmology are variants of the Big Bang theory. Similarly, all currently viable theories of Cosmology incorporate a round Earth, a Sun-centered Solar System, and galaxies other than the Milky Way.

That's because there is a lot of observational evidence that is only explained by the various "Big Bang" theories, and not by any other theories. The observational evidence is too extensive to go into here---take a course in astronomy, then in cosmology.

Thirty, or even fifteen years ago, there were rival cosmological theories. Now those theories have been discarded by almost everyone, because the observations rule them out. There are, of course, always those who do not accept new data and are unwilling to change their ideas under any circumstances. Those people do not deserve to have their research supported by the public's hard-earned tax dollars. They no more deserve public support than a cosmologist whose model incorporates a flat Earth. They can, however, think what they like. The real problem here is that cosmology has been revolutionized within living memory.

Answer 3

Hi. I have not read the link yet, but the scientific mind is always open. At the moment there are many theories that fit observation. Any theory that would REPLACE the current ones would need to do two things. One is to match ALL of the observations science has currently made and two, it must predict something that can be observed and have it match the observation. The best theories do get funded simply because they meet both of these criteria. Now I'll go read the link... OK, I agree with the premise that an observation which does not support the current theory is wrong can, and probably does, happen. I once met John Dobson (inventor of the Dobsonian telescope mount) and he was convinced that the 'big bang' theory was bunk. And who knows? Maybe it IS. But at the moment it is a work in progress. Maybe the background radiation is simply starlight that has been red-shifted to an extreme. Maybe it is the inner surface of our own 'black hole'. Maybe dark matter and dark energy are simple relativistic effects. But it sure is fun watching as we (humankind) try to find out, don't you think?

Answer 4

You would think that, of all fields of endeavor, science, in the interest of advancement, would set aside funding and encourage opposing views. Instead, they have been trying to prove a theory that was first expressed by a Roman Catholic priest in 1927 and there has not been a significant amount of advancement during this time.

While scientists are no longer beheaded, burned at the stake, or imprisoned in the Tower of London for going against the grain, the fact remains that if you want a job, you had better go along. You had better not be offering too many alternatives to your students if you want to keep your position as a professor at a university. You had better keep your thoughts to yourself if you don't want to be chosen for elimination during the next rift at NASA. "I have a job to get done (proving the Big Bang) and you are just not with the program." You had better find a way to interpret any discovery that you make as being in support of the Big Bang. We will give you a Nobel prize if you do and ignore you or call you stupid if you don't.

Of course the evidence supports the Big Bang. It is the only evidence that has been collected. As usual, you can follow the money.

Answer 5

I completely agree there is a "Big Bang Bias" (BBB) that has tragically undermined true empirical observation, subsequently skewing and severely deforming authentic scientific extrapolation and conclusions. When the Space Telescope Hubble commenced its operation to photograph the farthest extremities of the Known Universe, "BBB Theorists" predicted, according to their erroneous mathematical models, that a literal wall of utterly countless ancient Red Giant Stars and Red Supergiant Stars would be observed and recorded at the remote edge of the universe, and they had speculated that the age of the Known Universe would most likely have to be pushed back to "45 billion years". Well, SURPRISE! This never materialized, but what did was completely unexpected. According to physicist, Dr. Paul Davies, scarcely a "handful" of these stars could even be detected, thus collapsing the cherished Big Bang Model, and most shockingly of all, the data seemed to concretely confirm that the Known Universe is actually no older than a mere 10 million, not billion, but (10) million years! This caused a grave "internal scientific crisis" of absolute catastrophic proportions within the privy and isolated BBB and astronomical community, those exclusively exposed to this alarming data, which not only "threatened" the total EXTINCTION of the entire Big Bang Model, but also guaranteed the complete and finite collapse of the entire "Uniformitarian Model" upon which the bogus Theory of Evolution (which according to their baseless theory requires a minimum of 5 billion years to sustain this LIE), and a whole host of numerous and sweeping scientific fields and sub-theories are artificially reliant upon. Consequently, gripped in an utter state of panic the "control group" put a "tight lid" on the crisis, and sat on the results for over one year! During this period they formulated the "Conspiracy of the Millennium" and drastically violated the "Scientific Method" via unscrupulously “fudging” the equations and the “numbers”, and deceptively fabricated an alternative and manipulated analysis of the data, thus materializing FALSE results to intentionally satisfy their fraudulent “scientific world view” and to artificially uphold their skewed and dishonest theories. Ultimately, there published, faked results placed the new “compromised” age of the Known Universe at slightly less than 14 billion years, a “satisfactory middle-ground” that will still sustain their BBB and cherished scientific reputations high and above “Scientific Truth”, while the true 10 million year age of the Known Universe has been brutally obliterated. No one will ever know as the Modern Scientific Dark Age continues to thrive with unmitigated deception.

Answer 6

Keep in mind that this petition was written in 2004 and that the field of cosmology is always rapidly evolving as new discoveries are made. If the Big Bang Theory was old argument, John C. Mather and George F. Smoot would not have just been given the Nobel Prize for discovering evidence in favor of it.

Answer 7

Yeah. It sucks but that's the way it goes. As they point out, funding comes from only a few sources and most (if not all) of them ascribe to the 'Big Bang' theory.

If all of the signers on that website are so outraged, why not have all of them pitch in a few bucks to fund a project to study the 'Big Bang' theory?


Doug

Answer 8

The "Big Bang" explains the observation that the farther galaxies are from us, the faster they are moving away from us. Other models are proposed -- inflationary, and so on. None have anything to do with the creation of the universe -- only it's development after its creation.

Answer 9

I just selected one name at random, it was ...................
Peter J Carroll, Psychonaut Institute, UK

I clicked on this link and then selected the Arcanorium College.
In here we have the Department of Sorcery and Alternative Science. Talking of this department the site says......

The Department is led by Peter James Carroll, Past Grandmaster of the IOT Pact, BSc, PGCE, Company Director,Chancellor Of Arcanorium College, and author of Liber Null and Psychonaut; Liber Kaos, the Psychonomicon; and also Psybermagick.

I am sure that there are those who would like their tax dollars to be invested in the investigation of Psybermagick. I am not one of them.

Answer 10

THE BIGBANG THEORY MAY REVEAL ITSELF FALSE OR INCORRECT,BUT ITS AN HONEST ATTEMPT TO FIND THE TRUTH....REAL SCIENCE WORKS BY PROVING ITS HYPOTESIS WRONG,IF IM NOT WRONG....THERES ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT,BUT I FIND THE WHOLE IDEA OF A GOD CREATING UNIVERSE LUDICROUS AND HIGLY INSULTING AND TRULY REPULSIVE TO REASON........