Big bang didn't actually happen?

SteveB

Well-known member
Cosmology is a rather interesting story.

It goes from the ancient babylonians, greeks, all the way to now.

I ran across an article this morning about an astrophysicist who is researching the big bang.

Because so much work has been done in cosmology, there's plenty of materials to investigate and examine what is taking place.


In the article he states that of the 18 primary elements of the big bang, 17 have holes that are not being questioned. So he's identified the problems, and the last one, red shift, he's working through.



In all the 18 areas, except one, there are explanations of the observed phenomena that are based on known physical laws, and that don’t require the Big Bang. You don’t need a fancy new theory to explain the phenomena.

You need – with one exception – gravitation, electromagnetism, nuclear forces and nuclear reactions: things that we have studied here on Earth. You can get rid of so-called cosmic inflation, you can get rid of dark energy, you can get rid of the expanding universe. You can get rid of dark matter and just throw them into the dustbin of history.

JT: You mentioned that there is one exception, where an alternative explanation is still lacking.

EL: The only exception is the one that Edwin Hubble pointed out one hundred years ago, namely the red shift.
 

The Pixie

Active member
Cosmology is a rather interesting story.

It goes from the ancient babylonians, greeks, all the way to now.

I ran across an article this morning about an astrophysicist who is researching the big bang.

Because so much work has been done in cosmology, there's plenty of materials to investigate and examine what is taking place.

The linked article names four scientists:

Hermann Bondi, died 2005
Thomas Gold, died 2004
Jayant Narlikar, aged 82
Eric Lerner, aged 73

These are the old guard, still clinging to the old idea of a steady-state universe. Narlikar, for example, worked with Fred Hoyle; that is how long ago these guys were active.

What are they proposing as an alternative? How does the evidence compare for that? Nothing in that articles gives any clue about that, I see.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
The linked article names four scientists:

Hermann Bondi, died 2005
Thomas Gold, died 2004
Jayant Narlikar, aged 82
Eric Lerner, aged 73

These are the old guard, still clinging to the old idea of a steady-state universe. Narlikar, for example, worked with Fred Hoyle; that is how long ago these guys were active.

What are they proposing as an alternative? How does the evidence compare for that? Nothing in that articles gives any clue about that, I see.
I got the impression it's a matter of their doing the research to see if the various elements of the big bang's evidence discovered thus far actually shows evidence of the big bang. I further got the impression that they are working on the last element--- red shift. Which is discussed in subsequent articles. This was the first of a four part interview. I saw that the 3rd had been published, but don't know why they haven't updated the first to include links to the subsequent.
I'll be back with links to the remainders.

Ok. that was easier than I thought.





So, have at it. I'm right in the middle of something but I will read the rest of them. I'd seen the first interview the morning I posted this op.
 

The Pixie

Active member
I got the impression it's a matter of their doing the research to see if the various elements of the big bang's evidence discovered thus far actually shows evidence of the big bang. I further got the impression that they are working on the last element--- red shift. Which is discussed in subsequent articles. This was the first of a four part interview. I saw that the 3rd had been published, but don't know why they haven't updated the first to include links to the subsequent.
I'll be back with links to the remainders.

Ok. that was easier than I thought.





So, have at it. I'm right in the middle of something but I will read the rest of them. I'd seen the first interview the morning I posted this op.
Cool. I would be interested to know their take on entropy. It is generally believed that in any process the entropy of the universe increases. That fits fine with the Big Bang; entropy was very low at that point because particles were so constrained. It has been going up every since. The articles seem to advocate a dynamic system that never winds no, i.e., when entropy (presumably) is not increasing.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
Cosmology is a rather interesting story.

It goes from the ancient babylonians, greeks, all the way to now.

I ran across an article this morning about an astrophysicist who is researching the big bang.

Because so much work has been done in cosmology, there's plenty of materials to investigate and examine what is taking place.


In the article he states that of the 18 primary elements of the big bang, 17 have holes that are not being questioned. So he's identified the problems, and the last one, red shift, he's working through.



In all the 18 areas, except one, there are explanations of the observed phenomena that are based on known physical laws, and that don’t require the Big Bang. You don’t need a fancy new theory to explain the phenomena.

You need – with one exception – gravitation, electromagnetism, nuclear forces and nuclear reactions: things that we have studied here on Earth. You can get rid of so-called cosmic inflation, you can get rid of dark energy, you can get rid of the expanding universe. You can get rid of dark matter and just throw them into the dustbin of history.

JT: You mentioned that there is one exception, where an alternative explanation is still lacking.

EL: The only exception is the one that Edwin Hubble pointed out one hundred years ago, namely the red shift.
Lol. And this is what happens when you block out any science after 1965.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Lol. And this is what happens when you block out any science after 1965.
Why don't you explain it, since you brought it up.
Because I didn't start studying physics until 1999.
What's amusing is that unless you studied the physics, and natural sciences that started before 1965, you don't actually know science.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
Why don't you explain it, since you brought it up.
Because I didn't start studying physics until 1999.
What's amusing is that unless you studied the physics, and natural sciences that started before 1965, you don't actually know science.
And yet you can ignore, as you have done, all discoveries made since 1965... as you must.
 
Sure there are things we don't know about the universe, but the "Big Bang" theory is the best hypothesis we have to explain the evidence.

Eric Lerner has been banging on about Plasma Cosmology since the early 90s. I remember his book being given as an example of how not to write a science book - it is better to build support for a hypothesis than to write a book attacking a more successful hypothesis.

Plasma Cosmology isn't a very good hypothesis because, despite what its advocates say it really isn't supported by any evidence.
 
Top