RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: The Alternative Cosmology Group, anti science< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2010,11:31   

I came across this while browsing a YEC website:

http://www.cosmology.info/index.html

     
Quote
The Alternative Cosmology Group (ACG) was initiated with the Open Letter on Cosmology written to the scientific community and published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. The text of the letter is as follows:

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe."

The goals of the ACG are:

To facilitate the communication between scientists whose experimental and/or theoretical research will lead to better understanding of the universe

To generate research proposals

To create and publish a peer reviewed journal

To convene conferences on hot topics in Cosmology

To maintain permanent web site www.Cosmology.info, which will be a beacon of progress in the understanding of the universe


The ACG is an open society of scientists from all over the world, dedicated to the advance in cosmology and basic research. Any scientist in agreement with the Open Letter (http://cosmologystatement.org) is invited to join.


While I doubt it's YEC, are there YECs within their ranks ?

I'm constantly referred to the big bang dissenter's letter to New Scientist magazine by YECs. I assume it's to discredite big bang cosmology, and also peer review which the YECs claim is highly biased.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2010,22:09   

I'm puzzled by why anybody would want to discredit big bang theory. It does after all point to a singlular origin of our universe (at least the part of it that's visible), and the alternative is an enternal infinite universe that always was - which isn't what most science deniers would want, as I understand it.

Besides, as I understand it, the big bang is way more consistent with observation than any known variant of the steady state, as it would require assuming continual creation of matter in empty space, in order to explain the red shift, and the fact that the microwave background is less than the temperature of the surface of the sun (which would be implied by a non-expanding infinite universe with regularly spaced galaxies).

Henry

  
fusilier



Posts: 239
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2010,07:10   

It's a variant of the Ham Salad Shuffle - "see you scientists DON'T know everything and your 'theories' are all collapsing but WE have Teh Trooth and it's all in Genesis just the way we've always said.  Neenerneenerneener."

It'll be no surprise to learn that the YEC types throwing those claims around haven't the foggiest notion of what they imply.

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2010,07:22   

Quote (Henry J @ May 10 2010,22:09)
I'm puzzled by why anybody would want to discredit big bang theory. It does after all point to a singlular origin of our universe (at least the part of it that's visible), and the alternative is an enternal infinite universe that always was - which isn't what most science deniers would want, as I understand it.

Besides, as I understand it, the big bang is way more consistent with observation than any known variant of the steady state, as it would require assuming continual creation of matter in empty space, in order to explain the red shift, and the fact that the microwave background is less than the temperature of the surface of the sun (which would be implied by a non-expanding infinite universe with regularly spaced galaxies).

Henry

Your mistake is to think it's just a choice of Big Bang v. Steady State. You forgot the preferred Option 3

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2010,12:37   

Well, they say memory is the second thing to go. Huh.

  
  4 replies since May 10 2010,11:31 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]