Move over Big Bang Theory, there's a new kid in town

I shall simply have to plead ignorance on this one, but I was surprised nevertheless that I hadn't seen a competing explanation of the universe quite like this before. "How can it be that I've not heard a peep about something so ostensibly groundbreaking?" I wondered. Well, I haven't yet busied myself with reading any sort of refutation of this theory, and it's even harder yet to find follow up on the massive potential of such a description of the universe as this. As it stands, however, I can't help but predict that it was unable catch a lot of traction with cosmologists, but I'm wondering if anyone out there is/was familiar with this and can provide further information?

As an aside, what do we think about this idea, metaphorical plot holes and all? Clearly it doesn't address some of the protracted and lingering complexities that the BBT does, and yet it explains other core issues that the BBT does not. My interest has been piqued, but as much as I'd love to see big bang cosmology fall to the superfluous wayside - thus silencing men like William Lane Craig momentarily - I don't think I'll get too excited just yet.

Views: 2347

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was a little disappointed that you were not talking about another sitcom like The Big Bang Theory, but what you are talking about is interesting anyway.

I'll put up my hand that that was my first thought too.

I should be ashamed.

Interesting article anyway.


Maybe I'm missing something here, but Shu makes sense. Is it possible that he is correct and a little bit of both theories could go together to explain everything? A little revision and the idea might work. Where is Albert when you need him? Oh, sorry. He is dead.

It's always good to challenge entrenched presumptions as just that, and not concrete fact.  That's the most important aspect of science -- that when done well, cherished 'truths' can be overthrown.  It's also important that their overthrow is resisted, else we continually flail around and can claim to know nothing beyond momentary sensation.  When the maths work, the new idea is bolstered and the old re-thought.  This is science working exactly as it should.


It strikes me strange that your dad says you "are worshiping scientists." Most religionists think this way. Dylan had a song saying we all have to serve somebody, and that might fit better, but I disagree with the saying. You do NOT have to serve somebody. The church world claims that "everybody worships something" and they add your money, wife, car, TV addiction, etc. into that tired old mix. The idea is to prove and show to you that you should worship and serve God, and not other things in this world. Again, I disagree. Everybody does NOT serve somebody (or some thing) and everybody does not worship something!

Seems to me that religion is about authority and that religionists think we accept theories because they come from the "gods" of science simply because they themselves accept the authority of the Bible--as interpreted by the latest megapreacher.  With the spread of fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity and its insistence on Biblical literalism, we are being dragged backward toward 17th century theocracy.  We have Congress men and women who think that climate change is a hoax because it contradicts (in their fuzzy brains, anyway), the Bible.  One said last week that Noah's flood was an example of climate change that showed that humankind cannot control or influence global climate.  Apparently he has forgotten that Noah's flood reduced world population to just eight individuals.  I guess that makes climate change perfectly all right.

The paper looks very interesting, but this is a complex field and well beyond my capabilities these days, however a few comments anyway.

The Big Bang theory was strongly supported by the discovery of cosmic background radiation independently of the theory. It has been around for a long time now as the leading cosmological model, but there have always been others— just  not as interesting once it appeared the Big Bang was the most likely model.

However the discovery in the 1990's that the rate of expansion of the universe was apparently accelerating caused difficulties with the Big Bang and required ad hoc explanations—namely dark energy—that some cosmologists found hard to swallow.

In Shu's models—and his mathematics allows three different kinds— neither the speed of light nor the gravitational constant are in fact constant—they vary as the universe expands or contracts. His mathematics explains the apparent increasing acceleration of the expansion without the necessity of so-called dark energy and fit experimental data quite closely. Time is infinite.

Shu's paper appears straightforward and elegant, so it may indeed be right, but it will be hard for the experts to abandon the Big Bang and its possible that Shu's model may not be able to account for other observable phenomena—in particular the cosmic background radiation which has been the principal support of the Big Bang theory.

Allan, my capabilities are less than yours and so I appreciate your clear summary of the situation.

... as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and space and vice versa as it contracts.

... singularities cannot exist in this cosmos.

... his data exactly matches the observations that astronomers have made on Earth.

[emphasis mine]

Huh? This bends my head too much. It's certainly challenging.

Mass converting to length? So does inertia change into distance between points? I can't imagine all of the mass frittering away over time into "empty" space stretching, while "duration of time" is itself converting to space stretching too. So at apogee of expansion there's no time and no mass, but then how would you define space or length?

Matthew, the BB theory has a few flaws: the so-called dark mass and dark energy are but two recent attempts to explain the theory's flaws. The inflationary idea is another attempt. The idea that both space and time originated with the BB is still another.

The BB theory itself is THE FLAW; it's the product of a mind damaged by a long immersion in Catholicism and its dependence on 13th Century scholasticism, which found truth in earlier writings rather than in research. Studying mathematics did not repair the damage.

The BB theory is a recent explanation. Its flaws are more sophisticated than those of the ancient idea that the planets followed circular orbits. That explanation began to fall when observation revealed that their orbits were not circular. The ancients, knowing little of gravity and less if anything of elliptical orbits, patched their explanation by saying the planets' orbits were circles on circles.

A perceptive high school student can see a major flaw in BB theory. With everything "exploding" outward from a singularity, explain the vast energies required to alter the directions of galaxies to put them on collision courses.

Someone decades ago pointed out a danger: the person who originates an idea is less dangerous than those who uncritically accept the idea. So it is with the BB theory; its uncritical followers will attack heresy.

I read the article you linked to. It has something in common with the book The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner.

I will be surprised if some BB followers don't attack; it's easier to change dogmas than it is to give up the need for a dogma.

Thanks, Mathew.

I too have read of a consensus in the scientific community supporting the BBT. Many who use the word don't know it has multiple uses; it can refer to:

1) unanimity,

2) a majority when the opposition remains silent, or

3) a plurality (less than a majority) when the opposition is divided.

It's so often used politically (to influence others) that I require users to clarify.

Mathew, what do acronymic sense and exploded phrase mean?

Consider the clause a consensus in the scientific community. When I read it, I want the writer to tell me which of the following he means:

1) A unanimous vote?

2) A majority voting yes and the minority not voting?

3) A plurality voting yes, and smaller minorities voting for other views?

Further, any decision might result from group think, especially when a leader expresses a position forcefully. The ancient Persians avoided group think cleverly. After an assembly made a decision, they got drunk and voted again.

We more civilized moderns may fall victim to group think and not know it.


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service