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: 2324

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Your intended insult missed the mark.

Dr. Clark, when I intend an insult I do far better than inquiring about economic motivations. All I ask of you is that you not think me so naive as to expect people to not have economic motivations, even people in academia where research requires funding.

There are other less noble motivations, one of which is group think. According to one historian of classical times, after the Persians made an important decision they guarded against group think by getting drunk and reconsidering the question. They guarded themselves more effectively than we more civil people do.

During the 1970s I did some investigative reporting for an article I was writing for an environmental journal and took the advice of professionals: follow the trail of money. After its publication, an economics professor at Arizona State University told me he footnoted my article in a journal article he wrote.

I had an economic motivation; I didn't want to pay the taxes for a project whose chief beneficiaries would be politically-connected landowners.

When I later ran for a legislative seat, the law required me to identify my economic motivations. My opponent's campaign staff investigated them further.

I was in a more dangerous game than we are here. Check Wikipedia for "Don Bolles" (the reporter not the musician), and you will see the stakes.'ve exhausted your capacity for civil and rational discussion.

Only in your opinion; we've touched only intellectual motivations.

Since we each have views about the origin for which there is now and will long be insufficient evidence, I suggest that we end our discussion here.

Two pieces of advice.

 First, you would do well to gain a better grasp of evidence for Big Bang cosmology before condemning it. It may be wrong. If so, time will tell, but your criticisms appear to be based simply on misunderstanding. Skepticism is more effective when well informed.

Second, it is better to presume people are expressing honestly held views until you have good evidence to the contrary. It bespeaks courtesy and spares you the shame of being gratuitously wrong. No atheist needs to join the church of the unwarranted assumption.

A new great religion:  The Church of the Unwarranted Assumption.

It would not lack for pastors or a congregation of sheep. 

If memory serves, the phrase is due to novelist Peter DeVries, one of the wittiest writers ever, but I can't tell you which book it's in.

Church of the Unwarranted Assumption. Nice name.

Some BB folks want so much to win converts that they use words much like I heard from priests when I was in college and questioning: would do well to gain a better grasp of evidence for Catholicism before condemning it.

They recommended Augustine and Aquinas.

Augustine had no credibility with me because I already knew he had prayed for chastity but wanted it postponed. Aquinas had no credibility with me because I already knew he wanted one-man-rule.

Besides, I was working on a degree in math, which as you know requires evidence. is better to presume people are expressing honestly held views s until you have good evidence to the contrary.

With a minor in economics, I don't need Marx to say I have excellent evidence that people pursue their self-interest.

It's in the self interest of BB supporters to have the government deny funding for researching alternative hypotheses.

And so, BB supporters are engaged in politics. One early political victory was using BB Theory rather than BB Hypothesis. Yeah, I fell for that piece of propaganda.

Church of the Unwarranted Assumption is clever but it's poor propaganda; it's too easily turned around.

What kind of math are you into?

Before I retired at 45, I did some thermal analysis (diffequ) work, some commercial sort/merge work (sort algorithms are fun), and then wrote an email package.

Now, as a club treasurer, I do arithmetic.

And yeah, I'm playing with a non-relevant question.

You might learn something about the Big Bang theory, Steven Weinberg's The First Three Minutes might be a good book to read. 

Luara, you deleted your original post so I deleted my reply to it.

This one's a bit more temperate. Thank you.

Like a lot of people who disagree with widely accepted science ideas, you are voicing FAQ's - in this case about the Big Bang, and you could easily look up the answers to the FAQ's online.  Do you really think cosmologists are so stupid as to overlook questions like galaxies headed towards each other??? 

Do you really think cosmologists are so stupid as to overlook questions like galaxies headed towards each other???

Call it group think. It's an adult version of the children's game follow the leader but its name is follow the funder.

The short history of observational astronomy repeats the history of other knowledge: curious people with the money they need to survive look at what others see. If they have the ability and desire to explain what they see, they do so.

Their explanations, based on eyeball evidence, comfort ignorant people and are retold until they become dogma.

Someone else with curiosity and the money he needs to survive invents a telescope. He (or someone who stole his idea) looks at the sky and what he sees differs from the dogma. He tells what he saw and is in trouble.

At every step, there's curiosity, funding, ability and desire to improve the hardware or the explanations, and courage to challenge the dogma.

In time the hardware becomes more expensive and explanations have to persuade funders. The funders decide what will be studied and who will study it. Follow the funder begins.

I've read lots of stories of scientists, their curiosity, their efforts and their explanations. I've rarely seen mention of their funding.

Cosmologists aren't stupid; they are busy following the funding.

Astronomers tell of colliding galaxies; cosmologists don't.

Call it group think. It's an adult version of the children's game follow the leader but its name is follow the funder.

In other words, you DO think cosmologists are very stupid. Here's a lecture about the formation of gravitationally bound structures in cosmology. 

Your criticisms are meaningless as criticisms of the Big Bang theory, because you aren't checking for the answers. You aren't engaging with or understanding the Big Bang theory as physics.
Your criticisms do mean something. They say things about you - your issues with religion and your emotions and attitude towards other people.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service