The Big Bang - Woo or not?

[Zeuzzz]

Notice how those who label real scientific theories "woo" are almost always peddling real woo themselves?

Yeah, weird that. I noticed this in the plasma cosmology - woo or not thread. The ones that have a habit of continually calling PC woo are usually the hard core BBT adherents.

 

[Zeuzzz]

A theory that changes and grows as new evidence is sought out:

Not woo.

this just about sums up what wrong with the Big Bang. No matter what new evidence is found, the theory is never falsified, it merely 'changes and grows' and gets tweaked to explain away any falsifying observations.

With this approach the Big Bang theory can never be falsified. Observations are just fitted in with ad hoc explanations no matter what. The theory just gets more and more complex, more and more epicycles are added to explain conflicting observations; the same approach that lead to the Ptolemaic geocentric view of the universe. This develops myth, not science. The Big Bang is unlike any other scientific theory in this regard.

To slightly reword your statement:

A theory that changes and grows as new evidence accumulates that contradicts the original theory:

Definately woo.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Lets say that over the next week or so the LHC shows something that contradicts everything we thought we knew about the BBT. In other words, A primary falsifying piece of hard evidence against it. Will anyone question the Big Bang? or will a new even more elaborate theory be invented to explain what happened? Of course, the answer is the second option. Peoples faith in the Big Bang seems unshakable. But thats what it is, faith, its not a position based in concrete scientific rigour, especially when compared to all other areas of science. The Big Bang is never questioned anymore by most scientists, and it really should be where alternative approaches to cosmology exist that could resolve many of the paradoxs' associated with BBT, and explain the wealth of data that contradicts the theory.

 

[Reality Check]

Lets say that over the next week or so the LHC shows something that contradicts everything we thought we knew about the BBT. In other words, A primary falsifying piece of hard evidence against it. Will anyone question the Big Bang? or will a new even more elaborate theory be invented to explain what happened? Of course, the answer is the second option. Peoples faith in the Big Bang seems unshakable. But thats what it is, faith, its not a position based in concrete scientific rigour, especially when compared to all other areas of science. The Big Bang is never questioned anymore by most scientists, and it really should be where alternative approaches to cosmology exist that could resolve many of the paradoxs' associated with BBT, and explain the wealth of data that contradicts the theory.

The Big Bang is questioned a lot by some scientists (you may have heard of Fred Hoyle and he is not alone). The fact is that there is so much evidence for the Big Bang (redshift, CMB, etc.) and very little evidence against it.
Peoples belief in the scientific method seems unshakable. However if the LHC or any other experiment or observation shows something that contradicts everything we know about the Big Bang then I expect that the BBT will be discarded. We have done it before and we will do it again (ask Newton). After all it is very easy to falsify the BBT - just find 1 object in the universe that is older than 13.7 billion years old, e.g. one of the trillions of white dwarf stars.

 

[Dr Adequate]

this just about sums up what wrong with the Big Bang. No matter what new evidence is found, the theory is never falsified, it merely 'changes and grows' and gets tweaked to explain away any falsifying observations.

With this approach the Big Bang theory can never be falsified. Observations are just fitted in with ad hoc explanations no matter what. The theory just gets more and more complex, more and more epicycles are added to explain conflicting observations; the same approach that lead to the Ptolemaic geocentric view of the universe. This develops myth, not science. The Big Bang is unlike any other scientific theory in this regard.

 

[MG1962]

The Big Bang is questioned a lot by some scientists (you may have heard of Fred Hoyle and he is not alone). The fact is that there is so much evidence for the Big Bang (redshift, CMB, etc.) and very little evidence against it..

Problem was Fred didn't really think his idea through well enough. To over come the Hubble constant, his theory called for the spontanious creation of new matter

Hoyle was almost a certified genius when it came to the chemistry of space. Unfortunately it is obvious he slept through Cosmology 101 in university.

 

[Zeuzzz]

[qimg]http://www.re-discovery.org/per_table.gif[/qimg]

heh. I like that a lot.

there is a difference between the point that is making and my point though. There aren't any rival theories trying to explain the data leading to the periodic table (to the best of my knowledge). If there was one that had required less changing over time and less epicycles than the standard one, that one should have preference. But this doesn't make much sense comparing the two anyway, one is hard data that is verified in many, many independant ways, the other (cosmololgy) is based on data, but relies almost exclusively on our interpretation of the data without many separate conmfirming tests at all.

Its much more complex in the area of cosmology. Cosmololgy is nothing like any other area of science. For a start, there is only one Universe! which removes from our armoury all the statistical tools that have proved indispensable for understanding other sciences. Huge extrapolations of laws of physics are needed in cosmology, the universe offeres to control experiment. All data relies on EM spectra and nothing else (you need to collect between 100 and 1000 times more radiation to get a spectrum than to see an image), i could go on.... but you really cant compare the two areas. Cosmology isn't really science in the sense that other areas are. Its a severely restricted type of science, both in its scope and ultimate goal, something people often forget, even professional cosmologists.

At least some realize the error of their ways after a while, but some (in fact most) seem to crusade on regardless.

A Sober Assessment of Cosmology at the New Millennium
Authors: Michael S. Turner
(Submitted on 3 Feb 2001)

Abstract: Cosmology is the dot com of the sciences. Boom or bust. It is about nothing less than the origin and evolution of the Universe, the all of everything. It is the boldest of enterprises and not for the fainthearted. Cosmologists are the flyboys of astrophysics, and they often live up to all that image conjures up. It is hardly surprising then that words written about cosmology are rarely balanced. They verve to one extreme or the other. .... Once or twice, I have probably been guilty of irrational exuberance when it comes to cosmology.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Lets say that over the next week or so the LHC shows something that contradicts everything we thought we knew about the BBT. In other words, A primary falsifying piece of hard evidence against it. Will anyone question the Big Bang?

If something genuinely falsified the big bang theory as it stands I'd throw it out like last week's trash.

 

[KingMerv00]

Lets say that over the next week or so the LHC shows something that contradicts everything we thought we knew about the BBT. In other words, A primary falsifying piece of hard evidence against it. Will anyone question the Big Bang? or will a new even more elaborate theory be invented to explain what happened? Of course, the answer is the second option. Peoples faith in the Big Bang seems unshakable. But thats what it is, faith, its not a position based in concrete scientific rigour, especially when compared to all other areas of science. The Big Bang is never questioned anymore by most scientists, and it really should be where alternative approaches to cosmology exist that could resolve many of the paradoxs' associated with BBT, and explain the wealth of data that contradicts the theory.

You are simply wrong. There have been many cosmological upheavals in the history of science.

The Earth is round
Heliocentrism
Our planet is one of many
Our star is one of many
Our Galaxy is one of many (and we are not at its center)
Our universe is expanding

Science changes all the time. If someone proved the Big Bang to be wrong, I would love it. It would be something new to learn about.

 

[Third Eye Open]

If something genuinely falsified the big bang theory as it stands I'd throw it out like last week's trash.

I'm sure its out there, but all those hardcore BB fairy tale believers just wont let their idea go, and are suppressing any alternate ideas.

I think the idea of an infinite universe that has always existed and will always exist is just a much more intuitive way to look at things. And it gives me a warm feeling inside to think about it.

 

[Fredrik]

this just about sums up what wrong with the Big Bang. No matter what new evidence is found, the theory is never falsified, it merely 'changes and grows' and gets tweaked to explain away any falsifying observations.

You know why? Because there are no falsifying observations. The big bang is a part of general relativity, so the only way to prove the big bang wrong is to prove general relativity wrong! People have been trying to do that for almost a hundred years, but they haven't succeeded yet.

If you have heard of "falsifying observations" from a source that isn't woo, they must be talking about observations that prove that one specific solution of Einstein's equation that was being considered can't be the best one. That doesn't disprove the big bang, since there's a big bang present in all of the solutions that can't be immediately discarded.

With this approach the Big Bang theory can never be falsified. Observations are just fitted in with ad hoc explanations no matter what.

Of course you can't falsify the big bang "theory" by ruling out one specific solution of Einstein's equation at a time. Who says it should be possible to do it that way? What makes you think it should be?

The way to do it is to prove general relativity wrong. Good luck with that.

The theory just gets more and more complex, more and more epicycles are added to explain conflicting observations;

So they're considering more and more complicated solutions to Einstein's equation...and for some reason that bothers you a lot, but what else can they do? There's no reason to think the big bang didn't happen as long as there's no evidence against general relativity, and there's no theory they can use to calculate the conditions of the early universe, so they're pretty much forced to guess.

the same approach that lead to the Ptolemaic geocentric view of the universe.
...
This develops myth, not science.
...
Definately woo.

Riiight, you can take a quick look at some stuff that's been said about the big bang and easily figure out on your own that all physicists are woo woos. That's a pretty egocentric world view.

Lets say that over the next week or so the LHC shows something that contradicts everything we thought we knew about the BBT. In other words, A primary falsifying piece of hard evidence against it.

That's not going to happen. The LHC isn't even trying to test general relativity. And you really have no idea what it would mean to contradict "everything we thought we knew about the BBT". Actually, I can't figure out what that would mean myself. Since the big bang is a part of the theory of gravity, it would have to include stuff like "if you drop a rock, it won't fall to the ground".

The Big Bang is never questioned anymore by most scientists

Neither is the fact that if you drop a rock, it will fall to the ground. The reasons are pretty much the same: it's a prediction of a theory that agrees extremely well with experiment.

The evidence supporting GR is overwhelming. Look it up if you want to.

 

[Tubbythin]

this just about sums up what wrong with the Big Bang. No matter what new evidence is found, the theory is never falsified, it merely 'changes and grows' and gets tweaked to explain away any falsifying observations.

Come up with a better one then. Oh wait you can't. You just come up with failed PC theory after failed PC theory.

With this approach the Big Bang theory can never be falsified.

Of course it can. As RC said.

Observations are just fitted in with ad hoc explanations no matter what.

Like. Dark matter? Hardly add hoc given the multiple independent observation showing its existence. Dark energy? Nope that in GR. Inflation? Well if you can come up with a better theory that's consistent with observation and the laws of physics I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

The theory just gets more and more complex, more and more epicycles are added to explain conflicting observations;

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean its wrong. Oh, and how many layers did you add to your Electric Sun theory? Only for it to sink without a trace.

the same approach that lead to the Ptolemaic geocentric view of the universe.

The Ptolemaic interpretation was fine given the state of knowledge at the time. It probably only persisted as long as it did due to religious dogma.

This develops myth, not science. The Big Bang is unlike any other scientific theory in this regard.

Baseless assertion.

To slightly reword your statement:

A theory that changes and grows as new evidence accumulates that contradicts the original theory:

Definately woo.

Riggghht. So "based on observational evidence the Universe was more or less point like at some finite time in the past", and "based on multiple pieces of observational evidence the Universe was more or less point like 13.7 billions ago" are completely contradictory

 

[Reality Check]

heh. I like that a lot.

there is a difference between the point that is making and my point though. There aren't any rival theories trying to explain the data leading to the periodic table (to the best of my knowledge). If there was one that had required less changing over time and less epicycles than the standard one, that one should have preference. But this doesn't make much sense comparing the two anyway, one is hard data that is verified in many, many independant ways, the other (cosmololgy) is based on data, but relies almost exclusively on our interpretation of the data without many separate conmfirming tests at all.

The picture is great. It does actually have relevance to BBT. The theory behind the periodic table changed as new facts were found. Rival theories were falsified and not used any more. The parallel with cosmology is striking.

Its much more complex in the area of cosmology. Cosmololgy is nothing like any other area of science. For a start, there is only one Universe! which removes from our armoury all the statistical tools that have proved indispensable for understanding other sciences. Huge extrapolations of laws of physics are needed in cosmology, the universe offeres to control experiment. All data relies on EM spectra and nothing else (you need to collect between 100 and 1000 times more radiation to get a spectrum than to see an image), i could go on.... but you really cant compare the two areas. Cosmology isn't really science in the sense that other areas are. Its a severely restricted type of science, both in its scope and ultimate goal, something people often forget, even professional cosmologists.

At least some realize the error of their ways after a while, but some (in fact most) seem to crusade on regardless.

At last something we agree on. Cosmology is a "hands off" science since we cannot do experiments with the entire universe. It relies on the universe doing the experiments for us (e.g. the observation of dark matter in the Bullet Cluster "experiment"). The extrapolations of laws of physics are not huge - we just assume that the laws of physics apply everywhere in the universe (and there is some experimental evidence that this is correct in the observable universe).

The link is interesting but I suspect that you only read the abstract. Abstracts are written in such a way to encourage pepole to read the paper. The paper is actually about standard cosmology, its current and future tests

What do we know today with confidence about the Universe? Here I am referring to facts that have and will stand the test of time (as in all science, their interpretation may change as our understanding deepens). I count four basic features, all neatly embodied in the hot big-bang model of general relativity. Quite properly referred to as the standard cosmology,

the hot big-bang model is 20th century cosmology’s crowning achievement.​

We live in an evolving Universe that emerged from a big-bang beginning some 14 billion years ago. The evidence for this is numerous and varied, including the universal recession of galaxies (some 300,000 and counting), studies of the birth of galaxies in the high-redshift Universe, the existence of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and the consistency of the ages of the oldest stars within our galaxy with the time back to the bang. Regarding the final point, a variety of techniques for determining the Hubble constant are now all consistent and pin it down to 10% precision, H0 = 70 ± 7 kmsec−1Mpc−1 (see e.g., Mould et al 2000). One of Sandage’s goals has been accomplished.​

During its first million years the Universe was a hot, dense plasma. The evidence for this comes from the existence of the 2.725±0.001K cosmic microwave background with its very nearly perfect black-body spectrum (Mather et al, 1999). (This remarkable measurement made by the FIRAS instrument on NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite is not only an example of precision cosmology, but also of high-precision science.) All efforts to produce such a perfect black body by a mechanism other than an early hot, dense plasma phase have fallen short.​

The abundance of cosmic structure seen in the Universe today, from individual galaxies to superclusters and the great walls of galaxies, emerged from the tiny (0.001%) primeval inhomogeneity in the distribution of matter. The evidence comes from the tens of microKelvin fluctuations in the temperature of the CMB across the sky. These ripples in the microwave sky first revealed by the DMR instrument on COBE (Smoot et al, 1992) have now been measured by more than twenty experiments, on angular scales from less than 0.1 degree to 100 degrees. They map the slightly lumpy distribution of matter at the time of last scattering (400,000 years after the big bang). Taking into account the gravitational amplification of the inhomogeneity in the 14 billion years since, the level of lumpiness in the matter is consistent with the structure that exists in the Universe today.​

The Universe at an age of seconds, when thermal energies were in the keV to MeV range, was a nuclear furnace operating out of thermal equilibrium. The evidence comes in the abundance pattern of H (about 76% by mass), D (a few parts in 10−5 relative to H), ³He similar to D), ⁴He (about 24% by mass), and ⁷Li (a few parts in 10−10 relative to H) seen in the most pristine samples of the cosmos. This is the earliest, and perhaps most impressive, milepost in the known history of the Universe.​

 

[Tubbythin]

Lets say that over the next week or so the LHC shows something that contradicts everything we thought we knew about the BBT.

Well that won't happen. Not least because its only circling protons at the minute.

In other words, A primary falsifying piece of hard evidence against it. Will anyone question the Big Bang? or will a new even more elaborate theory be invented to explain what happened? Of course, the answer is the second option.

Assertion without evidence again. You have absolutely no evidence to back that up.

Peoples faith in the Big Bang seems unshakable. But thats what it is, faith, its not a position based in concrete scientific rigour, especially when compared to all other areas of science.

You can use emotive language all you want. Unfortunately it just backs up the obvious: you have no scientific evidence of the claims you are making.

The Big Bang is never questioned anymore by most scientists,

Hmm. Just wondering, what do you think the purpose of WMAP is?

and it really should be where alternative approaches to cosmology exist that could resolve many of the paradoxs' associated with BBT, and explain the wealth of data that contradicts the theory.

Well maybe you should show us these theories. You've certainly kept them close to your chest so far. And just distracted us with your plasma universe and electric Sun nonsense.

 

[Tubbythin]

heh. I like that a lot.

there is a difference between the point that is making and my point though. There aren't any rival theories trying to explain the data leading to the periodic table (to the best of my knowledge).

I'm sure if you look hard enough on the internet you'll probably find one.

If there was one that had required less changing over time and less epicycles than the standard one, that one should have preference.

Only if it describes observations to at least the same level of accuracy. If it disagrees with observation then the original theory wins.

But this doesn't make much sense comparing the two anyway, one is hard data that is verified in many, many independant ways, the other (cosmololgy) is based on data, but relies almost exclusively on our interpretation of the data without many separate conmfirming tests at all.

There's several ways to measure the age of the Universe. None of them say it is infinitely old.

Its much more complex in the area of cosmology. Cosmololgy is nothing like any other area of science. For a start, there is only one Universe! which removes from our armoury all the statistical tools that have proved indispensable for understanding other sciences.

But there's a million ways to test GR and the other laws of physics. Cosmology must follow the laws of physics otherwise its pointless trying to interpret the observations we do have.

Huge extrapolations of laws of physics are needed in cosmology, the universe offeres to control experiment.

Do you have any evidence that the laws of physics differ over there to here?

All data relies on EM spectra and nothing else (you need to collect between 100 and 1000 times more radiation to get a spectrum than to see an image),

Well its good to know that the quantum theory of EM is the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics then isn't it?

i could go on.... but you really cant compare the two areas. Cosmology isn't really science in the sense that other areas are. Its a severely restricted type of science, both in its scope and ultimate goal, something people often forget, even professional cosmologists.

I'm inclined to disagree with you. The scope of cosmology is the origin evolution and future of the entire universe. Sounds like quite a big scope to me.

At least some realize the error of their ways after a while, but some (in fact most) seem to crusade on regardless.

Hmm. Crusading on regardless? How many times have "we" debunked your electric Sun theories. Or Perratts model of galaxy formation, or your infinitely old Universe or...?

 

[Zeuzzz]

The Big Bang is questioned a lot by some scientists (you may have heard of Fred Hoyle and he is not alone). The fact is that there is so much evidence for the Big Bang (redshift, CMB, etc.) and very little evidence against it.

That is questionable. Infact I would say exactly the opposite. There is far more evidence against the big bang than there is for it. The fact is that belief in the Big Bang is based on so little evidence its quite shocking. No-one is questioning the data, but there are many alternative interpretations of the data (a few I brought up on the previous page) that dont lead to a Big Bang. For example, BBT can explain the CMB, but the CMB can not be used as a proof of the big bang, as it is observed in any cosmology. In any cosmology you can predict the CMB radiation (it was infact predicted by various steady state theories before BBT predicted it) so if any cosmology can predict it it cannot be used as a proof of one over the other at all. There isn't even really an explanation for the CMB from the Big Bang theory, all that you can say for the theory is that it permits you to put it in. You look, its there, so you put it in. Its not an explanation as such.


I recommend watching this brief video excerpt from a documentary about cosmology which gives a good unbiased overview of the history of the microwave background, what theories predicted it and are perfectly consistent with it, what it actually proves, etc:



And the rest of its worth a watch for anyone interested in the critisisms often levelled at BBT by the scientists who prefer alternative cosmologies. Its got arp, lerner, peratt, burbidge(s), hoyle, and many other repsected scientists in it, and what their opinions about cosmology are...


The observations which bear on cosmology are, for such a grandiose subject, extremely sparse. And they are observations not controlled experiments which therefore means that they cannot compare with the thousands of particle physics experiments upon which the Standard Model is based. You've got the dark sky background, galaxy counts, magnitude-Redshift diagram for galaxies, existence of CBR, blackbody spectrum of CBR, element abundances, and maybe a couple more. Out of all the possible thousands of data pools available to construct theories, modern cosmology is based on a very meiocre selection. The actual amount of data supporting any cosmological theory is small, its mainly consistency arguments that are made. Yes, the 3' K microwave background can certainly be explained very well in a big bang context, but hoyle and burbidge have suggested an alternative explantion, as have Narlikar, and Lerner, and many others. And I'm sure that people could find twenty more if the need were felt. But strangely, its not, you dont get tenure in a university, you dont get promoted, you dont get recognition for looking too much into an unpopular area like this. This only really seems to happen in science in the area of the Big Bang, where science, polotics, religion and philosophy all converge. Its more to do with funding and god damn money than anything else, and thus why hundreds of scientists have signed the document calling for more money to be put into alternative cosmology ideas now (see:http://www.cosmologystatement.org/). Lerner and his colleagues have got some limited funding now for his DPF fusion device based partly on plasma cosmology principles and models (which has the potential of outperforming the energy output of all the failed BBT based traditional fusion attempts, at a fraction of the cost) but this pales in comparison to the funding given to multi billion dollar Big Bang based projects like the large hadron collider and loads of other ridiculously expensive experiments like this.

However if the LHC or any other experiment or observation shows something that contradicts everything we know about the Big Bang then I expect that the BBT will be discarded.

You really think so? I very much doubt it.

What would this contradicting observation be then? I'll be waiting eagerly.

We have done it before and we will do it again (ask Newton). After all it is very easy to falsify the BBT - just find 1 object in the universe that is older than 13.7 billion years old, e.g. one of the trillions of white dwarf stars.

There are numerous alternative ways to interpret the spectra of stars not based on their nuclear cycle or their age which would completely solve this issue. Thats why the first few tentative ideas behind this alternative interpretaion of the stellar age data was recently published in a plasma cosmology journal in 2007. Which we have discussed in another thread (albeit breifly).

Anyway, I can answer yes to your question, there are many structures in the universe that are far older than the universe is thought to be from BBT predictions.

To quote from Lerners site: Large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

Also Labini has shown using data from SDSS that there is a definate large scale structure of galaxies on scales up to 70 Mpc (some 210 million light years). With typical galaxy velocities being only about 1x10^-4 the speed of light, it is nearly impossible to see how such large structures have had time to evolve sinse the Big Bang, they appear to be much older.

(see: Basic properties of galaxy clustering in the light of recent results from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey or for a more up to date assessment of the large sclae structure (2008), this publication)



Theres also quite a lot of info on these voids that are too old for the Big Bang in a recent ACG newsletter, which links to a couple of recent publications on this issue (right up to june 2008), which make for interesting reading if your interested: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.04.htm

Large-scale structure—can it fit in the conventional framework?

Conventional cosmology assumes that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogenous on the largest scales. However, some evidence shows that it is in fact fractal and in any case that giant voids 100 Mpc across or bigger are too big to have formed since the big bang. Two papers address these questions. Thieberger and Célérier use data from the SDSS catalog to determine that the distribution of galaxies in the distance range from 20-70 Mpc does seem to be fractal, the distribution converges on homogeneity—a fractal dimension of 3—at distance above 70 Mpc. However, the sample used only extends to 125 Mpc, so shows homogeneity for a relatively narrow range of distances. Bigger surveys would be needed to see if homogeneity continues to larger scales or is just a “plateau” in a larger-scale fractal distortion.

It is well known that structure does exist on larger scales-- voids have been observed that are as large as 140 Mpc across. It is hard to see how such large voids could form, but Schild and Gibson argue that a modification of Big Bang theory to take into account plasma interactions in the period 30-300,000 years after the Big Bang could form such voids as well as vortices that explain the alignments observed in the CBR. Their hydro-gravitational theory hover, must also explain how the existence of large-scale vortices in the Big Bang model would not have created very large anisotropies in the CBR, which are not observed.

Scaling Regimes as obtained from the DR5 Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Authors: Reuben Thieberger, Marie-Noëlle Célérier
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0464v1

Goodness in the Axis of Evil
Authors: Rudolph E. Schild, Carl H. Gibson
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3229v1

But I dont expect these major falsifying observations to effect the faith people put into the Big Bang theory. All the other data that contradicts the big bang theory (surface brightness data, non iostropy, Light Element Abundances data, Alignment of CBR data, SZ effect, etc ,etc) never seems to renew cosmologists interest in alternative approaches to cosmology. They just invent yet more separate theories to explain the observations to make them consistent with the Big Bang framework, without ever considering the validity of the Big Bang theory they are all predicated on.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The picture is great. It does actually have relevance to BBT. The theory behind the periodic table changed as new facts were found. Rival theories were falsified and not used any more. The parallel with cosmology is striking.

Can you name a couple of these rival theories of the periodic table then?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Come up with a better one then. Oh wait you can't. You just come up with failed PC theory after failed PC theory.


Of course it can. As RC said.


Like. Dark matter? Hardly add hoc given the multiple independent observation showing its existence. Dark energy? Nope that in GR. Inflation? Well if you can come up with a better theory that's consistent with observation and the laws of physics I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.


Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean its wrong. Oh, and how many layers did you add to your Electric Sun theory? Only for it to sink without a trace.


The Ptolemaic interpretation was fine given the state of knowledge at the time. It probably only persisted as long as it did due to religious dogma.


Baseless assertion.


Riggghht. So "based on observational evidence the Universe was more or less point like at some finite time in the past", and "based on multiple pieces of observational evidence the Universe was more or less point like 13.7 billions ago" are completely contradictory

I'm sure if you look hard enough on the internet you'll probably find one.


Only if it describes observations to at least the same level of accuracy. If it disagrees with observation then the original theory wins.


There's several ways to measure the age of the Universe. None of them say it is infinitely old.


But there's a million ways to test GR and the other laws of physics. Cosmology must follow the laws of physics otherwise its pointless trying to interpret the observations we do have.


Do you have any evidence that the laws of physics differ over there to here?


Well its good to know that the quantum theory of EM is the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics then isn't it?


I'm inclined to disagree with you. The scope of cosmology is the origin evolution and future of the entire universe. Sounds like quite a big scope to me.


Hmm. Crusading on regardless? How many times have "we" debunked your electric Sun theories. Or Perratts model of galaxy formation, or your infinitely old Universe or...?

[........]


Well that won't happen. Not least because its only circling protons at the minute.



Assertion without evidence again. You have absolutely no evidence to back that up.


You can use emotive language all you want. Unfortunately it just backs up the obvious: you have no scientific evidence of the claims you are making.


Hmm. Just wondering, what do you think the purpose of WMAP is?


Well maybe you should show us these theories. You've certainly kept them close to your chest so far. And just distracted us with your plasma universe and electric Sun nonsense.

You doing your usual here Tubbythin. Always a series of short, subjective opinionated sentences with nothing substantial I can reply to without just replying in return in an argumentative type way. I of course completely disagree with most of what you just said about everything, but since you asked about twenty questions, and made about twenty separate false statements about my position on things, I would like to ask you to choose two of these things for me to respond to. Because I really cant be bothered to repsond to these short snips. Learn how to join numerous sentences together in a coherent way to make a scientific point (without all the needless personal opinion), something people call paragraphs I think.

 

[KingMerv00]

Can you name a couple of these rival theories of the periodic table then?

Alchemy, the classical elements, and homeopathy.

 

[Tubbythin]

That is questionable. Infact I would say exactly the opposite. There is far more evidence against the big bang than there is for it. The fact is that belief in the Big Bang is based on so little evidence its quite shocking. No-one is questioning the data, but there are many alternative interpretations of the data (a few I brought up on the previous page) that dont lead to a Big Bang. For example, BBT can explain the CMB, but the CMB can not be used as a proof of the big bang, as it is observed in any cosmology, in any cosmology you can predict the CMB radiation (it was infact predicted by various steady state theories before BBT predicted it) so if any cosmology can predict it it cannot be used as a proof of one over the other at all.

As far as I remember, the other predictions you linked to, one was a prediction by Eddington which categorically does not explain the CMBR. The others were tired light theories. Which are unphysical.

There isn't even really an explanation for the CMB from the Big Bang theory, all that you can say for the theory is that it permits you to put it in. You look, its there, so you put it in. Its not an explanation.

Erm, Yes there is. Its the radiation "left over" from the time when recombination occurred and matter and radiation decoupled. It should be almost perfectly isotropic except for tiny fluctuation needed to explain the presence of galaxies and clustering. And guess what, it is.

The observations which bear on cosmology are, for such a grandiose subject, extremely sparse. And they are observations not controlled experiments which therefore means that they cannot compare with the thousands of particle physics experiments upon which the Standard Model is based. You've got the dark sky background, galaxy counts, magnitude-Redshift diagram for galaxies, existence of CBR, blackbody spectrum of CBR, element abundances, and maybe a couple more.

Well you've missed out the fact the Perfect Cosmological Principle fails as required by the Big Bang. Which also, incidentally falsifies most steady state theories.

Out of all the possible thousands of data pools available to construct theories, modern cosmology is based on a very meiocre selection. The actual amount of data supporting any cosmological theory is small, its mainly consistency arguments that are made. Yes, the 3' K microwave background can certainly be explained very well in a big bang context, but hoyle and burbidge have suggested an alternative explantion, as have Narlikar, and Lerner, and many others.

And others have been through one or two of them with you before. And they fail.

And I'm sure that people could find twenty more if the need were felt. But strangely, its not, you dont get tenure in a university, you dont get promoted, you dont get recognition for looking too much into unpopular areas like these.

Go run off to the CT forum where you belong.

This only seems to happen in science in the area of the Big Bang, where science, polotics, religion and philosophy all converge.

Nlah blah, Big Bang, creationism, religious dogma blah blah. Change the record.

Its more to do with funding and god damn money than anything else, and thus why hundreds of scientists have signed the document calling for more money to be put into alternative cosmology ideas now (see:http://www.cosmologystatement.org/).

Is that anything like the hundreds of scientists that signed up to say they believed in Intelligent Design?

Lerner and his colleagues have got some limited funding now for his DPF fusion device based partly on plasma cosmology principles and models (which has the potential of outperforming the energy output of all the failed BBT based traditional fusion attempts, at a fraction of the cost)

What the hell are you talking about? What are "BBT based traditional fusion attempts"? You do realise the most popular form of fusion research involves your beloved plasmas don't you?

but this pales in comparison to the funding given to multi billion dollar Big Bang based projects like the large hadron collider and loads of other ridiculously expensive experiments like this.

I mean its not like anything Zeuzzz might use ever came out of CERN is it?

There are numerous alternative ways to interpret the spectra of stars not based on their nuclear cycle or their age which would completely solve this issue. Thats why the first few tentative ideas behind this alternative interpretaion of the stellar age data was recently published in a plasma cosmology journal in 2007. Which we have discussed (albeit breifly).

And from what I remember it was trivially false too.

Anyway, I can answer yes to your question, there are many structures in the universe that are far older than the universe is thought to be from BBT predictions.

To quote from Lerners site: Large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

Or not.

But I dont expect these major falsifying observations to effect the faith people put into the Big Bang theory. All the other data that contradicts the big bang theory (surface brightness data, non iostropy, Light Element Abundances data, Alignment of CBR data, SZ effect, etc ,etc) never seems to renew cosmologists interest in alternative approaches to cosmology.

Was that the CMBR data that was based on Cobe. And when we asked for the WMAP version it wasn't forthcoming? Or was that something else?
I wouldn't hang your hat too much on the light element abundances. Nuclear astrophysicists have found several abundances that don't quite match to expectation before. Things tend to come along that people hadn't thought of to explain them.

They just invent yet more separate theories to explain the observations to make them consistent with the Big Bang framework, without ever considering the validity of the Big Bang theory they are all predicated on.

Zeuzzz, anyone could cause the Big Bang theory to crumble would be an instant Nobel prize winner/celebrity/scientific legend. Where do you get all your nonsense from?