Big Bang Theory is WRONG - 33 Top Scientists Object

Spontaneous creation by accident is absurd. There must be processes in place that enable energy to organize into more complex forms over time. I have watched every documentary ever made and never saw anyone propose a theory that did not involve a theory that we started with the big bang. In fact, they all talk about it as if it were a settled fact. But recently I had a realization that our universe requires more of a cause and effect explanation. So this is my 3rd Topic post within 1 week suggesting the universe evolved in some way.

I just discovered tonight that I am not the first person to suggest that the Universe Evolved. 33 top scientists signed an open letter to the science community in 2004 claiming the Big Bang Theory had some major flaws and that "Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end."

The letter goes on to say "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."

Consider this: Dark Energy is causing the universe to expand faster and faster. Its rate is exponential. So if we go backward in time, the expansion rate should get exponentially slower. I haven't done the math, but I assume it gets extremely slow. Too slow to account for the rapid expansion rate of the big bang.

See the full article by googling big bang 33 scientists rense

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a letter from The New Scientist, allegedly signed by 33 people, none of whom are given any academic credentials. It is chock-a-block full of inaccurate statements, such as

This is not true. The Big Bang theory quantitatively predicted the black body spectrum of the CMB,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The observed spectrum by COBE matched EXACTLY with the predicted results, and the error bars are so small they are obscured by the data points.

as well as it's distribution and temperature.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There is also this disclaimer from WWW.RENSE.COM

And half a memory of this originally coming out 8 years ago is that some of the people listed were never contacted, and objected to their names being used.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All 33 would better serve humanity by being ground up and fed to sheep than to pretend to do science. In science, you don't just make up wild stories -- you make models and test them against the whole record of human observation of the universe. It's Lerner (64), Arp (almost 85), Bondi (died 2005) and the rest I think never mattered at all.

Lerner's position is defined by his financial interest in a 1991 book. He was wrong then, and every discovery about the universe since then has made him more wrong. He won't be doing science until he stops trying to pretend that numbers and observations don't matter.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

Arp's methodology focuses on the weird -- a method that heavily relies on outliers favors colorful anecdotes and not data. As a result, what is interesting to Arp isn't necessarily meaningful in a physical or statistical sense.

Bondi's position is antique. He's been emeritus since 1985. Since then we've gotten way better at observation of the universe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

Moreover, Bondi and Lerner have different positions -- so it is a false equivalence to place them on a list of people who have disfavored the Big Bang when they advocate for different ideas. It's like a rabid anti-science Turkish moron finding common cause with a rabid anti-science Australian mouth-breather in Tennessee -- just because they both claim knowledge that science is wrong doesn't mean that they are claiming the other person is right or even should be entitled to their own opinion. Without the methodology of science and the cool restraint of empirical methodology all that is left is hubris, cult of personality and religious schism. That they (like Seattle's Intelligent Design anti-science organization) want to create a "Big Tent" to lump anti-science people under a vague and general statement is a move of utter desperation caused by the failure to lure people to their sundry and various causes which all differ in the details.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just stay on the path that you are on. Negative replies don't have to stop you working on a new idea. I know that you are on the right track, I don't think that you have got the right idea yet, but at least you are heading in the right direction. Forget about the 33 scientists, just keep doing what you are doing.

 

Interesting OP, but the steady steady state model was put to bed, by the accidental observation in 1948, of microwave electromagnetic radiation, coming from all directions in space. This radiation was predicted by Robert Dicke and George Gamow in I think 1948.

 

Translation: "You are wrong, because the only way you could be right would be to slavishly agree with me. But at least you aren't using the scientific method which would require my ideas to be precise, useful and communicable descriptions of reality. I hate that stuff and I don't know why people turn to science for actual answers when they can listen to stuff I make up. More people should listen to me. I feel very alone at times."

 

There are. They are the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and gravity.

That's because no one else has a shred of evidence for anything else, and we have a lot of evidence for a big bang.

It's like coming home and finding a vase broken on the floor, muddy footprints leading up to it, a child wailing with a cut on his hand, his muddy shoes and hands dripping, and mud on the pieces of the vase. Might an alien have come, broken the vase, dragged the kid to it, cut his hand on a piece then disappeared? Yes. But it's a lot more likely that the kid broke the vase.

A self-disproving statement.

Yes, it could - with good reason. If you're an astronomer and decide that the sky is a blue bowl with stars painted on, your grant money is going to end up going to someone more intelligent. That's a good thing.

Now, if you manage to bounce radar signals off the blue bowl, and discover a piece of it in Antarctica that fell off - you just might get that money back.

"I haven't done the math but I assume" is a good way to not get taken seriously in science.

 

That's funny stuff right there. The record of science is that wild stories are made up, held to be true, and then later found to be just that, wild stories that are false. Should I name a few?

 

Your entire rant revolves around this one statement. What exactly do you mean by spontaenous creation by accident? That sequence of words has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory or any inflationary theory I am aware of.

 

The current CMB interpretation (a Big Bang (BB) leftover) was immediately 'attached' to the BB model as a foregone conclusion of fact when Pensias-Wilson observed the phenomenon. The phenomenon can just as easily be associated with a 'continuous' equilibrium process involving evolution of the (now) observable universe from a very highly-energetic (energy only) pre-universe condition, not unlike the highly-energetic 'virtual vacuum' hypothesis that we generally accept today. All of foregoing post is IMPO (James R)

 

:shrug:


Crunchy Cat beat me to the punch; I stopped dead at the first sentence, too.

I would add that, when you get through defining "Spontaneous creation" and "Spontaneous creation by accident", you might as well go on to define "absurd" since it's apparently a relative term to you.

 

Rense is a very well known conspiricist website.

 

The CMB is just about inflation surely? Although the Big Bang includes inflation, so does my model, and I don't have a singularity, apart from the ones in each Galaxy. I'm sure that there are lots of ways to envisage inflation without a Big Bang singularity.

 

The name Big Bang Theory itself gives people a wrong impression or picture of how our universe started. Our instrumentation and observations they help us make are getting better all the time, but how those observations get interpreted is still an evolving picture that's bound to change a great deal yet.

Like you, I don't believe the current theory is a complete or even an accurate picture of how it all started. But without more information I'm reluctant to add my speculations up for discussion, because I can no more prove anything I say about the subject than anybody else can about what they say on the subject.

Some of those documentaries you mentioned are produced to represent the consensus of what most scientists believe. What else can they do? The current text books have to reflect the current mainstream ideas or we run into big problems.

 

Even just within Big Bang Theory, you could say that the universe evolved. Not in the classic sense of evolution of species, but in a general way, it evolved through several stages and cooled, leading to a process of complexification.

 

Of course it evolved, and for the SAME reason as species evolved. Evolution is simply change over time. There was once a very dense object of mass residing in space. It has since evolved into a less dense object that contains fish, animals, humans, cars, houses, computers, and sex toys. In the past those objects didn't exist, and now they do.

Mass evolves to space!

 

This is how I start my universe. I came up with a particle that had a convex curve of 1, and a concave curve of -1. So the total balance of energy at one point was zero. Then you can just put it everywhere, it will always equal zero until it runs out of space. Then the universe will collapse into the first singularity which is just a Galaxy. But if you could see it in maths, the maths would look like this, and remain zero....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, since everyone else is posting something they have seen wrong in this, so will I.
This statement directly contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, which is the backbone to the "Big Chill" theory to the end of our universe. Yes, the actual expanse of space will probably go on forever, but all matter as we know it will eventually dissipate and the universe will become a very cold, and dead place.

 

This thread definitely belongs in Pseudoscience.

 

Some of Arp's ideas in plasma cosmology I liked, including the evolving universe and symmetry of processes from small to large, but as with other alternative theories out there, it didn't measure up to what we actually see. A competing model has to at least predict observations as well as the BBT, and preferably better.

Lerner's big objection was that it was difficult to get opposing viewpoints and research past people who had devoted their lifetime to researching the Big Bang. While I don't doubt there's people out there that would cling to what they know, as that's human nature, I can't believe that there's a big conspiracy to keep new ideas down, IF they have merit.

Just like here and other forums...usually the best way to get your idea thrown out is to get defensive about questions. But if it can't survive questions...what's it worth?