...the living universe is revealed for what it is: infinite and eternal. A universe which consists of infinite space that has no beginning, and no end."
So say the authors of The Big Bang: A Critical Analysis, by Cosmology Science Publishers, Cambridge. The key question for Big Bang folk: what caused the singularity to start expanding?
The work is a collection of papers, most with their own abstracts. The first opens: Most, but not all cosmologists favor the inflationary Big Bang model.... The origin...is a mathematically obscure state - a "singularity" of zero volume that contained infinite density and infinite energy. Why [it] existed, how it originated, and why it exploded, cannot be explained....
The papers tell of the Hubble-length universe, the galaxies and stars that can be observed by current technology, and many more, far older galaxies and "walls" of galaxies flowing much as rivers. The papers tell also of galaxies colliding from many directions, not likely if their movements began in an explosion.
If there was a big bang, it was not the beginning, but a continuation....
Hoyle was not alone in rejecting LeMaitre's theory. Einstein rejected LeMaitre to his face at the 1927 Solvay conference, saying "your physics is abominable".
You might also read Eric Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened.
Melvinotis, while in college studying mathematics and physics, I realized how tightly a dogma repeated five days a week for 12 years in Catholic schools can grip a kid's mind. Two of those years had been in a Jesuit high school where teachers spoke of their obedience. One said If a superior tells me black is white, then black is white. I came to see that changing dogmas is easier than giving up the need for a dogma.
When I first heard LeMaitre's explanation and learned that he was a Catholic priest, I noted how closely it echoed Genesis.
I asked astronomers, What forces can change the directions of galaxies to put them on collision courses? The usual reply was No one knows what happened during inflation.
More recently I realized that during LeMaitre's years in seminary, Catholicism's dogma had tightened its grip more. He had also gained an economic motive--meals, clothing, and a place to live--and a social motive--the unquestioning obedience of lay Catholics.
I don't think anyone expects Catholics to be in the forefront of science or technology. If one broke through, that would certainly be the exception rather than the rule. Hmmm as I'm thinking about it, the same applies to the public schools, leading the question: where do astrophysicists come from?
This is not my area of study, but I have a vague interest and will check out the book. If it is not so far over my head, I'll comment.
Thanks for bringing this up. I do enjoy shaking up the mainstream thinking to see if it holds merit.
Melvinotis, I have often wondered how many submissives and how many rebels Catholic schools produce.
Where are astrophysicists educated? (We know where they come from.)
I retired from the computer business (software engineering) and recently tutored high school algebra students who were NOT KEEPING PACE WITH THEIR PEERS. The community was a bit more prosperous than nearby communities and the kids I tutored were doing mathematics (set theory) I first saw decades earlier in advanced algebra courses when I was majoring in math. Also, about half of their textbook problems were in metric units.
Majoring in mathematics did not repair the damage Catholicism had done to my thinking.
Quitting Catholicism (freeing myself from from its control), studying existentialism (There are no excuses!), and four years in hardball politics which included running once for office (If it doesn't destroy you, it makes you stronger) repaired much of the damage and enabled further repairs.
Probably public colleges and universities produce astrophysicists.
The Catholics and former Catholics I meet persuade me that Catholic schools (probably with the help of Catholic parents) produce submissives, rebels, and a few very domineering folk.
While he agreed with the mathematics in Lemaitre paper in 1927 he did not admire his grasp of Physics as you say. It was however Einstein who was mistaken. Once Hubble found several examples of red shifting galaxies to prove the expansion, i.e. observation confirming theory, Einstein came to admire Lemaitre’s work. At a conference in 1933 Einstein called it one of the best explanations for creation he had ever heard.
Hoyle, who believed in the “Steady State” of expansion, coined the phrase “Big Bang” almost as a term of derision for Lemaitre’s theory. If the Universe was expanding at a steady rate then it fell down because not enough time had passed to get to the size we observe it to be now. So Lemaitre “borrowed” Einstein’s Cosmological Constant and once he added it into his theory he could show that it was expanding and at an increasing speeds.
While it never really took hold until the CMBR was discovered – the heat remains of the Big Bang – his theory has now reached consensus. Lemaitre had wondered if there ever was “a day that had no yesterday”. It would appear that the mathematician who happened to be a Catholic priest was correct.
Reg, the authors of The Big Bang: A Critical Analysis dispose of the hypothesized (i.e., unexplained) dark energy that for BB supporters accelerates expansion. They also dispose of the red shift.
...his theory has now reached consensus.
Among people who study decision-making, consensus is either:
1) unanimity, or
2) agreement by the minority to not block the majority.
The consensus you mention is neither; it is an unspecified number greater than a simple majority.
Will you take on the key question for Big Bang folk: what caused your singularity to start expanding?
what caused your singularity to start expanding?
An important phrase for any scientist to familiarize themselves with: We don't know.
If these authors have managed to crack the problem of quantum gravity and successfully run models of the early universe before Planck time, I eagerly await hearing about their receipt of the Nobel Prize.
Until then, I will place my confidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers rather than vanity publishing.
Your admission that scientists don't know the expansion's cause increases your credibility.
I checked out your slur, "vanity publishing".
The Big Bang Never Happened. Published by Vintage Book, a Division of Random House, Inc.
Yeah, a slur; it decreases your credibility.
The Big Bang: A Critical Analysis. Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian, Cambridge.
A conclusion here requires further investigation, including on whether any trademark lawsuits resulted from the use by these people of some distinguished names. Unknown effect on your credibility.
Is the problem of quantum gravity relevant and is a solution required? I don't know; no effect on your credibility.
What are the criteria for success in running models of the early universe before Planck time? I don't know; no effect on your credibility.
Are you economically invested in the current explanation?
Big Bang: A Critical Analysis; according to its Amazon page:
Cosmology Science Publishers, The company that publishes the Journal of Cosmology, a vanity online magazine for authors who cannot survive peer review. Highly suspect (if present) review process and known to publish articles with little to no scientific credibility. Fond of the Galileo Gambit. Likes 'science by press release'.
Conspiracy theorizing on your part: significant decrease in your credibility. (As it was a hit to JoC's)
Wow, "conspiracy theorizing," as well as paranoia? Well, I guess they do kinda go hand in hand. I'm worried about you, Tom --
arch, will you pray for me?
I value prayer more than I do your worrying.
Gosh, if only what you value were a greater priority to me, Tom --