Move over Big Bang Theory, there's a new kid in town

I shall simply have to plead ignorance on this one, but I was surprised nevertheless that I hadn't seen a competing explanation of the universe quite like this before. "How can it be that I've not heard a peep about something so ostensibly groundbreaking?" I wondered. Well, I haven't yet busied myself with reading any sort of refutation of this theory, and it's even harder yet to find follow up on the massive potential of such a description of the universe as this. As it stands, however, I can't help but predict that it was unable catch a lot of traction with cosmologists, but I'm wondering if anyone out there is/was familiar with this and can provide further information?

As an aside, what do we think about this idea, metaphorical plot holes and all? Clearly it doesn't address some of the protracted and lingering complexities that the BBT does, and yet it explains other core issues that the BBT does not. My interest has been piqued, but as much as I'd love to see big bang cosmology fall to the superfluous wayside - thus silencing men like William Lane Craig momentarily - I don't think I'll get too excited just yet.

Tags: Bang, Big, Cosmology, Theory

Views: 1988

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Do you really think cosmologists are so stupid as to overlook questions like galaxies headed towards each other???

Call it group think. It's an adult version of the children's game follow the leader but its name is follow the funder.

The short history of observational astronomy repeats the history of other knowledge: curious people with the money they need to survive look at what others see. If they have the ability and desire to explain what they see, they do so.

Their explanations, based on eyeball evidence, comfort ignorant people and are retold until they become dogma.

Someone else with curiosity and the money he needs to survive invents a telescope. He (or someone who stole his idea) looks at the sky and what he sees differs from the dogma. He tells what he saw and is in trouble.

At every step, there's curiosity, funding, ability and desire to improve the hardware or the explanations, and courage to challenge the dogma.

In time the hardware becomes more expensive and explanations have to persuade funders. The funders decide what will be studied and who will study it. Follow the funder begins.

I've read lots of stories of scientists, their curiosity, their efforts and their explanations. I've rarely seen mention of their funding.

Cosmologists aren't stupid; they are busy following the funding.

Astronomers tell of colliding galaxies; cosmologists don't.

Call it group think. It's an adult version of the children's game follow the leader but its name is follow the funder.

In other words, you DO think cosmologists are very stupid. Here's a lecture about the formation of gravitationally bound structures in cosmology. 

Your criticisms are meaningless as criticisms of the Big Bang theory, because you aren't checking for the answers. You aren't engaging with or understanding the Big Bang theory as physics.
Your criticisms do mean something. They say things about you - your issues with religion and your emotions and attitude towards other people.

Actually, since you claim to be proficient at calculations, why not answer your question yourself?

You could look up the mass of our local group of galaxies and its approximate radius, then by the virial theorem you would have an estimate of the typical speed of a galaxy in the local group (relative to the center of mass). Then compare that to the velocity  that comes from the expansion of the universe, measured across the radius of the local group, and you would have an idea of how important the expansion of the universe is to the dynamics of the local group.

If you're going to criticize current cosmology, you can do a Cosmology 101 problem :)

C'mon, Luara; you know cosmology depends on BB assumptions.

If LeMaitre were alive, I probably wouldn't ask him about Buddhism. I certainly wouldn't ask him about Tantric Buddhism.

Then you don't understand what it means to check what answer cosmologists would give to your question.

I told you roughly how you could estimate the strength of gravitational forces in the local galaxy cluster vs the expansion of the universe.  That comparison is crucial. 

In addition to the standard cosmological model and its several extensions there are at least a dozen non-standard models. Some cosmologists investigate both.

For example here is a recent paper that tests six models—of which five are non-standard—against new data from the Supernova Legacy Survey.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.6125v2.pdf

The authors claim the standard model fits the data best.

In addition to your misunderstandings, you make a number of unsupported claims. I think it's time to challenge you to support just one:

And so, BB supporters are engaged in politics. One early political victory was using BB Theory rather than BB Hypothesis. Yeah, I fell for that piece of propaganda.

You should be able to document this change in designation, tell us exactly how it came about, and just why you deem it a political victory, or indeed a victory of any kind at all.

[By the way academic terminology for the last decade or two seems to favor standard cosmological model—perhaps yet another political victory? As I understand it there are even several variations on the standard model.]

In the hope of partially allaying your conspiratorial fears, I suggest you take a glance at a paper of Peebles from 1998 in which he discussed the standard model and its deficiencies. It's relatively brief.

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Peebles1/frames.html

Moreover Peebles proposed numerous tests for that version.

On his display page—Peebles is Albert Einstein Professor of Science at Princeton (Emeritus)—he remarks on his interest in areas of research off the beaten track:

What might we learn from lines of research that are off the beaten track? They check accepted ideas, always a Good Thing, and there is the chance Nature has prepared yet another surprise for us.

Alternatives to the standard cosmological model appear all the time in the literature and they are numerous.

...academic terminology for the last decade or two seems to favor standard cosmological model...

Hm-mm, where did I read that before Hubbell, a few lines in Genesis were the standard?

BTW, I use the legal definition for conspiracy; what BB folk do isn't illegal.

Thanks for the link to Peebles' paper. I'll check it out.

You have a habit of sidestepping direct questions and challenges to your claims, which you continue to present without support. So once again I ask you to present what evidence you have to back up this:

And so, BB supporters are engaged in politics. One early political victory was using BB Theory rather than BB Hypothesis. Yeah, I fell for that piece of propaganda.

You should be able to document this change in designation, tell us exactly when and how it came about, and just why you deem it a political victory, or indeed a victory of any kind at all.

My suspicion that it's something you've made up out of whole cloth is growing with your failure to respond.

You have a habit of sidestepping direct questions and challenges to your claims,....

Dr. Clark, answering the questions and challenges of people committed to religious explanations of the universe would be a never-ending task. I tell them I don't have the faith they have.

I know the dedication of Catholic priests to their faith and heard several of them say they rejoice when fellow priests die. They have their faith; I don't.  LeMaitre was a Catholic priest who studied math. If I were to find that he gave more credence to reason than to his faith I would consider him a statistical anomaly.

I've mentioned his faith and its possible effects on his reasoning but you said nothing. I assumed a lack of knowledge on the subject and went on to other issues. Yet, you are dedicated to the BB Hypothesis.

I learned early during my 40 years in politics that economics is another reason for dedication to a cause. I mentioned its importance in academic research and you reacted as if the subject is not to be broached.

I learned also the function of slogans; their users intend them to end the bothersome thinking and start  the necessary compliance. Given the use in science of the words theory and hypothesis, the term BB Theory functions as a slogan. The term BB Hypothesis leaves the subject open.

I realize that in academic life a term's derivation is important. In political life a term's effect is important.

I believe BB cosmology will fall, but not real soon. I won't persuade you, but I'm okay with that.

I enjoyed the challenges you hurled. Thanks.

I will in a few days receive an appointment to a county commission on aging; I have some politics to do.

In other words, you have no evidence to back your assertion whatever— just as I suspected. Case closed.

Anyone has biases.  But the Big Bang theory has to be criticized on its own merits, not on the basis that you think physicists have a bias in its favor. 

A theory can be devised by a biased person, and still be right.  Talk about bias is beside the point. 

You seem biased against the Big Bang theory - again, that says nothing about its truth or falsity. 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service