...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.
Dave, I read all of Amazon's page on the publication found none of what you said above. I went to Wikipedia and found some criticism.
If you know academic publishing, you know some journal editors/publishers have allowed biases to color their judgments.
Where do you see conspiracy theorizing on my part?
Did you see nothing in my reply above that increased my credibility? Really?
Nothing? Really? Did you look under 'Product Details' to find the publisher?
And a quick Google on the publisher finds that they produce the Journal of Cosmology. Hardly a state secret there.
And yes, some journal editors have allowed their biases to color their judgments. And the Journal of Cosmology is the poster child for the subject. One of their 'articles' was nothing more than a rant about PZ Myers, complete with photoshopped images of his head on woman's bodies. Such scientific rigor! (The rant was later moved to Rhawn Joseph's personal site. I guess they do have standards, retroactively.) An article review by David Brin was cancelled when the editor went ballistic on him.
And as for your conspiracy theorizing, alluding that my rejection was influenced by my being 'economically invested' (I'm not, what humanity discovers in this field does not influence my income at all) is quite reminiscent of, for example, anti-vaxxers claiming that those who disagree with them are in the pay of 'Big Pharma'.
That and your 'It was created by a Catholic, so it must be wrong' attitude does nothing to aid your credibility.
The book's product details include sales rank, language, print length, publication date and publisher. I found the title on two different Kindle models and neither has a publisher evaluation.
If asking for economic information is conspiracy theorizing, I plead guilty.
However, you and I both know that conflicts of interest exist. I won't ask for an evaluation of the BB from someone whose paycheck MIGHT influence his views.
I thought I said something like 'The BB model was created by a Catholic and it echoes Church doctrine, so it's suspect" and you read it as "It was created by a Catholic, so it must be wrong"?????
I can read better than that, except when a needed dogma is in danger.
Now here's a conspiracy theory: I believe that some of the people writing on this issue have 1) a related economic interest or, 2) a dogma in danger.
... and neither has a publisher evaluation.
And you didn't do the research on the publisher yourself? I did.
I believe that some of the people writing on this issue have 1) a related economic interest or, 2) a dogma in danger.
Yes, just as the findings of climate scientists are suspect because they're just trying to get grants, doctors promotion of vaccines are suspect because they are in the pay of Big Pharma, and all the usual conspiracy talk.
You really think that the people who's work you are promoting are miraculously free of economic ties? Now who is the one holding to a bias?
If the authors whose work you are pushing were able to actually make their case with hard evidence, they would be in line for a Nobel prize, critical acclaim, and a lasting name in the annals of scientific research. Much like what happened with the proposed theory of tectonic plates.
At first tectonic plates were rejected by mainstream scientific consensus as having insufficient evidence. So its proponents went back, gathered more evidence, until they had enough to make their case and gain widespread acceptance of their theories. Skipping the 'gather enough evidence' stage in favor of claiming persecution/dogmatic resistance is the practice of pseudo-scientists, not scientists.
More from the authors of The Big Bang: A Critical Analysis:
…, the heat generated by a Big Bang would have been so intense that all these elements [hydrogen, helium, and lithium] would have been turned into iron and would have resulted in a universe made of heavy metal. (Joseph, The Infinite Universe: Black Holes, …, Journal of Cosmology, 6, 854-874)
The Big Bang predicts general uniformity in the trajectory of galaxies, and yet, … there are in fact rivers of galaxies flowing in the wrong direction (Van Flandern, The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang. Meta Research Bulletin 11, 6-13).
However, be it BB or alternative models, not a single theory so far proposed adequately explains or is consistent with all key observations. This may come as a surprise to those who have been taught that the BB is established fact. (Eastman, Cosmic Agnosticism, Revisited. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, 4, 655-663)
RE: "The Big Bang predicts general uniformity in the trajectory of galaxies, and yet, … there are in fact rivers of galaxies flowing in the wrong direction" - this has been an issue with you Tom, since the earlier discussion when, in trying to illustrate the role simple thermodynamics could have played in explaining this phenomenon, you accused me of passive-aggressive behavior.
Pretending this explosion to be the BB, and the ejecta to be super-heated plasma, note how the cooling ejecta is shoved aside by the roiling motion of the hotter ejecta beneath it, and begins trajectories in directions other than perpendicular to the source.
arch, I used the term passive-aggressive because you refused to clarify your terms.
You had used the term "riddle me" and I declined to use a gun. You did not clarify your meaning.
You used the term "roiling mass" and when I asked you to clarify you refused.
You created ambiguity and then wanted me to commit.
Had I done so, you could have used the ambiguity you created to attack what I'd said.
You didn't fall from a turnip truck. Do you know what causes passive-aggressive behavior?
RE: "Had I done so, you could have used the ambiguity you created to attack what I'd said" - how does, "could have" translate to "would have"?
RE: "Do you know what causes passive-aggressive behavior?" - one thing at a time, I'm still trying to figure out what causes false assumptions.
arch, "could have" translated to "would have" in your mind, not mine.
Will a decision require you to distinguish between conflicting assumptions?
C'mon, arch, admit your bias. The pain lasts only moments.
RE: "arch, 'could have' translated to 'would have' in your mind, not mine" - then admittedly, your "could have" amounts to pure conjecture on your part, or even possibly, paranoia - just because I "could have," doesn't mean I would have. Yes, I will freely admit that I am biased against those who make false assumptions, and you were right, it didn't hurt a bit!
RE: "the heat generated by a Big Bang would have been so intense that..." molecules such as hydrogen, helium, lithium, and especially a heavy metal like iron, would have been unable to form, resulting in only an intensely hot plasma for at least the first hundred thousand years.
Consensus in the realms of Science does not imply or require unanimity. Peer reviewed evidence amongst mainstream scientists leads to Consensus on the Big Bang. The minority are allowed to disagree from the majorities stance, just as Hoyle and later Van Flandern did with his Steady State theory. In fact disagreements are what challenge the majority to keep reviewing their evidence.
I was unaware that Science had thought of the BB as being an established fact. When I hear this line of thinking I suspect creationist “science” is behind it. I may be wrong so I will check out the authors work and references first. They may just not be mainstream. Red Shift however is a fact.
BTW Van Flandern also thought ET’s once lived on Mars. I don’t see how Joseph can make the leap to a heavy metal based Universe. Rock on!
Oh wait….The Journal of Cosmology…..ok….I have no time for it.