Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?

Creation Ministries International ^ | 7 February 2017 | Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?

[fishtank]

Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?

by John G. Hartnett

Published: 7 February 2017 (GMT+10)

Occasionally we read in the popular press, especially online, that someone has come up with a new theory of gravity. Why is that even necessary if the current theory describing the evolution of the universe is so correct?

The standard ΛCDM big bang cosmology is derived from an application of certain non-biblical boundary conditions to the physics of Einstein’s general relativity theory. But when that was applied to the universe as a whole, two problems developed for the secular model. One is the need to add in dark energy (or the cosmological constant, Λ (Lambda), to Einstein’s field equations) and the other is the need for a significant amount of invisible cold dark matter (CDM).

On the scale of galaxies and even clusters of galaxies Newtonian physics is used as it is the low gravity limit of general relativity. But without the addition of dark matter the resulting theory, using the known density of visible matter in galaxies (see Figure 1) and clusters, does not match observations. But for more than 40 years now dark matter has been sought in various lab experiments with consistently negative results. This has developed into what is called the dark matter crisis.1

[fishtank]

Figure 1: Typical rotation curve of a spiral galaxy: Speeds (V) in km/s units as a function of distance from the centre of the galaxy (R) in 1000 light-year (LY) units. The upper curve shows the speeds of the stars in disk region determined from their visible light and the gasses beyond that determined from radio frequency emissions. The lower curve shows what standard Newtonian physics predicts should be observed. The discrepancy is made up by positing the existence of invisible dark matter.

CMI article image and caption

[D Rider]

It could be that Niels Bohr was correct, the universe is electromagnetic.

[backwoods-engineer]

Because fishtank and other young-earth creationists fail to see that real science is constantly refining its models, to ever more closely approximate truth? The truth that God himself has written into the fabric of the universe?

[marktwain]

Why is that even necessary if the current theory describing the evolution of the universe is so correct?

---

Because science does not deal in absolutes?

Because theories are always being revised and refined?

Because theories often explain much, but not everything. What they do not explain results in further refinement.

[minnesota_bound]

Big bang cosmology is correct?
Sheldon Cooper thinks not.
He abandoned physics and went with geology after some derision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3roKKQbIycI

May contain disturbing images of Sheldon in bed....
The Big Bang Theory - Drunk Sheldon and Geology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOQp3FHOPyQ

[D Rider]

Brain fart it was David Bohm.

[Lisbon1940]

Scientists are always trying to find out about stuff.

[babble-on]

we have a winner!

[UCANSEE2]

The outer edges of a tornado can reach 100-200 mph, and carry objects like houses, trucks, trains, yet the mass of the 'tornado' itself is very low.

Do tornadoes contain DARK MATTER ?

[Mr. K]

Why do some galaxies look like they are exploding outward (a ball) and some look like they are spiraling inward (like water down a drain)?

This has always been something I noticed. Spiral arms are formed in water down a drain, tornadoes (upside down drain), hurricanes, why would large-scale galaxies be different?

[Mr. Lucky]

Well said, sir.

[Red Badger]

They can’t find the Dark Matter because IT’S DARK, duh!..................

[UCANSEE2]

the universe is electromagnetic.

Oh yeah ? Well... name one thing that is part of the electromagnetic spectrum in this Universe.

; )

[Boogieman]

The simple fact is, the starting conditions for the Big Bang, according to the laws of physics we know from observation and experiment, could never result in a “Big Bang”. Those conditions would instead result in an extraordinarily massive black hole from which nothing could escape.

Scientists have to imagine that the laws of physics must have been different at that time to allow for a “big bang” instead of the usual result. However, that violates uniformitarianism, one of key postulates underlying all of science. Thus, their clinging to this “big bang” hypothesis undercuts just about everything else in science, since if the hypothesis were true, uniformitarianism could not be taken for granted, and all science based on the assumption of uniformitarianism would be put into question.

[Mr. K]

PS only someone ignorant of science would write such an aritcle phrased that way.

All theories are subject to question and change if a new theory proves better.

Big Bang is not true just because it is the current consensus - it is still just a theory.

[Paradox]

And God said, “Let there be light”.

[PfromHoGro]

Perhaps someone can explain how our observations are affected due to change in the way time is kept by the space between large masses when the masses are moving away or towards each other. We know that time runs “faster” the farther away from mass the time is kept. If two large masses are moving away from each other, the “time-watch” rate in the space between the masses changes- accelerates, or decelerates if the masses are moving away or towards each other.

There’s that Abel super cluster (I forget the catalogue number) that’s used to display a large area of dark matter. Could it be that the space between the masses is just undergoing a large change in the way the space keeps time? And our experience of that phenomenon results in these discrepancies? Maybe I’m not explain that right, or it’s completely idiotic and I’m missing something. But wouldn’t time run “slower” closer to the center of the galaxy than it does out near the outer rim?

[Voluntaryist]

Bingo! Electric Universe!!

[Yo-Yo]

Because God does not play dice with the universe. He created it, but there is no reason why we cannot figure out how it works.

[I want the USA back]

The “Big Bang” is not a sufficient explanation of the origin of the Universe. In other words, it can not be used in order to explain the Universe as we see it. Talking about “dark matter” is just flailing around in the dark.

The first job is to explain where the energy came from that caused the “Universe the size of a pea” to expand to the size of an apple, then to the size of a grapefruit, then to the size of a watermelon, and to its current size.

I would also like to know how it is possible to measure the size of the Universe at its inception, since there can not be an observer standing outside of the Universe with a measuring stick to measure it.

(Obviously it’s not possible.)