Article image.
Posted on 05/30/2017 10:44:18 AM PDT by fishtank
Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American
by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *
The February 2017 issue of Scientific American contains an article by three prominent theoretical physicists from Princeton and Harvard who strongly question the validity of cosmic inflation, an important part of the modern Big Bang theory.1 They argued that inflation can never be shown to be wrong—it cannot be falsified—and therefore inflation isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.
Inflation theory was proposed by physicist Alan Guth to solve a number of serious problems in early versions of the Big Bang model. Supposedly, the universe underwent an extremely short period of accelerated expansion right after the Big Bang.
However, physicists later realized this version of inflation theory was too simplistic.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Article image.
One can say the same thing about Darwinian evolution.
The whole thing really cracks me up. For me, big bang = “let there be light.”
Let there be Light.
“By claiming that inflationary cosmology lies outside the scientific method, IS&L are dismissing the research of not only all the authors of this letter but also that of a substantial contingent of the scientific community.”
I’m embarrassed for Guth, et al. that they would even write this. Which sort of rhetorical fallacy is it, “appeal to authority”, or “argument by consensus”? It certainly isn’t a scientific argument.
It shouldn’t have taken professors at Princeton and Harvard to recognize the difference between mysticism and science.
But there’s no grant money in discernment along those lines, is there.
The big bang is like abiogenesis. No scientist can even begin to explain how or why it happened, so it is an article of faith that it did happen. Just like the creation story.
The difference is that religious people know they are accepting creation on faith, where scientists huff about in self-righteous indignation that anyone would dare question “science”.
If the Universe is ‘expanding’, what is it ‘expanding’ into?.............
Neither;
Scientific
or
American.
Discuss.
The Big Bang theory cannot seriously be questioned, due to the enormous volume of evidence. But there are gaps and inconsistencies which suggest we don’t fully understand it. Inflation is one “patch” that seems to cover most of those gaps, but lacks empirical evidence other than conveniently explaining the lack of clumpiness that mathematical models otherwise produce. We can see from the microwave background a certain amount of clumpiness that shouldn’t be there as well. Science isn’t perfect, but what are the alternatives?
Like global warming, cosmic inflation is settled science. Fire those three physicists who dared to question it! Revoke their degrees. And ban them from working in the field, ever again.
That is, after all, the accepted way of handling dissent these days.
For me, big bang = “let there be light.”
The whole point of the article is that "Big Bang" is not an adequate scientific explanation for observed phenomena.
"Big Bang" is not to be misunderstood as "Let there be Light," because "Big Bang" is not a suitable scientific model to describe anything science can either observe or quantify.
The Scripture is true as stated in and of itself. Jesus Christ spoke the entire creation into existence from the first light to the first man (John 1:1-5). It is little wonder then that Jesus Himself is also known as "The WORD."
FReegards!
If that picture doesn’t get you thinking... nothing will.
So much fertile ground for the advancement of knowledge.
Science isn’t about ‘why’, which smuggles in the premise there is a mind behind the cosmos. Science should be about ‘what’ and ‘how’.
"The Big Bang theory cannot seriously be questioned, due to the enormous volume of evidence"Cite ONE non self-referential piece of evidence.
Question anything you want, as long as it’s not anthropogenic climate change.
Well said.
1. The microwave background.
2. The red-shifting of distant galaxies.
3. The evolved appearance of distant galaxy clusters.
4. The delayed light curve of distant supernovae.
5. The proportion of hydrogen, helium, and lithium in the universe almost exactly matching mathematical models of nucleosynthesis in a hot, dense early universe.
6. The increasing detected temperature of the microwave background with distance.
This points to a universe that is cooling and expanding. And if it is expanding, it must have had a beginning. For someone with a religious background, neither do I see how this conflicts with the Bible. If someone has an alternative explanations for the points I’ve given, I’d like to hear them.
tons of google links of doubts about the big bang and even cosmic microwave background...
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/05/doubts-shroud-big-bang-discovery
Exactly. If matter is not present (and its affects on space-time) can there be space-time? The old tree falls in the forest question.
Wonder what the expanding boundary or the edge of the universe looks like? If it is expanding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.