Posted on 02/08/2017 8:35:56 AM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
So what “banged” and where did it come from?
According to quantum physics, there is nothing in the Universe but energy and information. (And it’s really just energy.)
Matter is compressed energy — but will they find that energy is compressed consciousness? As the quantum physicist Dr. Amit Goswami says, “Consciousness is the ground of all being.”
I’m a believer in the one-truth concept.
To use a silly example: A manager once tried to use an analogy to point out how there could be multiple interpretations of events and someone doesn’t have to be the one that is “right”.
He asked me to imagine a scenario where one man is walking down the street and he sees a rattle snake in the road in front of him. Now, what is he going to do? Maybe call animal control, or shoot it, etc.
Now, same scenario, but a different man, and he sees the same object. What is he going to do? He might pick it up and throw it out of the way so someone doesn’t trip over it.
This manager then asked if I could see how different people see the world differently. I said, “Sure, but if it is a snake, the second guy is gonna need to go to the hospitial, and the first guy was right.
He wasn’t a very good manager, in my opinion.
I think you see what I am getting at here.
There is simply no need to posit the existence of supernatural causes to explain the observed data.
And if that full knowledge does come, it will probably be long after you and I are dead, so we’re left with the alternative.
BTW, this Alternative has, within my life, answered three prayers with bonafide miracles. So, as Bill Murray would say, “I have that going for me.” :-)
I subscribe to the, “Shit Happens” school of cosmology.
The `big bang’ was once a term of derision.
If I can’t fry it I won’t eat it; if I can’t see it, I don’t believe in it.
Newton should never have invented gravity. All it does is bring us down.
His f-fig newtons were a good thing tho, except f-for the seeds.
On my reading Aristotle did not think that the Greek gods were an explanation for the existence of things. He saw a need for an uncaused cause, which he called the the unmoved movers or a single unmoved mover--even though he thought the natural world was infinite into the past. But this was an entirely different concept to him than the greek gods, who were reputably powerful beings but were contigent on causes external to themselves like the rest of nature.
I knew a lot of guys in college who had no objection to the Big Bang whatsoever.
Sorry...meant to point out also that I am not sure Plato talked much about it, but I could be wrong. I have not read all of Plato’s works. The one really delving into metaphysics seemed to be Arostotle as far as I can tell.
(What scientists know about how the universe works) << (What there is to know about how the universe works)
Why look for a new theory of gravity if the big bang cosmology is correct?
...
Because the theory of gravity, as good as it is, has long been known to be incomplete, and cosmology depends on the theory of gravity.
There’s no need for another article that embarrasses religion and makes it look bad.
About the initial mass of the universe, yep, correct. Given all of what we know about cosmology and astrophysics, a universe smaller than a certain size (the size implied by the current measurements of universal expansion) should never expand. Hence, a beginning moment is needed to “spark” the current expansion we observe.
This is known as cosmic inflation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
This flew in the face of the Static Model of the universe, which held sway from Ancient Greek times all the way to the 1950s. The Static Model supported the non-existence of God, because it destroyed the Kalam cosmological argument which implied the necessity for a Creator.
In short, Big Bang needed an unexplained period of inflation (which was an EXTREMELY brief period of time - a 32-position decimal fraction of one second), which needed an entity outside of the universe to initiate - an entity that we have known for millennia as God.
While I think you are right in that the Static Model contradicts the premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument, I have read that Aristotle at least used a form of the Contingency Cosmological Argument to conclude there were either "unmoved movers" or an "unmoved mover" beyond the Greek gods (who were themselves contigent, just vastly more powerful than mortals on his view).
Between the two, I find the Contingency Cosmological argument more convincing since the premises are easier to establish. But I may be biased, I had thought of this version of the argument before I had heard of it, although I had not developed and defended and clarified it as well as the great philosophers.
Still, I think the Kalam argument is easier to understand the deduction of so I like it better in that respect. And I think it may appeal to the irrational modern impulse to regard an argument as more sound if it uses recent scientific discovery in some way.
Ah, yes, “real science” (coupled with a condescending and derisive digression):
Science, so called, is practiced by human beings: fallible and, I argue, fallen. The Scientific Method is merely a tool, not a lord. It is often misused or, worse, abused. (See Trofim Lysenko.) To paraphrase Spock on computers, The Scientific Method makes an excellent and efficient servant; but I have no wish to serve under it.
The Evolutionary Theory, for example, is not a theory; it is a veritable patchwork quilt of unverifiable and non-replicable hypotheses, and every time it fails the test, they just sew in a new patch. (See the Coelacanth.) It will never be subjected to the same rigorous treatment many real theories are, for the sake of its social, political, and spiritual presuppositions and implications.
My favorite recollection of such is my first Biology instructor at university, who repeatedly said, “Given time and chance, we are confident that...” [evolutionary thinking would be validated someday, someway]. Those happen to be the words of faith, not the words of fact.
Global Cooling/Global Warming/Climate Change adherents are “constantly refining” their “models” too - and for the sake of some of the same presuppositions and implications that the evolutionary fanatics do.
Regardless, the model never equals the reality - never!
People like you may give lip service to that idea, but I suggest (since you were directly or indirectly being insulting to my kind first) that you really, truly do not adhere to that:
You think that there is a scientific Holy Grail out there, just waiting to be found. I am not looking for a UFT because, even if one is found, it will still be just a model: God already made the Real Thing. If they find one, and it is of some pragmatic use, fine. But I do not worship a mathematical equation.
Science is not God; God is God.
By the bye: I will match my scientific and mathematical awards, my theological experience, and my certified intelligence quotient, against any of yours.
(Yes, I speak as a fool - as Saul cum Paul would say: Sometimes gratuitously obnoxious intellectual elitists affect me that way.)
Here is a hint to all three of you: Do not start out with the assumption that because another person disagrees with your position, it is because that other person does not understand “real science”: That is not only arrogant, it is fallacious.
That is correct.
That is why I do not speak of a model being true or not true; I speak of a model being more - or less - accurate.
Neither SPDF nor Orbital theories make a Bohr atom a false model; all are models, and all have a certain level of usefulness.
Might be that God did something like that, but scientists cannot explain it that way, because that is outside of the realm of science.
If we evaluate it as science, they simply fudged the numbers. It may be a more sophisticated fudge factor than a high school student trying to fake the results of his science project that didn’t turn out the way he expected, but it is no different in spirit.
Its just a very large hologram - try to keep up ... :)
Science is not God; God is God.
I never said otherwise, nor does my reply imply that Science is God.
“Here is a hint to all three of you: Do not start out with the assumption that because another person disagrees with your position, it is because that other person does not understand “real science”: That is not only arrogant, it is fallacious.”
Consider your own advise.
My comment was satirical. If it were not for the electro-magnetic spectrum, we would not know there were stars, even further, we would not exist.
(horrible grammar, but you get the point, I hope) : )
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.