Home | Community | Message Board


Phytoextractum
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Microscope, Scales, pH Test Strips

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists
    #2737997 - 05/27/04 07:59 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.

Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Signed:

(Institutions for identification only)

Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /
Earthtech.org

www.earthtech.org

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273

http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)

James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)

Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)

Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)

Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

Jacques Moret-Bailly, Universit? Dijon (retired) (France)

Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)

Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maring? (Brazil)

Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedaba
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 12/30/02
Posts: 3,881
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2738164 - 05/27/04 08:43 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Interesting...


--------------------
Fold for The Shroomery!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2738711 - 05/27/04 10:42 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

see, this is why i question such things constantly...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 26 days, 21 hours
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2740599 - 05/28/04 08:57 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:


The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.





This is a very shallow view; they should know better from history. We used to believe that there was an "ether" which is what space was made of. The ether is what allowed light to travel through space, just as air is what allows sound to travel. Without ether, the science that described electomagnetic radiation (light) failed. Experiments were done to find and quantify ether... and they all failed. Everybody scrambled trying to fix Maxwell's equations (which describe electromagnetic radiation), but nothing seemed to help. Finally, Einstein came along and presented relativity, which allowed Maxwell's equations to work unchanged.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: Seuss]
    #2742242 - 05/28/04 06:43 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

the big bang theory has never held any water.

the universe was 1 point that is now expanding? what surounds the universe then? where are the borders of expansion? whats outside the borders? MORE UNIVERSE.

infinity.


--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDeadShaman
Eyes Wide Open

Registered: 04/22/04
Posts: 11
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: BleaK]
    #2742915 - 05/28/04 10:53 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Correct me if I'm wrong, the big bang was (theoretically) the creation of all mass in the universe, not the universe itself, right?


--------------------
"What do you mean no such thing as eternity?"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFrankieJustTrypt
and fell

Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: BleaK]
    #2743154 - 05/29/04 12:13 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

infinity.

I totally agree. Although this can never really be proven, I believe it to be absolutely true. Infinity is the essence of the universe.


Take scale for example. You can scale down all the way to quarks. Or all the way up to galaxy clusters, or even the known universe. And again its just what we know about. I'm sure even quarks are made up of things that are made up of things, and the known universe as we know it is most likely part of something bigger.

Maybe at one point they meet on the other side. Like a loop, infinite.

Though thats philosophical.

I think the big thing here is it is perceived that religion has affected scientific funding as the big bang theory can be used by the religious as a moment of creation... And it has some gaping holes that should maybe warrent a second look.


--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblechodamunky
Cheers!

Registered: 02/28/02
Posts: 2,030
Loc: sailing the seas of chees...
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2745280 - 05/29/04 11:58 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

why 33 scientists? why not 32, or 34, why 33?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 2 months, 4 days
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: chodamunky] * 1
    #2746093 - 05/30/04 10:47 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

So they could form an equilateral triangle.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: BleaK]
    #2754938 - 06/01/04 11:48 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

If the universe is a 4-d hypersphere,you could theorectillly travel in one direction and end up where you started.

We're getting into things that are beyond the human mind here,like trying to picture non Euclid geometry (arguebly impossible to do).


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedo
CTA

Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: monoamine]
    #2755589 - 06/02/04 03:04 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

The universe is expanding in all directions faster and faster, and if space was infinate there would be matter there already, in my opinion anyway. We cant explain why the universe is expanding faster and faster, so we created a dark energy and calculated the amount of it is in the universe to make the math equations happy.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/24/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: Redo]
    #2756675 - 06/02/04 02:12 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Redo said:
The universe is expanding in all directions faster and faster, and if space was infinate there would be matter there already, in my opinion anyway. We cant explain why the universe is expanding faster and faster, so we created a dark energy and calculated the amount of it is in the universe to make the math equations happy.




is the universe expanding? or are the planets moving further apart?


--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 26 days, 21 hours
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: BleaK]
    #2757200 - 06/02/04 04:43 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

> is the universe expanding? or are the planets moving further apart?

The universe is expanding... and inch is longer now than it used to be.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedo
CTA

Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: Seuss]
    #2759499 - 06/03/04 04:18 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

I dont know that matter is expanding, but space is.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 26 days, 21 hours
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: Redo]
    #2760054 - 06/03/04 10:56 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

> I dont know that matter is expanding, but space is.

True... I should have qualified my statement.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblewhiterasta
Day careobserver
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
    #2760180 - 06/03/04 11:34 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

try Enzyte for all natural univese enhancement.We guarantee results in two weeks or your dark mater will be refunded.
Seriously what lies at the leading edge of the expansion is "potential Time/Space"and Space time is created at the leading edge.How this occurs is likely a side effect of matter and energy intruding into potential with space time being the observable outcome of this reaction
BTW there was an excellent book who's authors name escapes me.It is called 2.8 angstroms and over 15yrs ago the author described an accelerating universe in which Lightspeed was accelerating at 2.8 angstroms/sec/sec now mainsteam physics can no longer ignore this work and has adopted it.IMHO what we observe as an expanding universe is in fact the oposite. It is negatively contracting to a new singularity.Our observations which from our microscopic view we derive our theories of the totality are flawed by perspective and bias. We expect what we observe experimentaly to model our existance to be accurate.We have no way of knowing this as mere reproducibility does not "prove" any experiment it only shows that under these conditions we observe this repetedly.
Because our limited perspctive leads us to believe that the process we observe in the universe is expansion, after all all the data SEEM to point to large structures receding at an accelerating pace.No one to date has considered the possibility that it is our perspective which is skewed? Perhaps the acceleration is due to the universe reapproaching it's state of singularity and it is OUR perspective which has deluded us into thinking that a "larger" space/time is occuring. What if space/time is finite and once the substance of the universe fills it completely it becomes a new singularity?
What I know is I don't know    :shrug:
WR:wexican:


--------------------
To old for this place


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: Seuss]
    #2760182 - 06/03/04 11:34 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

that has not been proven - according to the rate predicted by current theories, space around us should be expanding in such a way that you would barely be able to see


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblewhiterasta
Day careobserver
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: whiterasta]
    #2761238 - 06/03/04 09:26 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Because our limited perspctive leads us to believe that the process we observe in the universe is expansion, after all all the data SEEM to point to large structures receding at an accelerating pace.No one to date has considered the possibility that it is our perspective which is skewed? Perhaps the acceleration is due to the universe reapproaching it's state of singularity and it is OUR perspective which has deluded us into thinking that a "larger" space/time is occuring. What if space/time is finite and once the substance of the universe fills it completely it becomes a new singularity?
What I know is I don't know
 



I try to acknowlege the data while offering a reinterpretation of it only. As I said I have believed in an accelerating univese for over fifteen years. I am now questioning the conclusions of the apparent data when the "furthest" stuctures seem to be moving faster than near structures one could conclude that despite apearances these structures are acceleratingly filling a finite potential time space and will become a singularity once complete.Distance may be an illusion of our perspective of time/space we may be witnessing a dispersion of time/space within a finite potential and rather than an increase in distance we are experiencing a shifting perspective of size that is accelerating.So this is to say we may not be getting further apart we may be shrinking and dispersing in a finite potential region inorder to fill it to singularity.
WR:wexican:


--------------------
To old for this place


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedo
CTA

Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: whiterasta]
    #2761822 - 06/04/04 12:26 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

You need more matter in the galaxy for it to collapse though, unless the unknown force is attracting. We dont have enough matter to hold the universe together, there is something else out there.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMrbadguy
Marquis de Sade

Registered: 12/19/02
Posts: 69
Loc: Enemy territory
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
Re: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists [Re: Redo]
    #2766765 - 06/05/04 07:38 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

The answer to such a question relies in the true nature of dark matter and/or dark energy. Hell, man doesn't even know comprehension to "known" matter as an electron microscope cannot image the atom hence the theories including the string theory. Gravity's a good example of an uncomprehended energy as registering it is limited to atomic characteristics, although recently a satellite was launched to test Einstein's theory of relativity. It will find the "speed of gravity." As with the universe expanding or not, the hubble space telescope has noted galaxies moving at speeds exceeding the speed of light. Seemingly a paradox, an explanation would be that not only is the galaxy moving, but space is expanding summing both speeds above the speed of light providing actual perception and thus preserving the theory of relativity. If the universe is becoming a singularity, we wouldn't need to worry about the possibility of an accelerating expansion causing a universal disturbance of electromagnetivity (light) comparable to a black hole from event horizon and infintuum. Personally I consider the big bang but unreasonably accept space time as something always existing...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Microscope, Scales, pH Test Strips

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Big Bang Theory...
( 1 2 all )
Chronic7 3,209 34 03/23/08 11:58 PM
by DieCommie
* Big Bang Theory Put To Test Jackal 686 6 06/19/03 10:18 PM
by whiterasta
* Did the Big Bang ever happen?
( 1 2 all )
RationalEgo 1,436 29 01/02/10 10:00 PM
by DieCommie
* The Big Bang
( 1 2 all )
CowFarmer 1,101 22 07/03/09 05:54 PM
by Minstrel
* Beyond the Singularity - What do you think caused the Big Bang?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
AsanteA 4,149 65 01/19/08 03:51 PM
by Cubie
* Where was all this matter and energy before the Big Bang?
( 1 2 3 all )
LoveOverAll 2,406 48 02/10/10 08:41 PM
by GI_Luvmoney
* 1% of TV "white noise" is light from the big bang
( 1 2 all )
freddurgan 3,136 33 07/14/05 08:31 PM
by trendal
* Am I missing something? Or is the big bang bullshit?
( 1 2 3 all )
Flux 6,587 47 01/29/04 06:48 PM
by Shmoppy McGillicuddy

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Lana, trendal, Diploid, automan
3,925 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Myco Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.086 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.