"Once We Free Ourselves of the Shackles of Religion, and Bible-based Big Bang Theology...

...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.


Views: 494

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yeah, Reg, there's weird on both sides. Only in LeMaistre's Catholicism do I see anything as weird as creationism.

Do you have time to consider what caused the singularity to start expanding?

Reg: look again at your closing words.

Oh wait….The Journal of Cosmology…..ok….I have no time for it.

Do you see its negative judgment? You provided no evidence to support your judgment.

Religious leaders use unsupported negative judgments to control passive followers.

Did you intend that result?

Given what I have seen of the Journal of Cosmology, saying "The Journal of Cosmology? Never mind..." is similar to saying "The Discovery Institute? Never mind..." or "Deepak Chopra? Never mind..."

Ah, the Discovery Institute, a perennial loser.

Its alternative to evolution, Intelligent Design or ID, evolved from Creationism which shares an ancestor with LeMaitre's story: Genesis.

I share your low opinion of the Institute, but instead of saying "Never mind" to it I contribute to the National Center for Science Education (www.ncse.com), whose attorneys battle it in court.

Federal Judge John Jones scraped the skin off the Institute in his 2005 Dover schools ruling that ID was religion trying to pass as science.

Chopra? I watched a few minutes of him and never went back. To him I easily say "Never mind."

Hi Tom, I have in the past had reason to check out the JOC. It is not main stream which is not by itself necessarily a bad thing but it has little respect from the Science community.  Many of its most famous articles are…well….rubbish, especially those about sexual evolution (with nude pics) and bacteria in meteorites as sources of life on Earth.

Normally I would give time to producing evidence to back up my claims but it is not worthy enough so I just dismiss immediately any references from it used to back up arguments. A few minutes of “googling” will produce enough to easily debunk the JOC and its credibility.

The PZ Myers affair is enough for me to hold it with no respect. I respect PZM due to his insistence on using the Scientific Method and peer reviewed evidence based research, annoying as it may be to some other Scientists. I have actually met and spoken with PZM on debunking Bad Science in general (the Creation Museum in KY.).

Well ok a little bit of referencing:

PZM on the JOC: "the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics." Some of the articles that have appeared do nothing to dispel this idea include "The Origin of Eternal Life in the Multiverse" and "Sex on Mars: Pregnancy, Fetal Development, and Sex in Outer Space."

On the claim of Scientists having found “Bacteria in Meteorites” as published in the JOC (with supporting pictures) PZM was asked if it was true. He answered “No, No, No, No, No” of words to that effect as I can’t recall the exact quote.

So yes, I intended that result by dismissing it. Though I don't see how

"Religious leaders use unsupported negative judgments to control passive followers"

derives from that. Do you have any references to support that?

References to support my "Religious leaders use unsupported negative judgments to control passive followers"?

No references to the views of others; twelve years of unsupported negative judgments in Catholic schools. The experience persuaded me to study mathematics, where everything required evidence. I needed and enjoyed the unaccustomed mental exercise.

Some people do pretend academic qualifications. After I retired I took college courses I hadn't taken decades earlier and encountered two.

One taught linguistics and became angry when I asked him to clarify his words about grammar and syntax making humans superior to other animals.

Another taught philosophy and spoke of aged Eskimo males who left on hunting trips from which their relatives knew they wouldn't return. I asked him what aged Eskimo females did and he very angrily denied being a sociologist.

I've read some PZM and saw enough dogmatism to discourage further reading. I didn't keep notes adequate for support here.

Yeah, the JOC also has some dogmatism.

A few people say I do. Strangely, no thunderbolts strike them. I need to improve my aim.

What do you think of Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok's cyclic model?   http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf

Thanks, Wesley. I read the first four pages. Suspending judgment. I will download it and read further.

Here are criteria I consider important:

  • 1. Since mathematics approximates reality, explanations that exclude observation are suspect.
  • 2. Explanations that include magical events (i.e., the big bang) are more than suspect.
  • 3. Explanations that require "patches" (epicycles, inflation, dark energy, etc) to fill gaps are suspect.
  • 4. An account with roots in Buddhism is as suspect as one with roots in Genesis.

My desk dictionary doesn't define ekpyrotic (sp?). I need it defined before I read more.

Here's the same thing explained this time by Neil Turok.   http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/turok07/turok07_index.html

and here for ekpyrotic http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/EKPYROTIC

I don't know if it will pan out or not....but I do like to see theories challenged and people not afraid to question even the most basic things.

Oh, how precious!

Are the atheists now denying science because the results are philosophically inconvenient?  Or even worse, because the theorists happen to be Catholic?  What are they going to do with poor old Copernicus and Galileo!  We'll be back to a static universe with a flat earth!


Maybe SOME atheists are skeptical of the Big Bang, but without a lot more explication of the alleged problems than Tom has presented here (or for that matter was presented in "The Big Bang Never Happened", non-Big-Bang theories to me are just pseudoscience you can file next to Velikovsky.

So the universe as we know it has a beginning.  Big Deal, that does not imply a conscious "creator" and there is no philosophical inconvenience involved whatsoever.  Though you'd have to admit that if these people are correct, YOU are screwed.

Steve, if you will identify the kind of explication (on which aspects of the problem) that might persuade you, it's possible that you might be persuaded.

BTW, who are the YOU that will be screwed?


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service