why I disbelieve the Big Bang

[stcordova]

I studied the Big Bang in graduate school. Those studies included the study of the special and general theories of Einstein's relativity, astrophysics, plasma physics, cosmology, etc.

Though I respected my professors greatly, I find the evidence for the Big Bang quite faulty, and plenty of evidence against it. There are a minority of astronomers who reject the Big Bang.

Unfortunately, arguments over the Big Bang are highly technical, and there is no way to treat the subject well without going into some high powered physics, but the first link below is readable for general audiences.

My favorite essays against the Big Bang are:

Modern Cosmology, Science or Folktale

and

Cosmology Statement

One professor from my undergrad alma mater, Minas Kafatos, is a signatory of the Cosmology Statement.

and


http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

If the Big Bang is false, and if Galaxies are moving away from us (we're not quite sure of that), we may be living in a privileged geometric position (namely near the center of the universe).

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by stcordova]

If it were down to "big bang OR privileged geometric position" then of course the big bang theory would be the better hypothesis - it'd simply be more likely.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1 by stcordova]
I think his name is spelled: Menas Kafatos

[Peter]

So do you advocate for a steady state universe then? No beginning no end? No need for your god then right?

The Cosmology Statement is a standard complaint that the scientific community is conspiring to suppress fringe ideas about the universe. Really?

You have many Nobel prizes ahead if you can prove any of your contrarian views on science. Is there anything you do agree with?

[Divine Insight]

My favorite essays against the Big Bang are:

Modern Cosmology, Science or Folktale

Well, I read this first article and found it to be totally unimpressive on at least three counts.

1. It plays down the actual knowledge and data that genuinely supports the Big Bang.

2. It makes really bad analogies, not to mention clearly being highly biased against current theories such as Inflation, Dark matter and Dark Energy calling them "Ugly Band-aids" which is far from the case.

3. It doesn't even try to offer a better picture of the cosmos. All it does is complain.

For example the article states: "A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations."

That's a ridiculous comparison because it's the nature of science to continue to discover new truths about the universe from current observations. Science expects to be constantly edited and never claims to have the absolute completed truth at any point in time.

On the other hand, if a folktale needs to be re-edited then it was clearly a false folktale from the get go.

Scientific advancements improve the story rather than changing the story entirely.

For example, Inflation Theory vastly improves our understanding of the Big Bang. It doesn't simply make excuses for it. In the Alan Guth actually originally proposed Inflation to solve the magnetic dipole problem. Only afterward did he reality that it also solves the horizon and flatness problems. And a theory that actually solves many unintentional problems is a really great sign for a theory.

Evidence is also starting to come in that actually verifies various predictions of Inflation.

Dark Matter was originally hypothesized because galaxies weren't spinning properly given the observable mass that they have. But then it also turned out that additional mass would be needed for galaxies to form in the first place. Thus the hypothesis of Dark Matter turned out to solve more than just the original problem that it has been proposed to solve.

Since that time Dark Matter has actually been mapped out.

We may not yet fully understand what Dark Matter actually is, but we definitely know that something it there shaping the universe. As I've said already, a skeptic of Dark Matter needs to do more than just be skeptical, they need to offer an alternative explanation. Without an alternative explanation then all they are doing is crying, probably out of frustration that they weren't able to come up with an idea even as good as Dark Matter.


The article also makes the following totally absurd statement:

"Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come."

I don't think anyone needs to worry about that. Cosmologists themselves question their own theories and scientists are always proposing new and exciting ideas.

But getting back to the skeptic we need to ask the skeptic what they have to offer:

If not the Big Bang, then what? What other explanation do you have to offer?

If not Inflation then what? What other explanation do you have to offer?

If not Dark Matter then what? What other explanation do you have to offer?

Sitting around complaining about theories that actually have tons of supporting evidence is easy, and not very impressive.

Offering replacement theories that can be tested and shown to explain things better from a totally different perspective is a whole other matter.

Where are these other theories?

If the skeptics have no better science to offer then why should anyone listen to them whine?

[Artie]

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

I read this cosmology statement and I would have signed it if I worked in this field. If there are other theories equally well documented I see no reason why those theories shouldn't be treated equally.

[H.sapiens]

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

I read this cosmology statement and I would have signed it if I worked in this field. If there are other theories equally well documented I see no reason why those theories shouldn't be treated equally.

All theories should be treated equally, but the statement does not qualify as a theory. Plain and simple.

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

It is not well-substantiated, it is not based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, it is basically a guess, at most a claim.

[DanieltheDragon]

I think it is fine to disagree with the big bang as unlike evolution it requires a lot of brain cells to understand the many nuances involved. Like you said its hard to debate because of the high degree of physics involved. Not to mention the many competing theories within big bang theory itself. The recent discovery of gravitational waves has helped solidify some theories in this regard and rendering others null.

I still find it however, the best explanation we have thus far.

If not the big bang then I ask what you believe to be the case in how the universe got here. What evidences support your hypothesis and is it more reasonable than the various forms of Big Bang Theory. It is one thing to disregard something but if you do I want to know what seems to be a more reasonable assertion.

The way science works in my opinion is to provide the best possible explanation for a given natural phenomena. So to disregard Big Bang theory in my opinion would involve positing a better explanation.

[higgy1911]

I sort of take issue with the notion that if you disagree with a theory you have to supply a better one. I mean if you think a theory of something has a logical problem them trying to demonstrate that is a valid course of action. Sometimes you just prove something untrue and the alternative is a lack of a reasonable answer.

[Clownboat]

I sort of take issue with the notion that if you disagree with a theory you have to supply a better one. I mean if you think a theory of something has a logical problem them trying to demonstrate that is a valid course of action. Sometimes you just prove something untrue and the alternative is a lack of a reasonable answer.

I hear ya. It's just too easy to whine or complain about something without offering an alternative. This can be done without fully understanding said thing you are critiquing too, which only makes matter worse, especially in debate.

Therefore, it would be preferred to offer up a better explanation or to explain why a better answer is unknowable. That at least would help take ignorance out of the equation.

Big difference when one is complaining out of ignorance when compared to complaining for a legitimate reason. Offering reasons for a theory should be encouraged IMO, not free passes to complain out of ignorance which your "issue" would encourage.