Monday, March 24, 2014
The Big Bang is a Political Theory Disguised as Science
For those of you who don't know yet they came up with more of what they consider evidence to support the so called Big Bang theory again recently. As usual they presented it to the public in a dramatic manner that, I suspect, few people actually understand; but it might seem entertaining to some. They introduced this new evidence by posting a video of an expert being greeted at the door by someone who informed him that his work paid off, "Stanford physicist tears up about Big Bang theory;" and they celebrated their success.
Another article from Salon might go into slightly more detail about the actual science, "Smoking gun for the Big Bang! Major scientific discovery helps prove Einstein’s last untested prediction;" it doesn't provide much more details and unfortunately their are other articles coming out at the same time that seem to contradict it based on the same discovery. According to the Salon article it seems to confirm Einsteins theory but according to NPR, "Einstein's Lost Theory Discovered ... And It's Wrong," it seems to refute Einsteins theory.
I hate it when that happens.
The Salon article seems to imply that Einstein actually endorsed the Big Bang theory; anyone familiar with scientific history probably knows that he didn't but people used his work after his death to support it anyway. They seem to think that if he lived longer he would have come to that conclusion.
But that isn't what I would consider the biggest problem with the Big Bang theory and their alleged new evidence to support it. Like most other occasions when they claim they have new evidence to support the Big Bang theory, which seems to happen on a semi-regular basis, they seem to come up with a complicated argument that I doubt most people understand but they ignore some very simple problems with the theory that have been there since they first came up with it.
I don't need an advanced degree to understand some of these simple problems.
Neither do you.
One problem is that if the universe started at a specific time and grew at a consistent pace, or even if that pace changed from time to time, then it would be of a limited, or finite size. They rarely if ever mention this.
What would be beyond that limited amount of space?
That is rarely even considered by the supporters of the Big Bang theory.
How big is the finite universe that they claim began with a Big Bang? When they came up with a two hour premiere show on it on the History Channel called "The Universe" they claimed that it was 150 billion light years wide but it only began 13.7 billion years ago; which clearly implied that it grew much faster than the speed of light at one point which is what Some accounts claim.
But that isn't the way they always presented it. When I first heard them explain how they calculated the age of the universe they claimed that they learned it was expanding as a result of the Doppler effect and they calculated, based on the rate of expansion and the size of the known universe, at that time, when they would have been all at the same location to determine the age of the universe according to this theory.
Then at some point they seem to think that it might have been older and I remember a couple of old articles that claimed it might have been twenty billion years or twenty five billion years old or even older. Presumably this was when they realized the universe was bigger so they expanded the age of the universe to correct the problem. But this didn't last and they went back to the 13.7 year old estimate and somewhere along the line they came up with the claim that it started expanding faster than the speed of light without acknowledging that previous theories to establish the age were based on the rate of expansion.
However according to an account of, Big Bang or Steady State by Matthew Bershady, Both theories assume a homogeneous, isotropic Universe has no edge and no center. This claim contradicts both the claim by the History Channel premiere that says the universe is 150 billion light years wide and the description provided above about the Big Bang theory starting at a single spot and expanding at a finite speed therefore it will always be limited in size, whether the size estimated by the History Channel is right or not. If the universe is a finite size then it should have both an edge and a center. The Steady State is compatible with the no edge and no center claim but the Big Bang theory is not.
This version of the Big Bang theory contradicts the most basic principles of geometry.
The Big Bang theory also ignores at least two of the most basic principles of physics, Conservation of energy, which claims that energy can neither be created or destroyed, and Conservation of mass which claims that mass can neither be created or destroyed although they can be converted.
Those who aren't familiar with science might not even know that the person who came up with the name "The Big Bang" was Fred Hoyle and he did it in a satirical manner as part of an argument against it, as explained in many sources including his obituary, Fred Hoyle Dies at 86; Opposed 'Big Bang' but Named It. He adopted a theory which is commonly known as the Steady State theory.
Fred Hoyle has at times been ridiculed by others including Ethan Siegal who wrote The Last 100 Years: 1950s & The Tragedy of Fred Hoyle. As I have indicated previously ridicule should not be used in scientific arguments, or at least it should be kept to a minimum if some have a hard time resisting it. However sometimes it is hard to resist and many people are predisposed to respond to ridicule; so in the long run it would be important to teach children at an early age to recognize this tactic so they're less likely to respond to it, or change their views for fear of ridicule. In this case at least Fred Hoyle's theory doesn't seem to have the obvious basic problems that the Big Bang theory does. However even Fred Hoyle's theory, or at least the way it is reported at times, seems to support the claim that the universe is expanding even if it doesn't have a Big Bang.
What makes them so sure that the universe is expanding?
They came to this conclusion as a result of the Doppler effect, which is at least the third most reliable method of measuring the distance of stars or galaxies; or in this case determining whether they're moving closer or farther away.
The most reliable method involves what they call Parallax, which involves using trigonometry to measure the distances of nearby stars. This is considered easy by some but the angles have to be very precise so I'm not quite so sure it is so easy, at least not for most of us. The second most reliable method is checking Cepheid or variable stars which are supposed to have predictable sizes so they can use the magnitude of the star to determine the distance.
The method they use to come up with the Big Bang theory Is the Doppler effect, which is more complicated and, presumably has a higher margin of error. This is especially true since they have to rely on galaxies that are millions of light years away to come to their conclusions.
Is it possible that this might not be as reliable a method when it comes to measuring direction of things that are millions of light years away? I don't know but if it is that could explain how they made their mistake. Even if it isn't then the appropriate way to address the problems with the Big Bang theory isn't to pretend they don't exist.
Regardless of how accurate the Doppler effect is this gives creationist a good argument to claim that this is the way that God created the universe, assuming you believe in either one. Surprisingly only a small percentage of them have done this and those that have rarely receive much attention in the media. The latest person, that I know of, to support this theory is Leslie A. Wickman author of Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God? Unfortunately he misrepresents Fred Hoyle's views to support his own, which seems to be a common tactic for theologians. But if you believe in the Big Bang it might actually make some degree of sense, assuming you also believe in God. The Big Bang theory establishes a beginning which most religious people believe in; the most notable exception, that I know of is Hinduism which believes in an eternally old world and universe; but they come to this conclusion through the same mythological methods that other religions come to the belief in creation, not through scientific methods.
Of course many of the questions that atheist like to ask would still need to be addressed like; who created God? What is God trying to accomplish? If he is benevolent, as religious people claim, why doesn't he maintain a open line of communication that people can confirm; and why does he allow people to fight so many wars over mistaken beliefs.
The theists usually try to avoid these questions when they can or provide lame answers and sweep them under the rug.
Unfortunately when it comes to the Big Bang theory that seems to be the same way the dominant portion of the scientific community reacts.
Now that Fred Hoyle is dead they claim that there are very few believers in the Steady State theory; actually when it comes to those that are covered by the traditional media there don't seem to be any. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist; it just means that the traditional media is no longer willing to give them any coverage. Ignoring critics and refusing to give them a chance to get their views across is hardly the appropriate way to address scientific issues.
Just because the commercial media doesn't cover these researchers that recognize the problems with the Big Bang doesn't mean that they don't exist but it does make it much more difficult to find out just how many of them there are or to present their arguments to the vast majority of the public. Wal Thornhill author of "The True State of the Universe" is apparently one of them and he bases his article on the work of Halton Arp, Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge, Sir Fred Hoyle, Jayant Narlikar, Jack Sulentic and others. Whether they come up with a more relaible theory would require a good review of their work which the majority of the public hasn't done since the traditional media refuses to cover them. However even a quick look at this article indicates that, at least, they acknowledge and address some of the inconvenient facts that the traditional researchers covered by the media ignore when they can, including the following excerpt.
Another article that raises some doubts no longer adressed by the traditional media is posted at Faraday schools web site, If there was a Big Bang, when was it? this includes a link to another article by Professor of Engineering, John Billingsley, who raises similar doubts about the reliability of the Doppler effect or shift to the ones that I did.
This should raise a big question: Why would all these scientist line up behind a theory that has so many problems? Who gains? How? Is this a social problem where the people with the dominant amount of political power have closed minds and dig in their heals forcing those that want to be part of the establishment to go along? If so why aren't their more rational people that recognize these obvious problems? Is it possible that there are more, but they can't get attention from the media so most of us never hear of them? Or that they remain silent under pressure?
As Halton Arp said, “After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility.” - , What has Science Come to? Journal of Scientific Exploration.
Regardless of how reliable this is it has a surprising number of similarities to the dominant economic theories which recommend a permanently expanding economy on a world with limited resources. This is surely coincidental since these theories aren't dependent on each other and economists don't need scientists to support the Big Bang theory to maintain their control of the economic system, for now.
A conspiracy theory connecting the two would have to be much bigger which is highly unlikely.
But they have something else in common too; some of the best alternatives have come up with their own theory for economics as well, although it isn't widely reported. Some people like Bill McKibben have recommended a Steady State economic system where they provide only as many goods and services as they need and do as much locally as they can to minimize waste. This theory would only have an expanding economy when it provides rational benefits. It wouldn't expand the economy by reducing the quality of products so that they fall apart and have to be replaced more often then increase it even more by spending more money on advertising to convince consumers they're getting their money's worth when they aren't.
If anyone is interested they can Google "Big Bang or Steady State" or check the following articles on the subject including one that claims there is asthmatically evidence to support the big bang theory. In order to find that evidence you'll have to go to the more complicated paper behind it; this article doesn't give the details, nor does it acknowledge the simple contradictions I cited previously like most articles supporting the Big Bang theory.
Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift - Electric Cosmos
Halton Arp articles
Mathematic Proof That The Universe Had A Beginning
Brilliant Blunders: How the Big Bang Beat Out the Steady State Universe
Ideas of Cosmology: Big Bang or Steady State?