The Big Bang Theory is Unscientific

The alien card trumps any other argument so I automatically win.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm just saying, in that case, there is room for an untold measure of speculation and arbitrariness.

I also heard some people say inflation is still around because it is the only viable theory. That is obviously non sequitur, just because it is the only explanation around doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Not that inflation is the only explanation around.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0109439

best piece I've seen so far on inflation with all pros and cons, falsifiability etc. not only explained but discussed point by point.

Highly recc'ed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I read in some post a few days ago. "The BB does not require a before, nothing caused the BB. The BB was the birth of space and time." This sounds a bit like something I read in a different place. "In the beginning was the void, and god created the heaven and the earth. And the earth vas without form and void. And god said, let there be light, and there was light" And this was the big bang. Who said the last 6 word sentense ? The Pope did ! ! that happened in 1992 and he said that heceforth Catholics would be allowed to beleive in the BBT. I kid you not this realy happened.

All I have to add is, that when the pope endorses a scientific theory, a red flag goes up in my brain.
REGARDS APOLO

 

Andrei Linde, one of the founders of inflationary theory, has formulated an 'eternally self-replicating Inflationary Universe' scenario;
the idea of eternally increasing entropy doesn't seem to worry him; and if it can be reset then it might not be such a problem after all.
http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf

 

Hum, indeed…
The resetting mechanism would occur through black holes (if hawking were right)

If he is wrong,
then an alternative theory could be that when the universe has expanded so much so that space is expanding faster than light, (all the forces are remember are constrained by the velocity of light) then there would be, effectively, no gravity, no atoms, magnetic fields , but perhaps full of entropy, etc .
It’s still an ideal place to have quantum fluctuations that would create a new universe,

But,
In addition, it’s just a thought; the arrow of time would seem to point <b>backwards</b>, in the `new` universe.

So the `new` universe would start with high entropy that becomes lower as the universe evolves…
The only constraint that sets the arrow of time would be the boundary conditions of the beginning and the end (aka, wheeler Feynman time theory) that either reflect or absorb messenger/force carrying particles.

 

As the vast majority of scientists and astronomers think that the big bang theory is correct, your paper carries little creedence.

 

...and since most of Earth's inhabitants accept some sort of deity(s)/creation scenario, I guess atheism is wrong.

I repeat, the BBT is nothing more than a non-theistic alternative to some sort of "divine" creation - nothing more. But it probably makes those cosmologists with some lingering hope of an afterlife feel a little more comfortable. Makes money, too!

 

Even though I am highly secular, the question of where everything comes from still touches my religious side - the side of awe, humility, and utter oblivion.

 

..And I almost laughed.

 

It is obvious that the BBT was endorsed by the pope because it is essentially a creationist theory i.e. it tries to put a limit to our intellectual understanding of the universe (which should just be fine for any church person).
What's more, Georges Lemaitre, the 'inventor' of the Big Bang Theory, was also an ordained catholic priest (see for instance http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html ).

See http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/cosmology.htm for my own criticism of the Big Bang Theory.

 

Does it matter if it was the Pope himself? The main thing is that this is the theory most universally accepted by the majority of scientists and wannabe scientists than any other theory.

 

The truth is not determined by majority vote. Otherwise we would still be dabbling in the Ptolemaic Theory of the universe which was widely accepted for 2000 years before Copernicus came along.

 

I wonder how it happenned that God has crept in to the discussion on this thead so much. I thought that would belong on the religion thread. If some one beleives there is a God and that he created the universe, I respect his beleif, but I do not discus scientific theories with him.

REGARDS APOLO

 

I can only say that what we nowadays divide into science, philosophy and religion used to be one and the same thing.

The fact that certain religions have put a specific brand name on it, does not alter the fact that they still are in a deep sense one and the same thing.

And up to a point, same goes for science. Philosophy is a sort of catch-all for all else.

What brand of local deity you asked for favors, was a different matter and up to taste, or lack of it, but free. Big monolithic religions altered that.

We're not so free these days. Not in religion, or in science, for that matter. Divided ballpark and all that, and vested market interests to keep it that way.