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 ...
So what banged, how, and what caused it?
>>the Bible doesn’t contain metaphors or analogies or idioms in any of its prophecies or creation narratives.
Nope. Literally never.
How do the mathematical models related to Renormalization of QED Near Decoupling Temperature apply to cosmological models and/or practical technological applications; and which elements of the models have failed, exactly?
Sheldon gave up string theory and is now among the mud people.
He studies geology.
It's all Global Warming and tweaking of models to fit the observations and tweaking the reports of the observations to fit the models. Academic Science is pretty much dead now, replaced by politically desirable myths. Lysenko Rules.
It is AGW in Astrophysics.
#39 and others: The Last Question by Isaac Asimov © 1956
http://multivax.com/last_question.html
>>So what banged
All of the (E)nergy in the Universe
>>, how,
This model has some attractive and repulsive elements...
https://archive.org/details/ThePlasmaUniversenasaTalk
The religiously anti-Bangerish will be pleased - Won’t they?
>>and what caused it?
God spoke and there was E! That’s what I think.
“You would think most “anti-Christian” scientists would reject the big bang for that very reason.”
Hoyle and a couple of others tried arguing for an eternal, steady state universe. But I think they run into something called Olber’s paradox- the night sky would not be dark in such a universe.
It’s important to note that the term “Big Bang” was coined in mockery of the theory, by someone who rejected it (Fred Hoyle). The theory simply says there is an ongoing expansion of space, and that the universe must have originated from a much smaller volume of space (not a particular location in space). There are numerous implications of this, including a hot dense early universe that evolved through many stages into what it is now. But there was no “bang” per se that started it. We don’t know what started it.
Nope. It doesn't. It came from the preceding state, which was well known.
Self-referential is the assumption that the current condition of the universe provides evidence of the theory based on observation of the current condition of the universe
It doesn't do that. Learn some science in general, and educate yourself -- preferably somewhere other than The Creation Institute or some other humbug -- about cosmology in particular.
The current condition of the universe is based on past conditions. We can run that clock backward to within literally a few microseconds after the singularity. In particular, as just one example, the relative abundances of light elements in the universe is entirely dictated by very elementary thermodynamic principles. They are not consistent with any literal creation myth, which all make entirely different predictions if one tries to press them into science. (They are legends, so this can't be done.)
"The Big Bang theory cannot seriously be questioned, due to the enormous volume of evidence".
There is roughly as much evidence of what happened in the universe after the first several microseconds as there is that the world is round. That's not my "religion" or anyone else's.
It is not my intention to disprove your religious beliefs.
You would not be able to do that, even in principle, since religious beliefs are outside of that kind of argumentation. What you will not do, is argue that a scientific fact is not a fact because a bogus interpretation of the Bible says it isn't.
The sad thing is that Young Earth Creationism is a relatively new phenomenon, largely created as a reactionary opposition to science. Before the Reformation, there was literally no one who believed that the creation account of Genesis was anything other than a metaphor. Even in the earliest years of Protestant literalism, no serious theologian had waded into those waters. It's strange how the scientific thinking of some (but not all) parts of Reformed Christianity have gone backwards to far more primitive thinking. The original church did not set an age for the Earth; wisely. The Catholics never have.
>>does that mean the universe would look the same whether there was inflation or not?
Well it might look something like...
https://archive.org/details/ThePlasmaUniversenasaTalk
The problem is that the Big Bang does not completely resolve Olber’s Paradox, it just makes things a little calmer. The night sky is bright, but not in wavelengths our eyes can see.
Is red-shift settled science?
https://www.google.com/#q=practical+applications+of+doppler+effect
https://www.google.com/#q=observe+red+shift+in+universe+expansion
So, what is your hypothesis explaining the observed inertial velocities of celestial bodies?
But no biologist needs the latter to infer the former.
>>largely created as a reactionary opposition
Doesn't really matter what form the disconect from reality takes.
And if it serves to weaken and divide the prey population against them selves - diverting their attention from the predators... so much the better.
[The Architects of Western Decline: A Study on the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism]
Pushing aside the obviously mystical-laden verbiage equating to something on the order of descending (time-displaced) astral planes (phase spaces) emanating out of a quantum void (or One Substance), biological evolution cannot occur without physical matter. Sans physical matter, you’re describing spiritual and/or cosmic evolution.
[Somehow] You seem to have caught on to the fact that biological evolution cannot occur without matter -- congratulations! Unfortunately, you're still clueless about the fact that it makes no difference whether it got here via brane collisions, Hoyle's steady state expansion, the Big Bang, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
>>(time-displaced) astral planes (phase spaces)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Calculating+electron+phase+in+covalent+bonds+for+organic+chemistry
Nothing astral required.
>>you’re describing spiritual and/or cosmic evolution.
Nope.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chemical+bonds+Mutation
The science of chemistry is applied physics — described in mathematical terms which calculate time displacement and phase of molecular components.
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.