Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, May 16, 2020

In cosmology, the Big Bang theory is king. It wasn't always that way, but over the years the evidence has mounted and, for the most part, astronomers are convinced it's the best we have. So why do many people hate it? Black holes, invisible dark matter and the idea of the cosmos being born in a millisecond defy plain common sense.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Frustrated by people telling them how to do their job, two astronomers set-out to answer the questions and criticism they are so frequently sent. The result is The Cosmic Revolutionary's Handbook (Or: How to Beat the Big Bang), which sets out exactly what any Big Bang theory-hater needs to explain before a new theory can even begin to take hold."

"The point of the book is that the Big Bang theory has a solid track record of explaining well-established facts about the Universe," said Barnes. "If you want to challenge the Big Bang theory, you'd better be able to explain the basics before you have a shot at explaining mysteries like dark matter."

They also stress that because astronomers measure the Universe, any new theory had better have some maths in it somewhere ... as well as a distinct lack of fonts, formatting inconsistencies, and rants on social media."

,
This is the same as when the Penrose did the maths and Hawking made the sales pitch over 50 years ago on an even older set of theories... scientists still don't like it no matter how many times it is independently verified.

And here's why...

"Starting in 1924, Hubble painstakingly developed a series of distance indicators, the forerunner of the cosmic distance ladder, using the 100-inch (2.5 m) Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory. This allowed him to estimate distances to galaxies whose redshifts had already been measured, mostly by Slipher. In 1929, Hubble discovered a correlation between distance and recessional velocity"now known as Hubble's law.[51][52] By that time, Lematre had already shown that this was expected, given the cosmological principle.[9]

In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady-state theory.[53]

This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Lematre, was a Roman Catholic priest.[54] Arthur Eddington agreed with Aristotle that the universe did not have a beginning in time, viz., that matter is eternal. A beginning in time was "repugnant" to him.[55][56]

Lematre, however, disagreed:

"If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little before the beginning of space and time."[57]"

en.wikipedia.org

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-16 01:49 AM | Reply

I am all in favor of the Big Bang Theory series ending

#2 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-05-16 01:49 AM | Reply

@#2 ... I am all in favor of the Big Bang Theory series ending ...

Me also.

The series took a serious hit in quality after the sixth season. How it went on to live until the 12th season is beyond me.

But back to the thread topic...

... Black holes, invisible dark matter and the idea of the cosmos being born in a millisecond defy plain common sense. ...

The use of "common sense" is not the best way to counter the big bang theory.

I'd much prefer that those who proffer the use of "common sense" come up with a better explanation of the beginning of the universe, one equally validated by observational evidence, that the current big bang theory offers.

Note that I'm not saying that those who want a different explanation , one based upon "common sense," are incorrect in their views.

I just want them to present their case in the appropriate scientific manner.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-05-16 11:49 AM | Reply

The use of "common sense" is not the best way to counter the big bang theory.

Yeah, I was immediately turned off by that.

The scientific method was developed because "common sense" is pretty useless when it comes to scientific endeavors.

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-16 12:07 PM | Reply

The use of "common sense" is not the best way to counter the big bang theory.

Is relativistic physics common sense.... judging by the % of Americans who believe the sun revolves around the earth, or the % of voters who believe that presidential candidates are reptilians (both of these questions have been polled, and the results are unfortunate), a minimal understanding of science isn't common.

#5 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-05-16 01:12 PM | Reply

he series took a serious hit in quality after the sixth season. How it went on to live until the 12th season is beyond me

It went from smart jokes, to low hanging fruit of " what a NERD!" type humor over time ._.

#6 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-05-16 01:13 PM | Reply

very little in cosmology or quantum physics can be understood or explained using common sense, because the simple human mind cannot grasp nature's extremes.

#7 | Posted by Name_is_No_One at 2020-05-16 07:09 PM | Reply

#7

Probably why most people choose to believe a magical being farted us into existence.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-05-16 07:57 PM | Reply

#8

If anyone should be able to appreciate that, it would be a clown... :0)

Even in the 1920's and 30's there was a problem with the BB sounding too much like Genesis... everything created from nothing all at once everywhere. It was the same in the late 1960's when Penrose and Hawking caught hell from cosmologists for the same reason.

One problem may be that Genesis has a pretty good record of agreeing with science on a lot of things....

www.huffpost.com

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-16 08:32 PM | Reply

No, corky it doesn't have a good record of agreeing with science.

Unless one tries really really hard to make it so.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-16 11:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No one could have predicted you would proffer a characterization rather than an argument.

OK, anyone could have.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-17 01:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If you're not looking at Genesis as a little work with has been done since at least Augustine of Hippo then yes when it comes to cosmology it does roughly match the timeline of reality.

As for the Big Bang Theory itself I'm fairly sure science has concluded that the universe is expanding away from a galactic Central Point.

#12 | Posted by Tor at 2020-05-17 01:52 PM | Reply

As for the Big Bang Theory itself I'm fairly sure science has concluded that the universe is expanding away from a galactic Central Point.

#12 | POSTED BY TOR

No it's not. There is no central point in the universe that everything is expanding away from.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of observed objects are moving away from our galaxy with the exception being bodies in the local cluster.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-17 05:09 PM | Reply

No one could have predicted you would proffer a characterization rather than an argument.
OK, anyone could have.

#11 | POSTED BY CORKY

I'd try to discuss but all I'll get is a wall of C&P that will take too long to read to be of use to the discussion.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-17 05:10 PM | Reply

Big bang theory is not common sense and thus seems magical. There is an uneven expansion and I would appreciate any reasoned explanation for that. Perhaps it's all caught up in Indra's net?

#15 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2020-05-17 05:30 PM | Reply

#14

No one could have predicted......

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-17 07:01 PM | Reply

#15

"Indra's Net symbolizes a cosmos in which there is an infinitely repeated interrelationship among all the members of the cosmos'. He adds that the cosmos is, in short, a self-creating, self-maintaining, and self-defining organism'. Furthermore, there is no theory of a beginning time, and such a universe has no hierarchy. There is no center, or, perhaps if there is one, it is everywhere.'

www.pragyata.com

The first part of which is like pre-BBT western thought among cosmologists.

The last part of which is Eastern thinking... that two seeming opposites can both be true at the same time.

And Abrahamic religions are middle-Eastern.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-17 07:13 PM | Reply

No one could have predicted......

#16 | POSTED BY CORKY

That you'd present other people's thoughts as your own as a way to attempt to sound better informed and smarter than you are?

No. We know that that's what you do.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2020-05-18 01:08 AM | Reply

3 more posts sans anything but whining.

No one could have predicted......

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2020-05-18 01:39 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort