A photo of quantum statues.
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 you hold to the Steady State model and that the Big Bang is unscientific?”
No, I choose the third option: if you can’t determine it using proper science, it’s better just to say “I don’t know” than to bend the rules just to try to come up with an answer.
No, I choose the third option: if you can’t determine it using proper science, it’s better just to say “I don’t know” than to bend the rules just to try to come up with an answer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are no bending of rules.
There’s what cosmologists say, and then there’s what you say.
You have admitted to ignorance. They haven’t, in this particular subject. I will believe them and their work, thanks. Especially since they don’t have a vested interest in the conclusion they came to.
“There are no bending of rules.”
Of course there is. They abandon uniformitarianism when it comes to their big bang models. That is bending the rules.
If you assumptions are correct, you don’t abandon them just because they are inconvenient. Either the assumptions are correct or they are incorrect, they can’t just be correct until they prevent you from drawing the conclusions that you want to draw. That’s not logical.
“Especially since they don’t have a vested interest in the conclusion they came to.”
If you believe that, you’re just being gullible.
Because science is about asking questions, not about declaring all done.
Electrons do not really ‘orbit’ a nucleus of an atom. They exist in quantum statues ‘around’ an electron.
A photo of quantum statues.
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.