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 ...
That thought has actually occurred to me. There are lots of “modifications” to the Big Bang theory that may or may not be true. We don’t know everything.
Only ICR takes a lack of knowledge as proof of anything.
Settled science.
Bang Deniers must be burned at the stake.
To do that you have to throw out the second law of thermodynamics.
circlecity wrote: “They argued that inflation can never be shown to be wrong—it cannot be falsified—and therefore inflation isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.”
How does one falsify Global Climate change and what does that say about it’s being a scientific hypothesis?
“Let there be Light.”
English astronomer Fred Hoyle noticed that too, and despised and rejected the Big Bang for that very reason. Couldn’t stand the argument for a creator.
Ironically he also coined the term The Big Bang.
I see nothing wrong with trying to figure out how our universe works. Religion and science can coexist, and they should. Dismissing either is a mistake and makes those of us who do believe in God look like complete morons.
English astronomer Fred Hoyle noticed that too, and despised and rejected the Big Bang for that very reason. Couldn’t stand the argument for a creator.
The King of Tyre evidently must have know where it was... since Ezekiel LITERALLY says he was there....
Ezek 28:11-13 11 "'You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13
NIV ...which is contradictory in the context of a literal Genesis: Gen 3:23-24 23
NIV
That article isn't one of them, so try something else.
That article only questions whether what appears to be proof of inflation is really an artifact of something else. It does not question inflation in particular, and certainly does not question the Big Bang; it is an entirely empirical discussion.
You stand corrected.
The claim is not that the BBT cannot be falsified -- it can. The claim is that a specific mechanism attributed to solving some issues with the earliest moments after the BB may not constitute a falsifiable component of the theory.
That's a big difference.
Great concept. Asimov and Clarke came up with some good ones.
OFC the theory was constructed to account for the available evidence. DUH. That is what a theory, by definition, does. There is nothing "self-referential" about that: the empirical evidence came from outside of the theory.
My God, the comments on this thread are absolutely the most laughable baloney I have ever read on FR, bar none.
Only ICR takes a lack of knowledge as proof of anything.
...
The ICR does seem to specialize in “lack of knowledge,” but they like to make up for it with credentialism.
Yes, they would, but they won’t because the stakes are much too high for them since if the Big Bang is false then it logically follows that evolution is as well. They’ll be revealed as charlatans, deceivers, stupid pagans and worse. Rather, like rats in a trap seeking a way out, they’ll revise the second law of thermodynamics if they can get away with it.
That assumption, by the way, is already present in the Big Bang. I have had this conversation (fruitlessly) on a number of occasions on FR with Young Earth Creationists. It is a simple fact: if the Second Law is true, the minimum entropy point was at The Singularity. It is not even particularly remarkable.
Assuming dominion over the faith of others by asserting that, unless we accept the fallible and uninspired opinion that the world is only 6000 years old, we can't possibly be part of THEIR body of Christ.... certainly is religious.
In the meantime, there is no evolutionary biologist in the world who believes that the change in allele frequency in a population has the slightest bit of anything to do with the Big Bang.
Thus too for the ICR by its very name.
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.