Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Big Bang Theory Busted?

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 11:17:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists...
The article can be found on http://rense.com...

I am not a scientist but I sometimes read scientific articles due to personal interest. I came across the one on the above site and thought I would direct anyone interested toward it.

I gather from the article that at least all the scientists which have signed it, seem to believe the dominance of the big bang theory is all about money and funding than anything else.

Excerpt from the article...
"Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, ...."

"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."

I find it interesting that the so called TOP scientists named in the article are admitting that hypothetical scientific objects like the hypothetical inflation field, dark matter and dark energy are FUDGE FACTORS. In other words it is a dishonest manipulation of HYPOTHETICAL and IMAGINARY OBJECTS which have never been observed in reality. They are IMAGINARY THINGS.

It appears many scientists are biased toward the big bang theory due to getting funding to pursue it.
Another excerpt from the article....

"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 enquiry."
.....
"Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang."

In other words scientists are telling the "big bang supporters" who are funding them exactly what they are paid to tell them. If they do not, they lose their funding which is also their income source.

It just shows how people can be manipulated and biased by MONEY.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 11:46:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 11:17:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists...
The article can be found on http://rense.com...

I am not a scientist but I sometimes read scientific articles due to personal interest. I came across the one on the above site and thought I would direct anyone interested toward it.

I gather from the article that at least all the scientists which have signed it, seem to believe the dominance of the big bang theory is all about money and funding than anything else.

Excerpt from the article...
"Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, ...."

"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."

I find it interesting that the so called TOP scientists named in the article are admitting that hypothetical scientific objects like the hypothetical inflation field, dark matter and dark energy are FUDGE FACTORS. In other words it is a dishonest manipulation of HYPOTHETICAL and IMAGINARY OBJECTS which have never been observed in reality. They are IMAGINARY THINGS.

It appears many scientists are biased toward the big bang theory due to getting funding to pursue it.
Another excerpt from the article....

"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 enquiry."
.....
"Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang."


In other words scientists are telling the "big bang supporters" who are funding them exactly what they are paid to tell them. If they do not, they lose their funding which is also their income source.


I'm not a scientist; but reading through the article, I would like to point out the following:

1.) The Big bang theory does not rely on Dark Matter for it's predictions. Indeed, the BBT was in existance before the discovery of dark matter.
2.) The Big bang theory does not rely on Dark Energy. Indeed, the BBT was in existance before the discovery of dark energy.
3.) It ignores predictions of inflation actually making predictions that have shown to be true after the fact; however I would probably agree that this has not yet been proven.
4.) The age of the universe does not require dark energy; and without dark energy (which adds to the speed of expansion) the universe would be dated to be older, not younger than it is today.
5.) Dark Matter exists; what it is, is unknown, but it can be measured.
6.) Dark Energy exists; what it is, is unknown, but it can be measured.
7.) Contrary to the statement that states it makes no quantative predictions before the fact, The Big bang predicted the existance CMBR, and the relative amounts of light elements in the universe from BBNS.

So me, as a non-scientist; have picked out 7 incorrect items in this statement. Now don't get me wrong, alternative science should be explored; and in many cases it actually is. But statements like this are simply insane.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 12:31:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 11:46:25 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2015 11:17:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists...
The article can be found on http://rense.com...

I am not a scientist but I sometimes read scientific articles due to personal interest. I came across the one on the above site and thought I would direct anyone interested toward it.

I gather from the article that at least all the scientists which have signed it, seem to believe the dominance of the big bang theory is all about money and funding than anything else.

Excerpt from the article...
"Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, ...."

"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."

I find it interesting that the so called TOP scientists named in the article are admitting that hypothetical scientific objects like the hypothetical inflation field, dark matter and dark energy are FUDGE FACTORS. In other words it is a dishonest manipulation of HYPOTHETICAL and IMAGINARY OBJECTS which have never been observed in reality. They are IMAGINARY THINGS.

It appears many scientists are biased toward the big bang theory due to getting funding to pursue it.
Another excerpt from the article....

"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 enquiry."
.....
"Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang."


In other words scientists are telling the "big bang supporters" who are funding them exactly what they are paid to tell them. If they do not, they lose their funding which is also their income source.



I'm not a scientist; but reading through the article, I would like to point out the following:

1.) The Big bang theory does not rely on Dark Matter for it's predictions. Indeed, the BBT was in existance before the discovery of dark matter.

The "discovery" of it or the invention of it in the mind of some creative scientist? There is a vast difference between discovering something and inventing something which cannot be observed. You might as well invent a new invisible supernatural character and call it Mr Dark Energy instead of calling it God and then convince people you discovered something new which they cannot see.

2.) The Big bang theory does not rely on Dark Energy. Indeed, the BBT was in existance before the discovery of dark energy.

Of course. However people still seem to be trying to incorporate it all together.

3.) It ignores predictions of inflation actually making predictions that have shown to be true after the fact; however I would probably agree that this has not yet been proven.

Many "hypothetical objects" or "terms" in science have not been proven to exist at all.
"As important as dark matter is believed to be in the universe, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive."
http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com...

4.) The age of the universe does not require dark energy; and without dark energy (which adds to the speed of expansion) the universe would be dated to be older, not younger than it is today.

5.) Dark Matter exists; what it is, is unknown, but it can be measured.
How can you measure something that is unknown? Do you measure imaginary things with imaginary measurements?

6.) Dark Energy exists; what it is, is unknown, but it can be measured.
As above, How do you measure something which is unknown especially when direct evidence of its existence is ELUSIVE ?

7.) Contrary to the statement that states it makes no quantative predictions before the fact, The Big bang predicted the existance CMBR, and the relative amounts of light elements in the universe from BBNS.

So me, as a non-scientist; have picked out 7 incorrect items in this statement. Now don't get me wrong, alternative science should be explored; and in many cases it actually is. But statements like this are simply insane.

If you are a non- scientists are you claiming that an article which has supposedly been written by TOP scientists is insane? You think you are correct and the top scientists are incorrect in their statements?
From what I understand from the article, they seem to claim that things like dark matter, dark energy and inflation are hypothetical entities. It really makes no difference to me if the BBT relies on them or not.
The implication that any scientific theory can be FUDGED by "hypothetical entities" under the guise of "new" scientific discoveries also implies the possibility of "modern" science theories being based more on fiction than on FACTS and can easily be manipulated by hypothetical things which simply don't exist in reality and have never been observed.

The FACT is that no beginning of any universe has ever been observed therefore any beliefs at all (scientific or religious) about a beginning of a universe are ALL hypothetical and based on nothing but assumptions, dreams and imaginations. Those beliefs that once upon a time the universe as we know it did not exist, are all based on faith in speculation, faith in fiction, faith in ones own imagination, faith in what others claim is true.
They are not based on faith in FACTS.

Even the scientific theory that the universe once did not exist stems from the religious superstition that it once did not exist. The religious superstition existed before science and a religious scientist invented the whole BBT in the first place.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 6:24:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 11:17:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
It appears many scientists are biased toward the big bang theory due to getting funding to pursue it.
No, Sky. There are two problems with your assessment:

1) Credible cosmological alternatives to the Big Bang theory include a steady-state universe, a multiverse, an oscillating universe, and some others (please poke for links if interested.) If the Big Bang theory were disproved tomorrow, cosmologists wouldn't jump to the notion of a supernatural creator. (There's a range of reasons why not, but funding bias is not among them.)

2) Funding bias is not a scandal, but an ordinary scientific reality. Some fields get underfunded; some ideas may be thought more viable than others -- but this changes over time. New results shift funding priorities, and rather than 'silencing' other theories, the bias is more statistical. Moreover, if you asked scientists whether they have ever supported a theory they don't believe just for funding, I think you'd find a great slew of indignant denials. Scientists sacrifice a great deal of income in order to pursue research careers, and one of the great attractions of doing so is intellectual autonomy. Research funding tends not to supplement incomes -- it buys equipment and gives career starts to new postdocs.
But even with funding bias, Big Bang alternatives are still being developed -- just more slowly. Moreover, Big Bang research can also disprove itself.

In conclusion, I don't see a conspiracy theory here. It's just science operating as usual.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:26:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Big Bang is not busted.

First the intent of this letter is to express concern that most of the available funding goes to Big Bang theory and that other theories are not receiving the funding they deserve. In short, who ever posted this with the title that the theory is busted is a liar, especially considering this sentence in the letter.

It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

Secondly, take a look at this one sentence.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.

That is a little intellectually dishonest by the signatures of this letter. There are often put out theories based upon the math prior to the ability to make observations in physics and cosmology. Should the Higgs Boson not have been predicted decades ago to hold up and wait until we have the technology.

This letter is dated 2004, over a decade ago. Since then there are many experiments that are trying to make observations. Take dark matter for a moment. Many experiments running. With CERN getting started up again at much higher energy levels, it too could find some observable particles such as dark matter.

Also take their statement that inflation has never been observed. We however have observed photons change direction due to gravity, which is thought to be the compression of space, thus the light still travels a straight line. Space has to be changeable and something to even consider inflation. it seems we have observations which collaborate space time is something, and changeable. It seems we should be at least considering inflation. There was an experiment recently that found "twisted" light which would correspond to inflation and changing size of space, however upon peer review was demonstrated that the observed twisted light could be from other factors such as dust particles.

All in all though, I respect the letter in that it highlights a problem in the scientific community which is that it is susceptible to conformity pressures. Grants and money will always go to where there is most consensus. However, it will eventually self correct if money is going to areas that don't result in further discoveries. That correction can last a generation though, which can clearly cause frustration to a scientist that may want to further research something like a steady state theory of the universe.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:40:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

2) Funding bias is not a scandal, but an ordinary scientific reality. Some fields get underfunded; some ideas may be thought more viable than others -- but this changes over time. New results shift funding priorities, and rather than 'silencing' other theories, the bias is more statistical. Moreover, if you asked scientists whether they have ever supported a theory they don't believe just for funding, I think you'd find a great slew of indignant denials. Scientists sacrifice a great deal of income in order to pursue research careers, and one of the great attractions of doing so is intellectual autonomy. Research funding tends not to supplement incomes -- it buys equipment and gives career starts to new postdocs.
But even with funding bias, Big Bang alternatives are still being developed -- just more slowly. Moreover, Big Bang research can also disprove itself.

There are a number of points to make here, but I am glad someone got to this one. My brother was a research prof, and I understand the struggle for funding and publishing. The common repeated (around climate science particularly) claim that scientists are getting rich, just as long as they toe the line is just ridiculous. Using my brother as an example, his field is neurobiology. Drug company's are happy pony up dollars for research that may pay off for them later, if you tailor your research towards something applicable your lab will get funding more easily. This is just life, and we know it. HOWEVER, to think that people working on building research are ONLY thinking of, or satisfying those that will fund it is silly too. You have to be unique to get published. Most researchers would give anything to topple something as solid as the big-bang. It would mean real riches and fame.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:54:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Now lets look at the article itself. Other points have been vary valid, lets add a couple.

Eric Lerner is not a PhD. He didn't receive a Masters. He is a science writer.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
This does not preclude him as a valid source of information, but...

Michael Ibison has a couple papers published. Now, my somewhat pedestrian prof brother has ~10x papers, and 20x "impact" score
http://www.researchgate.net...
http://www.researchgate.net...

My point is, calling these guys "top scientists" is a stretch. I am not dismissing their abilities, only pointing out the obvious.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 10:02:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
One of the guys on the list is a History professor. This is becoming a bit of a joke.

Look. Any serious scientist that can poke a good hole in the Big Bang will bask in glory. Science actually DOES work that way, but from what I can tell, this is a list of people that want to publish books, not research.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 3:11:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:54:37 AM, TBR wrote:
Eric Lerner is not a PhD. He didn't receive a Masters. He is a science writer.
This does not preclude him as a valid source of information, but...

I don't personally know Lerner's credentials, but the letter itself is over ten years old, and the website of support that turns the letter into more of a petition is now defunct. Moreover, the original article appears in New Scientist here [http://www.newscientist.com...] under the title Bucking the Big Bang -- please note the verb 'Bucking', and not 'Busted', as it appears in Rense. :p

The following edition of New Sci also contains a rebuttal that points out (as I did earlier), that basic cosmological research will be much the same, regardless of the prevailing theory. I quote it in full:

Big bang monopoly
12 June 2004 by Martin Baker, Musselburgh, Midlothian, UK
Eric Lerner comments that virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies (22 May, p 20). I would interested to know if the Hubble Space Telescope and the COBE and WMAP microwave background probes would have been designed differently if the prevailing cosmological paradigm was not the hot big bang, but instead a plasma cosmology or a quasi-steady-state model.

I suspect not. Whichever model appears to steer the experiment, surely the principal task of collecting evidence on apparent galactic red shifts and the structure of background microwave radiation remains the same. It might be appropriate to consider the following wise observation:

"In the beginning, when a new instrument is proposed, humans control the scientific programme completely. But, as the instrument is constructed, it is as if humans exercise less and less control, until in the end it is the instrument that overrides the humans who service it and those who use it." (Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Narlikar, A Different Approach to Cosmology, Cambridge University Press)
[http://www.newscientist.com...]

One lesson here is not to source a requote of an original article.

A second lesson might be to avoid the Jeff Rense website entirely. :)
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 3:19:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

I don't personally know Lerner's credentials, but ...

I don't think its worth trashing credentials either, but that should be taken into account.

The big point(s) I want to make are.
1) If you successfully topple a leading theory (or any substantial part) you will be meet with Nobel prizes and department head spots.
2) Researchers MUST choose things that get research dollars. It is a fact of life. Don't confuse that harsh reality with wanton / craven selection of research material. These guys work very hard to find unique positions to stake out, and that competition is MUCH harder than the funding.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 3:35:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 11:17:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists...
The article can be found on http://rense.com...

I am not a scientist but I sometimes read scientific articles due to personal interest. I came across the one on the above site and thought I would direct anyone interested toward it.

I gather from the article that at least all the scientists which have signed it, seem to believe the dominance of the big bang theory is all about money and funding than anything else.

Excerpt from the article...
"Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, ...."

"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."

I find it interesting that the so called TOP scientists named in the article are admitting that hypothetical scientific objects like the hypothetical inflation field, dark matter and dark energy are FUDGE FACTORS. In other words it is a dishonest manipulation of HYPOTHETICAL and IMAGINARY OBJECTS which have never been observed in reality. They are IMAGINARY THINGS.

It appears many scientists are biased toward the big bang theory due to getting funding to pursue it.
Another excerpt from the article....

"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 enquiry."
.....
"Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang."


In other words scientists are telling the "big bang supporters" who are funding them exactly what they are paid to tell them. If they do not, they lose their funding which is also their income source.

It just shows how people can be manipulated and biased by MONEY.

I wish I could topple the big bang theory. I'd be set for life.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 3:48:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 12:31:45 AM, Skyangel wrote:
The "discovery" of it or the invention of it in the mind of some creative scientist? There is a vast difference between discovering something and inventing something which cannot be observed. You might as well invent a new invisible supernatural character and call it Mr Dark Energy instead of calling it God and then convince people you discovered something new which they cannot see.

2.) The Big bang theory does not rely on Dark Energy. Indeed, the BBT was in existance before the discovery of dark energy.

Of course. However people still seem to be trying to incorporate it all together.

3.) It ignores predictions of inflation actually making predictions that have shown to be true after the fact; however I would probably agree that this has not yet been proven.

Many "hypothetical objects" or "terms" in science have not been proven to exist at all.
"As important as dark matter is believed to be in the universe, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive."
http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com...

4.) The age of the universe does not require dark energy; and without dark energy (which adds to the speed of expansion) the universe would be dated to be older, not younger than it is today.

5.) Dark Matter exists; what it is, is unknown, but it can be measured.
How can you measure something that is unknown? Do you measure imaginary things with imaginary measurements?

6.) Dark Energy exists; what it is, is unknown, but it can be measured.
As above, How do you measure something which is unknown especially when direct evidence of its existence is ELUSIVE ?

7.) Contrary to the statement that states it makes no quantative predictions before the fact, The Big bang predicted the existance CMBR, and the relative amounts of light elements in the universe from BBNS.

So me, as a non-scientist; have picked out 7 incorrect items in this statement. Now don't get me wrong, alternative science should be explored; and in many cases it actually is. But statements like this are simply insane.

If you are a non- scientists are you claiming that an article which has supposedly been written by TOP scientists is insane? You think you are correct and the top scientists are incorrect in their statements?
From what I understand from the article, they seem to claim that things like dark matter, dark energy and inflation are hypothetical entities. It really makes no difference to me if the BBT relies on them or not.
The implication that any scientific theory can be FUDGED by "hypothetical entities" under the guise of "new" scientific discoveries also implies the possibility of "modern" science theories being based more on fiction than on FACTS and can easily be manipulated by hypothetical things which simply don't exist in reality and have never been observed.

The FACT is that no beginning of any universe has ever been observed therefore any beliefs at all (scientific or religious) about a beginning of a universe are ALL hypothetical and based on nothing but assumptions, dreams and imaginations. Those beliefs that once upon a time the universe as we know it did not exist, are all based on faith in speculation, faith in fiction, faith in ones own imagination, faith in what others claim is true.
They are not based on faith in FACTS.

Even the scientific theory that the universe once did not exist stems from the religious superstition that it once did not exist. The religious superstition existed before science and a religious scientist invented the whole BBT in the first place.

Hi Sky, I believe you are unaware of what dark matter and dark energy is. It is actualy pretty simple and I believe you will have no problem understanding why "it can't be perceibed but paradogicaly it can be measured".

The thing is, most large astronomical objects like galaxies, produce a bigger gravitational field than you would expect for their mass. We know that laws that measure gravity are correct, and so the only possible explanation is that these objects do have more mass than that you can observe, and thus the conclusion that they have an "unobservable mass", hence the term "dark matter" but very well could be called "invisible matter".

A similar thing happens with dark energy. According to the measured properties of the universe and the natural laws that dominate it, the universe should be expanding slower than it does. In other words there is a mismatch between the speed of expansion expected, and the speed observed, the latest being faster. This leads to the conclussion that there's more energy of expansion than the one we can measure, and is this aditional energy what is called "dark energy", and again the term "dark" is just to illustrate the difficulty for locating it.

Hope it helped.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 3:54:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Btw it should be noted that this methodology of "anticipating the existence of things before having seen them" is not rare in astronomy. Neptune was also discovered by a mismatch between the expected orbit of Uranus, and the observed orbit, which could only be explained if another planetary body was disturbing the planet.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 4:19:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 6:24:55 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/19/2015 11:17:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
It appears many scientists are biased toward the big bang theory due to getting funding to pursue it.
No, Sky. There are two problems with your assessment:

The assessment is not mine. It is the assessment of 33 TOP scientists. Did you actually read the whole article on the link in the OP?

1) Credible cosmological alternatives to the Big Bang theory include a steady-state universe, a multiverse, an oscillating universe, and some others (please poke for links if interested.) If the Big Bang theory were disproved tomorrow, cosmologists wouldn't jump to the notion of a supernatural creator. (There's a range of reasons why not, but funding bias is not among them.)

I am aware of the alternatives.
I am not suggesting anyone jump to the notion of a supernatural creator.
I personally believe all supernatural characters are mythical and see absolutely no reason to believe in myths.
From what I gather from the article, the funding bias is the reason why the BBT is the most popularly accepted theory about any beginning of the universe.

2) Funding bias is not a scandal, but an ordinary scientific reality. Some fields get underfunded; some ideas may be thought more viable than others -- but this changes over time. New results shift funding priorities, and rather than 'silencing' other theories, the bias is more statistical. Moreover, if you asked scientists whether they have ever supported a theory they don't believe just for funding, I think you'd find a great slew of indignant denials. Scientists sacrifice a great deal of income in order to pursue research careers, and one of the great attractions of doing so is intellectual autonomy. Research funding tends not to supplement incomes -- it buys equipment and gives career starts to new postdocs.
But even with funding bias, Big Bang alternatives are still being developed -- just more slowly. Moreover, Big Bang research can also disprove itself.

In conclusion, I don't see a conspiracy theory here. It's just science operating as usual.

Of course scientists will deny things they don't wish to admit regardless of whether the accusation is true or false. Denial is part of human nature and applies to all humans in general not just to scientists. People deny things for all kinds of reasons. Scientists deny they have scientific biases and religious people deny they have religious biases but those outside their fields can see they obviously do.

Anyway, I find it most interesting that some TOP SCIENTISTS believe the BB never happened.
That should cause most average people to stop and think about the DOUBTS those scientists have instead of so many people seemingly believing the BBT was some kind of factual event.

It is sad that theoretical, hypothetical events are taught as if they were facts. That applies to both science and religion. It seems very obvious that the adherents to each "field of expertise "treats their theories or doctrines as FACTS instead of as hypothetical speculation.
The implication that hypothetical speculation is factual is what leads people astray.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 4:36:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 4:19:47 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/20/2015 6:24:55 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/19/2015 11:17:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
It appears many scientists are biased toward the big bang theory due to getting funding to pursue it.
No, Sky. There are two problems with your assessment:
The assessment is not mine. It is the assessment of 33 TOP scientists. Did you actually read the whole article on the link in the OP?
Sky, you may want to read the whole thread before responding further, but yes: I not only read the article, I read it in its original context in New Scientist -- and a letter offered in rebuttal in the following month.

From what I gather from the article, the funding bias is the reason why the BBT is the most popularly accepted theory about any beginning of the universe.
No. If you follow the history of cosmology through the 20th century, the reason the Big Bang theory got traction wasn't funding. It was a surprising discovery regarding the colours of distant galaxies in 1929, coupled with the detection of cosmic background microwave radiation in 1964.

Following that second result, the Big Bang theory received a lot more attention from physicists and hence from funding bodies. But prior to that, it was a largely ignored -- and even ridiculed -- theory.

New results shift funding priorities, and rather than 'silencing' other theories, the bias is more statistical.
Of course scientists will deny things they don't wish to admit regardless of whether the accusation is true or false.
Not 'of course'! Scientists are professionally required to put the weight of evidence above predisposed belief. To fail to do this -- especially, to hold a recalcitrant, counter-evidentiary view -- is a professional disgrace. This is why -- unlike in politics, philosophy or theology -- differences of scientific opinion tend to resolve over time. Carl Sagan put it this way:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

That should cause most average people to stop and think about the DOUBTS those scientists have instead of so many people seemingly believing the BBT was some kind of factual event.
Certain Big Bang evidence is factual, but the theory itself remains a theory, though one widely-accepted among astrophysicists. However, that's not a scandal either, nor justification for Rense-like paranoia -- it's just how science works.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 4:54:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:26:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
The Big Bang is not busted.

First the intent of this letter is to express concern that most of the available funding goes to Big Bang theory and that other theories are not receiving the funding they deserve. In short, who ever posted this with the title that the theory is busted is a liar, especially considering this sentence in the letter.

It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

The way I understand it, that "UNDERLYING THEORY" is referring to the Big Bang.

Secondly, take a look at this one sentence.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.

How do you interpret that statement? My perception of it is that they are saying not a great amount of the predictions made by the BBT have been validated. If they had, they would need to say the BBT can boast of MANY predictions which have been validated. Instead they say NO quantitative predictions have been validated by observation.
Did you see the word "NO" before quantitive predictions?

That is a little intellectually dishonest by the signatures of this letter. There are often put out theories based upon the math prior to the ability to make observations in physics and cosmology. Should the Higgs Boson not have been predicted decades ago to hold up and wait until we have the technology.

This letter is dated 2004, over a decade ago. Since then there are many experiments that are trying to make observations. Take dark matter for a moment. Many experiments running. With CERN getting started up again at much higher energy levels, it too could find some observable particles such as dark matter.

Also take their statement that inflation has never been observed. We however have observed photons change direction due to gravity, which is thought to be the compression of space, thus the light still travels a straight line. Space has to be changeable and something to even consider inflation. it seems we have observations which collaborate space time is something, and changeable. It seems we should be at least considering inflation. There was an experiment recently that found "twisted" light which would correspond to inflation and changing size of space, however upon peer review was demonstrated that the observed twisted light could be from other factors such as dust particles.

The FACT is that many human observations can be due to illusions created by a variety of things. Not all things are what they appear to be.
Human observation is very subjective and when people observe things they can come to many wrong conclusions yet many can still agree the conclusion is correct as we know from history when many believed the sun revolved around the Earth and the Earth being flat due to observing exactly that. Today we understand the opposite is true even though we still observe the sun moving around the earth. It is one thing to observe an illusion and quite another to understand WHY the observation appears to be what it is when it is not really what it appears to be at all.
Scientists observe phenomenon in space but do they know how many of those observations are illusions which are fooling them and leading them to false conclusions?

All in all though, I respect the letter in that it highlights a problem in the scientific community which is that it is susceptible to conformity pressures. Grants and money will always go to where there is most consensus. However, it will eventually self correct if money is going to areas that don't result in further discoveries. That correction can last a generation though, which can clearly cause frustration to a scientist that may want to further research something like a steady state theory of the universe.

The problem of conformity pressure applies to religion and any other field. Humans are susceptible to peer pressure and culture pressure which demands they conform to certain ideas and principles. Some rebel against the pressure in order to change peoples perceptions. Others simply find it easier to conform.

When it comes to financial distribution in fields of research, it would be nice if all fields received the same amount of funding and were all treated equally but that is most likely never going to happen. We humans seem to be biased toward things which are popular and tend to ignore and reject things which don't attract as much attention and therefore gain as much popularity. It is difficult for humans to treat anything equally when they are more attracted to one than the other.
Whether people find a balance in life or not depends on how balanced they wish to be.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 5:29:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 4:36:37 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/20/2015 4:19:47 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/20/2015 6:24:55 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

From what I gather from the article, the funding bias is the reason why the BBT is the most popularly accepted theory about any beginning of the universe.
No. If you follow the history of cosmology through the 20th century, the reason the Big Bang theory got traction wasn't funding. It was a surprising discovery regarding the colours of distant galaxies in 1929, coupled with the detection of cosmic background microwave radiation in 1964.

Following that second result, the Big Bang theory received a lot more attention from physicists and hence from funding bodies. But prior to that, it was a largely ignored -- and even ridiculed -- theory.

Obviously it is still ridiculed and opposed by some people today. Humans have a tendency to ridicule things they perceive as fiction and fantasy when so called mature adults appear to believe in them. It really makes no difference if the belief is in what some consider to be religious fiction or what some consider to be science fiction.
There seems to be a very fine line between fiction and reality in some cases.

Of course scientists will deny things they don't wish to admit regardless of whether the accusation is true or false.
Not 'of course'! Scientists are professionally required to put the weight of evidence above predisposed belief. To fail to do this -- especially, to hold a recalcitrant, counter-evidentiary view -- is a professional disgrace. This is why -- unlike in politics, philosophy or theology -- differences of scientific opinion tend to resolve over time. Carl Sagan put it this way:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."

I agree that people change their minds and views often. It happens in religion and other fields just as often as it does in science. We just don't hear about it because very few think peoples personal views are important enough to make any world news. There are most likely as many different views about things in this world that there are viewers since all people have a unique way of seeing things.
Change can definitely be painful especially when people realize they have been lied to or conned or have been self deceived for years.
The fact that some believers become Atheists and some Atheists become believers and some believers tend to change religions is evidence of the fact that peoples views change.
Religion calls the phenomenon conversion. I don't know if science has a label for changing ones scientific views.

That should cause most average people to stop and think about the DOUBTS those scientists have instead of so many people seemingly believing the BBT was some kind of factual event.
Certain Big Bang evidence is factual, but the theory itself remains a theory, though one widely-accepted among astrophysicists. However, that's not a scandal either, nor justification for Rense-like paranoia -- it's just how science works.

When people OBSERVE certain phenomenon. What they observe is obviously factual. However, HOW they INTERPRET what they observe is not necessarily a correct interpretation, especially when they do not understand or know whether their observation is an observation of a reality or an observation of an illusion or some kind of mirage in space.
How often do scientists ask themselves or each other whether what they are observing is merely an illusion created by light or movement or something else in space? Ought that question not be one of the most important questions in their research?

Our observations of illusions on our own planet ought to make us fully aware that things are not always what they appear to be. How much ought that fact be taken into consideration in space research?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 5:41:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 5:29:17 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I agree that people change their minds and views often. It happens in religion and other fields just as often as it does in science.
Do you know what you're talking about, Sky?

How do you know?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 7:35:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 12:31:45 AM, Skyangel wrote:
1.) The Big bang theory does not rely on Dark Matter for it's predictions. Indeed, the BBT was in existance before the discovery of dark matter.

The "discovery" of it or the invention of it in the mind of some creative scientist? There is a vast difference between discovering something and inventing something which cannot be observed.

Slowly and carefuly repeat after me. It. Can. Be. Observed. It. Has. Been. Observed. It. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. The. Big. Bang.

2.) The Big bang theory does not rely on Dark Energy. Indeed, the BBT was in existance before the discovery of dark energy.

Of course. However people still seem to be trying to incorporate it all together.

Why is it strange that cosmologists are trying to incorporate a cosmological force that can be observed into a cosmological model?

3.) It ignores predictions of inflation actually making predictions that have shown to be true after the fact; however I would probably agree that this has not yet been proven.

Many "hypothetical objects" or "terms" in science have not been proven to exist at all.
"As important as dark matter is believed to be in the universe, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive."
http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com...

"Dark Matter" is just the name given to whatever it is that causes the significant excess gravity that simply cannot be accounted for by any other means. In that respect; it exists; what it is, is completely unknown (although there are hypotheses); however to say that because we don't know what it is does not mean it does not exist; nor can it's existance be measured; The key term in the quote is the "direct" bit.

4.) The age of the universe does not require dark energy; and without dark energy (which adds to the speed of expansion) the universe would be dated to be older, not younger than it is today.

5.) Dark Matter exists; what it is, is unknown, but it can be measured.
How can you measure something that is unknown? Do you measure imaginary things with imaginary measurements?

6.) Dark Energy exists; what it is, is unknown, but it can be measured.
As above, How do you measure something which is unknown especially when direct evidence of its existence is ELUSIVE ?

7.) Contrary to the statement that states it makes no quantative predictions before the fact, The Big bang predicted the existance CMBR, and the relative amounts of light elements in the universe from BBNS.

So me, as a non-scientist; have picked out 7 incorrect items in this statement. Now don't get me wrong, alternative science should be explored; and in many cases it actually is. But statements like this are simply insane.

If you are a non- scientists are you claiming that an article which has supposedly been written by TOP scientists is insane? You think you are correct and the top scientists are incorrect in their statements?

I would go so far as to say yes. The points I make are demonstrably true, and any of them can be easily validated by anyone taking the time to really check what the BBT actually says on the matter. Dark Matter, Dark Energy were not invented because the big bang needed them to explain something, they are the names given to real measured data. This is a fundamental fault in the original statement, and shows that the top scientists quoted in this post, are either unknowledable, or deliberately misrepresenting the nature of the problems with the BBT.

The implication that any scientific theory can be FUDGED by "hypothetical entities" under the guise of "new" scientific discoveries also implies the possibility of "modern" science theories being based more on fiction than on FACTS and can easily be manipulated by hypothetical things which simply don't exist in reality and have never been observed.

And this implication is wrong; for the very reasons I stated.

The FACT is that no beginning of any universe has ever been observed therefore any beliefs at all (scientific or religious) about a beginning of a universe are ALL hypothetical and based on nothing but assumptions, dreams and imaginations.
They are not based on faith in FACTS.

The BBT is based on the fact that the universe is expanding and must have been at one point in the past, as there is no process or force that would be able to stop it without inventing some hypothetical entity (that you seem to reject out of hand) that cannot be observed; for example the cosmological constant. That's it.

The theory expands on what would happen, given the known laws of physics that the universe was at one point at the past and started expanding; makes a number of predictions that have proven true.

Now the BBT is not correct; in the same way that Relativity, Quantum theory, and Newton are not correct; but it has made demonstrable predictions and as it stands now is the closest to explaining most of the features we see in the universe with a minimal resorting to handwaving, or unseen or untestable forces.

All of the alternatives to the BBT thus far, including the ones cited in this document generally make more undemonstrable assumptions, invoke less demonstrable processes, and have more hypothetical entities and as such are not nearly as strong theories as the BBT. Now again, don't get me wrong; funding should go into alternative science and not just be lumped into the best theory (as alternative theories can turn into the best theories), but statements like this that are both misleading do no one any favours.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 11:33:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 7:35:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/20/2015 12:31:45 AM, Skyangel wrote:
1.) The Big bang theory does not rely on Dark Matter for it's predictions. Indeed, the BBT was in existance before the discovery of dark matter.

The "discovery" of it or the invention of it in the mind of some creative scientist? There is a vast difference between discovering something and inventing something which cannot be observed.

Slowly and carefuly repeat after me. It. Can. Be. Observed. It. Has. Been. Observed. It. Has. Nothing. To. Do. With. The. Big. Bang.

2.) The Big bang theory does not rely on Dark Energy. Indeed, the BBT was in existance before the discovery of dark energy.

Of course. However people still seem to be trying to incorporate it all together.

Why is it strange that cosmologists are trying to incorporate a cosmological force that can be observed into a cosmological model?

3.) It ignores predictions of inflation actually making predictions that have shown to be true after the fact; however I would probably agree that this has not yet been proven.

Many "hypothetical objects" or "terms" in science have not been proven to exist at all.
"As important as dark matter is believed to be in the universe, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive."
http://bigbangtheory.wikia.com...

"Dark Matter" is just the name given to whatever it is that causes the significant excess gravity that simply cannot be accounted for by any other means. In that respect; it exists; what it is, is completely unknown (although there are hypotheses); however to say that because we don't know what it is does not mean it does not exist; nor can it's existance be measured; The key term in the quote is the "direct" bit.


4.) The age of the universe does not require dark energy; and without dark energy (which adds to the speed of expansion) the universe would be dated to be older, not younger than it is today.

5.) Dark Matter exists; what it is, is unknown, but it can be measured.
How can you measure something that is unknown? Do you measure imaginary things with imaginary measurements?

6.) Dark Energy exists; what it is, is unknown, but it can be measured.
As above, How do you measure something which is unknown especially when direct evidence of its existence is ELUSIVE ?

7.) Contrary to the statement that states it makes no quantative predictions before the fact, The Big bang predicted the existance CMBR, and the relative amounts of light elements in the universe from BBNS.

So me, as a non-scientist; have picked out 7 incorrect items in this statement. Now don't get me wrong, alternative science should be explored; and in many cases it actually is. But statements like this are simply insane.

If you are a non- scientists are you claiming that an article which has supposedly been written by TOP scientists is insane? You think you are correct and the top scientists are incorrect in their statements?

I would go so far as to say yes. The points I make are demonstrably true, and any of them can be easily validated by anyone taking the time to really check what the BBT actually says on the matter. Dark Matter, Dark Energy were not invented because the big bang needed them to explain something, they are the names given to real measured data. This is a fundamental fault in the original statement, and shows that the top scientists quoted in this post, are either unknowledable, or deliberately misrepresenting the nature of the problems with the BBT.

The implication that any scientific theory can be FUDGED by "hypothetical entities" under the guise of "new" scientific discoveries also implies the possibility of "modern" science theories being based more on fiction than on FACTS and can easily be manipulated by hypothetical things which simply don't exist in reality and have never been observed.

And this implication is wrong; for the very reasons I stated.

The FACT is that no beginning of any universe has ever been observed therefore any beliefs at all (scientific or religious) about a beginning of a universe are ALL hypothetical and based on nothing but assumptions, dreams and imaginations.
They are not based on faith in FACTS.

The BBT is based on the fact that the universe is expanding and must have been at one point in the past, as there is no process or force that would be able to stop it without inventing some hypothetical entity (that you seem to reject out of hand) that cannot be observed; for example the cosmological constant. That's it.

The theory expands on what would happen, given the known laws of physics that the universe was at one point at the past and started expanding; makes a number of predictions that have proven true.

Now the BBT is not correct; in the same way that Relativity, Quantum theory, and Newton are not correct; but it has made demonstrable predictions and as it stands now is the closest to explaining most of the features we see in the universe with a minimal resorting to handwaving, or unseen or untestable forces.

All of the alternatives to the BBT thus far, including the ones cited in this document generally make more undemonstrable assumptions, invoke less demonstrable processes, and have more hypothetical entities and as such are not nearly as strong theories as the BBT. Now again, don't get me wrong; funding should go into alternative science and not just be lumped into the best theory (as alternative theories can turn into the best theories), but statements like this that are both misleading do no one any favours.

It seems to me that many statements in science are misleading and many theories are filled with assumptions.
Some seem to state the universe is expanding as if it was a fact.
Others state it is possible that the opposite is true and the universe is contracting.
Scientists all apparently have "evidence" of observations to support their own conclusions. They all have their reasons for thinking what they do.
What are average laymen supposed to believe when scientists make contradictory statements and it is the most popular theory which gets the most attention? Just because something is popular and widely believed does not mean the believers are all correct about what they believe. Ancient flat Earth belief is just one example that the majority can be totally wrong.
That principle of the many being wrong and just a few being right applies to the field of scientific theories as well as to the field of religious doctrines.
It seems to me that it is merely a matter of choosing which "belief" appeals to each individual.
However I find that most people are just like sheep who prefer to be led than think for themselves so most just go along with the most popular opinion and if that is a wrong theory, doctrine or belief then many end up being led astray by it. Not because anyone is deliberately misleading them but simply due to human error in perception and misinterpretation of human observations.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:07:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 4:54:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:26:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
The Big Bang is not busted.

First the intent of this letter is to express concern that most of the available funding goes to Big Bang theory and that other theories are not receiving the funding they deserve. In short, who ever posted this with the title that the theory is busted is a liar, especially considering this sentence in the letter.

It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

The way I understand it, that "UNDERLYING THEORY" is referring to the Big Bang.

Yes it is referring to the big bang and "Serious questions about the validity" does not equal "Busted".

Secondly, take a look at this one sentence.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.

How do you interpret that statement? My perception of it is that they are saying not a great amount of the predictions made by the BBT have been validated. If they had, they would need to say the BBT can boast of MANY predictions which have been validated. Instead they say NO quantitative predictions have been validated by observation.

Yes and that is why it is a theory. It they were validated it would not be a theory. In 2004 science was still largely working on how to validate and now there are many experiments which would lend itself to validating bits of the theory. I just posted something yesterday which found the basis of the current rate of expansion of the universe was not correct, which has implications of reducing the amount of dark energy needed to continue an acceleration of expansion. That is how science works as it acumulates knowledge it either rejiggers the theory or it abandons it when no longer fits observations. It is absurd to say that a major theory should be abandoned because at the time we did not have the technology to experiment and make observations. We wouldn't have things such as particle physics and models if we took such attitudes in science.

Did you see the word "NO" before quantitive predictions?

That is a little intellectually dishonest by the signatures of this letter. There are often put out theories based upon the math prior to the ability to make observations in physics and cosmology. Should the Higgs Boson not have been predicted decades ago to hold up and wait until we have the technology.

This letter is dated 2004, over a decade ago. Since then there are many experiments that are trying to make observations. Take dark matter for a moment. Many experiments running. With CERN getting started up again at much higher energy levels, it too could find some observable particles such as dark matter.

Also take their statement that inflation has never been observed. We however have observed photons change direction due to gravity, which is thought to be the compression of space, thus the light still travels a straight line. Space has to be changeable and something to even consider inflation. it seems we have observations which collaborate space time is something, and changeable. It seems we should be at least considering inflation. There was an experiment recently that found "twisted" light which would correspond to inflation and changing size of space, however upon peer review was demonstrated that the observed twisted light could be from other factors such as dust particles.

The FACT is that many human observations can be due to illusions created by a variety of things. Not all things are what they appear to be.

That does not mean we give up everything which is inferred. My samsung amoled screen has true black, which means when I read black words on a white screen, I am actually viewing the white background and inferring the words because there is no such thing as a black light. Should I not trust those letters because it is an illusion?

Plus they are not observing illusions. They are observing real things that have a cause. When you can have a high degree confidence that a cause of something observed can only be one thing, then you have a high degree of certainty. Never 100%, but the scientific process allows knowledge to be continuously updated and changes as new knowledge is gained. The entire premise of dark matter arose because there were observations that the milky way was spinning too fast at the edges that it would have to fly apart because there is not enough gravity with visible matter to hold it together. That is a pretty darn good observation that needs to be investigated.

Human observation is very subjective and when people observe things they can come to many wrong conclusions yet many can still agree the conclusion is correct as we know from history when many believed the sun revolved around the Earth and the Earth being flat due to observing exactly that. Today we understand the opposite is true even though we still observe the sun moving around the earth. It is one thing to observe an illusion and quite another to understand WHY the observation appears to be what it is when it is not really what it appears to be at all.

Nobody said humans are not failable. In the case you pointed out it was religious belief that mucked up the brain in finding the correct explanation as to why observations like planets moving in odd ways that would not be explained from the earth being in the center of the solar system. That is why science exists. It gives a framework to eliminate human fallibility when uncovering understanding and knowledge. That is why such observations that the galaxy is spinning so fast that the galaxy fly apart requires repeatability and confirmation by other scientists rather than accepting one scientists word on it.

Scientists observe phenomenon in space but do they know how many of those observations are illusions which are fooling them and leading them to false conclusions?

All in all though, I respect the letter in that it highlights a problem in the scientific community which is that it is susceptible to conformity pressures. Grants and money will always go to where there is most consensus. However, it will eventually self correct if money is going to areas that don't result in further discoveries. That correction can last a generation though, which can clearly cause frustration to a scientist that may want to further research something like a steady state theory of the universe.

The problem of conformity pressure applies to religion and any other field. Humans are susceptible to peer pressure and culture pressure which demands they conform to certain ideas and principles. Some rebel against the pressure in order to change peoples perceptions. Others simply find it easier to conform.

When it comes to financial distribution in fields of research, it would be nice if all fields received the same amount of funding and were all treated equally but that is most likely never going to happen. We humans seem to be biased toward things which are popular and tend to ignore and reject things which don't attract as much attention and therefore gain as much popularity. It is difficult for humans to treat anything equally when they are more attracted to one than the other.
Whether people find a balance in life or not depends on how balanced they wish to be.

They should not be treated equally. There are just as many problems with other models of the universe if not more so. The scientific community may bark up many wrong trees, but don't add in more wrong trees as you are wasting more money in that type of system.

If you had unlimited funding it would advance science much faster by ruling out unpopular theories or validating it causing a quicker shift to the more accurate area, but we don't have unlimited funding. Not even close.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 1:37:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 4:19:47 PM, Skyangel wrote:


The assessment is not mine. It is the assessment of 33 TOP scientists. Did you actually read the whole article on the link in the OP?


Of course scientists will deny things they don't wish to admit regardless of whether the accusation is true or false. Denial is part of human nature and applies to all humans in general not just to scientists. People deny things for all kinds of reasons. Scientists deny they have scientific biases and religious people deny they have religious biases but those outside their fields can see they obviously do.

Anyway, I find it most interesting that some TOP SCIENTISTS believe the BB never happened.
That should cause most average people to stop and think about the DOUBTS those scientists have instead of so many people seemingly believing the BBT was some kind of factual event.

It is sad that theoretical, hypothetical events are taught as if they were facts. That applies to both science and religion. It seems very obvious that the adherents to each "field of expertise "treats their theories or doctrines as FACTS instead of as hypothetical speculation.
The implication that hypothetical speculation is factual is what leads people astray.

Here we have the results of what quacks like Lerner's letter produce, the exact results of what Lerner's motive, to baffle with bs and gain support of the gullible.

It's a very simple matter to do a little bit of homework to find that those on the list in the letter are not "TOP SCIENTISTS" by any stretch of the imagination, Lerner included. The title itself is disingenuous, let alone the entire letter.

Yes, Sky, you have indeed been led astray by Lerner.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:58:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:07:49 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 4:54:14 PM, Skyangel wrote:

The way I understand it, that "UNDERLYING THEORY" is referring to the Big Bang.

Yes it is referring to the big bang and "Serious questions about the validity" does not equal "Busted".

That is very true but the title of the article could be referring to the "busting" of the financial support aspect since the article is not about busting a theory at all but all about revealing the apparently biased distribution of funds. It all depends on how you interpret it. That is why I put a question mark on the heading of this thread.
However, serious questions about the validity of anything at all should be seriously considered by anyone who wants to know if it is valid or not.

How do you interpret that statement? My perception of it is that they are saying not a great amount of the predictions made by the BBT have been validated. If they had, they would need to say the BBT can boast of MANY predictions which have been validated. Instead they say NO quantitative predictions have been validated by observation.

Yes and that is why it is a theory. It they were validated it would not be a theory. In 2004 science was still largely working on how to validate and now there are many experiments which would lend itself to validating bits of the theory. I just posted something yesterday which found the basis of the current rate of expansion of the universe was not correct, which has implications of reducing the amount of dark energy needed to continue an acceleration of expansion. That is how science works as it acumulates knowledge it either rejiggers the theory or it abandons it when no longer fits observations. It is absurd to say that a major theory should be abandoned because at the time we did not have the technology to experiment and make observations. We wouldn't have things such as particle physics and models if we took such attitudes in science.


WHY is the THEORY considered to be a FACT by so many people?
WHY do any scientist at all adhere to the notion that our universe had a beginning in the first place?
That notion seems to stem from religious beliefs in myths not from any kind of science.

The FACT is that many human observations can be due to illusions created by a variety of things. Not all things are what they appear to be.

That does not mean we give up everything which is inferred. My samsung amoled screen has true black, which means when I read black words on a white screen, I am actually viewing the white background and inferring the words because there is no such thing as a black light. Should I not trust those letters because it is an illusion?

The letters you see are obviously visible. You are not imagining something which is not there. Letters were invented by humans. They did not appear by some random phenomenon. Besides that, they are meaningless to those who have never been taught how to read them. Can you read Chinese letters for example or are they meaningless to you?
Nothing is inferred by letters when you cannot read them.
Any inference is due to our minds interpretation of what we see. Some cannot tell the difference between an illusion and reality because the illusion appears to be so real.
Whether you trust what you read depends on whether you perceive it to be true or false. The same applies to what we see or think we see.

Plus they are not observing illusions. They are observing real things that have a cause. When you can have a high degree confidence that a cause of something observed can only be one thing, then you have a high degree of certainty. Never 100%, but the scientific process allows knowledge to be continuously updated and changes as new knowledge is gained. The entire premise of dark matter arose because there were observations that the milky way was spinning too fast at the edges that it would have to fly apart because there is not enough gravity with visible matter to hold it together. That is a pretty darn good observation that needs to be investigated.


How do you know they are not observing an illusion? Is an illusion not also a real thing which has a cause? Illusions are very real.
How does anyone know the milky way is spinning at all? How do we know it is not the spinning Earth which creates the illusion of it spinning? If you sit on a spinning wheel on the ground and look at something static above your head, that thing will appear to be spinning if you want to believe you are standing still and do not factor into the equation your own spinning velocity.
If a tiny cell on one spinning object is observing another spinning object, how does the cell know if the other was spinning too fast or not? Too fast compared to what? Human measurements on Earth regarding what humans think the speed of other things in the universe ought to be?
All things are what they are in spite of human fairy tales and myths about them or some kind of fanciful explanations as to WHY they are the way they are.
WHY do opposites exist at all if ALL things came from the same source and went through the same processes and cycles? Can science explain that?

Human observation is very subjective and when people observe things they can come to many wrong conclusions yet many can still agree the conclusion is correct as we know from history when many believed the sun revolved around the Earth and the Earth being flat due to observing exactly that. Today we understand the opposite is true even though we still observe the sun moving around the earth. It is one thing to observe an illusion and quite another to understand WHY the observation appears to be what it is when it is not really what it appears to be at all.

Nobody said humans are not failable. In the case you pointed out it was religious belief that mucked up the brain in finding the correct explanation as to why observations like planets moving in odd ways that would not be explained from the earth being in the center of the solar system. That is why science exists. It gives a framework to eliminate human fallibility when uncovering understanding and knowledge. That is why such observations that the galaxy is spinning so fast that the galaxy fly apart requires repeatability and confirmation by other scientists rather than accepting one scientists word on it.


Religious belief that the universe once did not exist is the whole basis upon which the concept of the BBT is founded in the first place. Can't people see that? Religion existed before science and the scientific method was invented. The BBT was invented by a religious scientist. He was biased toward believing God created the universe from nothing even if he had to hide his bias and disregard it in any scientific research. Human bias still affects the thinking process even if only subconsciously.
The story of "Once upon a time there was no universe" is what religion basically teaches.

What if the universe has always existed? Does the Big Bang theory fly out the window? Was the BB a unique one time event thing or is it a process which is recurring in the universe which exists today? If it is a process which is recurring in the universe today, is it not possible that it has always been a recurring CYCLE ?

I am not a scientist so I am most likely asking stupid questions to those whose minds are filled with scientific knowledge but the ignorant would like to know so humor me since my mind is not biased toward any scientific theories at all.
I am actually biased against all theories and doctrines about beginnings of the universe, religious ones and scientific ones, since I see them as religious fiction and science fiction.

It makes far more sense to my mind that the universe has always existed and NO random big bang phenomenon ever happened "Once upon a time".
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 9:12:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 5:41:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/20/2015 5:29:17 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I agree that people change their minds and views often. It happens in religion and other fields just as often as it does in science.
Do you know what you're talking about, Sky?

When it comes to people changing their minds, YES I know what I am talking about.
If you are asking if I know what I am talking about in a general sense, it depends on the topic. I know a lot about some things and a little about others and absolutely nothing about others. I know my own mind so when I talk about what is on my mind I know what I am talking about even if I sometimes have trouble communicating my thoughts clearly enough to make them comprehensible to others.

How do you know?

Because my own minds tells me I know and I happen to believe myself.
When it comes to people changing their minds, I know what I am talking about because I have OBSERVED it happening in others and have also changed my own mind and views about things in the process of gaining more information and experience over time.

What about you? How do YOU know what you believe you know?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 9:38:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 1:37:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/20/2015 4:19:47 PM, Skyangel wrote:


The assessment is not mine. It is the assessment of 33 TOP scientists. Did you actually read the whole article on the link in the OP?


Of course scientists will deny things they don't wish to admit regardless of whether the accusation is true or false. Denial is part of human nature and applies to all humans in general not just to scientists. People deny things for all kinds of reasons. Scientists deny they have scientific biases and religious people deny they have religious biases but those outside their fields can see they obviously do.

Anyway, I find it most interesting that some TOP SCIENTISTS believe the BB never happened.
That should cause most average people to stop and think about the DOUBTS those scientists have instead of so many people seemingly believing the BBT was some kind of factual event.

It is sad that theoretical, hypothetical events are taught as if they were facts. That applies to both science and religion. It seems very obvious that the adherents to each "field of expertise "treats their theories or doctrines as FACTS instead of as hypothetical speculation.
The implication that hypothetical speculation is factual is what leads people astray.

Here we have the results of what quacks like Lerner's letter produce, the exact results of what Lerner's motive, to baffle with bs and gain support of the gullible.

It's a very simple matter to do a little bit of homework to find that those on the list in the letter are not "TOP SCIENTISTS" by any stretch of the imagination, Lerner included. The title itself is disingenuous, let alone the entire letter.

Yes, Sky, you have indeed been led astray by Lerner.

Top scientist or not, he is obviously a scientist. He is interested in science and understands his own field of expertise. He would not be writing science books if he knew nothing about what he was writing about.
How have I been led astray by Lerner?
What if the BBT is BS and Lerners so called BS is the TRUTH?
MANY have been in error before and ridiculed the FEW who were considered to be pushing BS.

Just because I think there may be merit in his claims does not mean I have been led astray by him.
His concept that the BBT never happened simply appeals to me due to my own bias against the BBT in the first place.
I have always suspected it was nothing but science fiction. No one has yet convinced me that once upon a time there was no universe. A scientific theory in my mind is just a fancy scientific term for a speculation about observations.
The concept of there once being no universe in my mind is the same concept as the biblical myth teaches. ie..Once there was nothing except a mythical being who created the universe which did not exist before he created it.
The story is the same only the flavor and color is different. One has a religious flavour/ color and the other a scientific flavour/color. In the end its just a mythical horse of a different color.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 10:24:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 9:12:49 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/20/2015 5:41:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/20/2015 5:29:17 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I agree that people change their minds and views often. It happens in religion and other fields just as often as it does in science.
Do you know what you're talking about, Sky?
When it comes to people changing their minds, YES I know what I am talking about.
You have data then, on the frequency of people changing significant beliefs, and the circumstances under which they do so?

What about you? How do YOU know what you believe you know?
As a professionally-trained and former practicing research scientist, I have been educated, trained, examined and accredited in how to form inference rationally, on the basis of evidence; and what can happen when we form beliefs in other ways.

Following that accreditation, I worked as a research scientist for seven years before spending 18 more as a consultant, preparing evidence for key decision-makers on matters that frequently affected careers, reputations and public policy.

So I have both formal training and extensive professional experience in evidence-based decision-making, and on that experience I can tell you that it is NOT my experience that people routinely change their minds on significant matters when confronted with contrary evidence, unless they are both trained to do so, and held to account for when they don't.

This experience is also born out by psychological studies.

Do you feel you're an example of people changing their mind readily and accountably

In this matter, Sky, I'm concerned that you began with an erroneous and over-extended but authoritative-sounding pronouncement on the state of cosmology, supported it with a counter-factual generalisation about the motives of scientists; and then dismissed contrary evidence with more sweeping generalisations about how people think, without ever having admitted ignorance or error.

So, are YOU an example of changing one's mind promptly, transparently and accountably in the face of contrary evidence?

Could you highlight where in this thread you have done so, please?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 3:27:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 10:24:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/21/2015 9:12:49 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/20/2015 5:41:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/20/2015 5:29:17 PM, Skyangel wrote:
I agree that people change their minds and views often. It happens in religion and other fields just as often as it does in science.
Do you know what you're talking about, Sky?
When it comes to people changing their minds, YES I know what I am talking about.
You have data then, on the frequency of people changing significant beliefs, and the circumstances under which they do so?

You can find data on line as well as I can. There are thousands of personal testimonies of people changing their beliefs. You can collect them all if you wish and make your own personal graph or whatever else you wish to use as "data" and proof that humans change their minds and beliefs.

What about you? How do YOU know what you believe you know?
As a professionally-trained and former practicing research scientist, I have been educated, trained, examined and accredited in how to form inference rationally, on the basis of evidence; and what can happen when we form beliefs in other ways.

Good for you. So you have a paper to prove you have been well trained. So do many believers in God yet they still believe in mythical characters. Therefore just because a person has a paper which says they know how to form inference rationally in THEORY does not mean they actually can in reality.

Following that accreditation, I worked as a research scientist for seven years before spending 18 more as a consultant, preparing evidence for key decision-makers on matters that frequently affected careers, reputations and public policy.

Do you want a medal for it or are you just trying to impress me with all your gold stars, papers and awards?
Would you like me to fall at your feet and worship your highness?

So I have both formal training and extensive professional experience in evidence-based decision-making, and on that experience I can tell you that it is NOT my experience that people routinely change their minds on significant matters when confronted with contrary evidence, unless they are both trained to do so, and held to account for when they don't.


I am not talking about one person changing their mind every five minutes. I am talking about people in general changing their minds and beliefs over time.. eg.. Many atheists over many years becoming Christians and many Christians becoming atheists. People do not do that without making significant changes in their way of thinking. It's not like it all happens overnight as soon as they are faced with evidence contrary to what they first believed. Sometimes the process of change can take many years and many different circumstances which cause them to come to a different conclusion to that which they first held.
Since you are so well trained, why don't you explain why some Atheists become Christians and change their belief from there being No God to suddenly claiming they met God? Why do some Christians change their belief that there is a God to believing God does not exist?
Why do so many people hold the belief that the universe once did not exist when there is no evidence at all that it once did not exist?

This experience is also born out by psychological studies.

Do you feel you're an example of people changing their mind readily and accountably

If a person can show me that I am making an error in thinking or belief and show me why it is an error and HOW to correct it, I will certainly change my thinking or belief in order to correct it. I think most logically thinking people would do likewise.
If you consider that attitude to be an example of a person who will change their mind readily and accountably then you are free to decide if I fit your criteria or not.

In this matter, Sky, I'm concerned that you began with an erroneous and over-extended but authoritative-sounding pronouncement on the state of cosmology, supported it with a counter-factual generalisation about the motives of scientists; and then dismissed contrary evidence with more sweeping generalisations about how people think, without ever having admitted ignorance or error.

No one can or will admit ignorance or error if they do not believe they are ignorant or in error.
Anything I write is subject to the interpretation of the reader. If what I write sounds authoritative or erroneous to you, it is because that is how you interpret it. I am merely sharing my thoughts. You are free to question them as you wish. If you think I am in error you need to point out the error and tell me HOW to correct it if you think you have a correct solution at all.

So, are YOU an example of changing one's mind promptly, transparently and accountably in the face of contrary evidence?

Only when mistakes are pointed out to me and the one who points out the mistakes can convince me they are actually mistakes as I explained above. When I am totally convinced that 1+1=2, and have NO doubts about it, Nothing will change my mind about that.

Could you highlight where in this thread you have done so, please?

No because I have not changed my mind in this thread. I am convinced that I am correct in my own thinking. No one has convinced me otherwise.
What I think in general is what I think. I make no excuses for it and find no need to apologize for it. If my general statements offend those who wish to "wear the caps", that is their problem if they wish to apply generalization to themselves, not mine.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 11:15:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 9:38:22 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 1:37:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/20/2015 4:19:47 PM, Skyangel wrote:


The assessment is not mine. It is the assessment of 33 TOP scientists. Did you actually read the whole article on the link in the OP?


Of course scientists will deny things they don't wish to admit regardless of whether the accusation is true or false. Denial is part of human nature and applies to all humans in general not just to scientists. People deny things for all kinds of reasons. Scientists deny they have scientific biases and religious people deny they have religious biases but those outside their fields can see they obviously do.

Anyway, I find it most interesting that some TOP SCIENTISTS believe the BB never happened.
That should cause most average people to stop and think about the DOUBTS those scientists have instead of so many people seemingly believing the BBT was some kind of factual event.

It is sad that theoretical, hypothetical events are taught as if they were facts. That applies to both science and religion. It seems very obvious that the adherents to each "field of expertise "treats their theories or doctrines as FACTS instead of as hypothetical speculation.
The implication that hypothetical speculation is factual is what leads people astray.

Here we have the results of what quacks like Lerner's letter produce, the exact results of what Lerner's motive, to baffle with bs and gain support of the gullible.

It's a very simple matter to do a little bit of homework to find that those on the list in the letter are not "TOP SCIENTISTS" by any stretch of the imagination, Lerner included. The title itself is disingenuous, let alone the entire letter.

Yes, Sky, you have indeed been led astray by Lerner.

Top scientist or not, he is obviously a scientist. He is interested in science and understands his own field of expertise. He would not be writing science books if he knew nothing about what he was writing about.

Anyone can write popular science books, it happens all the time. Lerner has a BA in physics and is arguing against others in the field of cosmology and astrophysics that are far above his level of understanding.

How have I been led astray by Lerner?

Because you don't understand what their talking about.

What if the BBT is BS and Lerners so called BS is the TRUTH?

Because the hard data already shows Lerner to be wrong. Do you understand this simple concept?

MANY have been in error before and ridiculed the FEW who were considered to be pushing BS.

So what? Lerner is dead wrong, that is a fact.

Just because I think there may be merit in his claims does not mean I have been led astray by him.

If you think Lerner has merit, you're free to do so, but that just shows your ignorance of the subject matter that shows Lerner to be wrong.

His concept that the BBT never happened simply appeals to me due to my own bias against the BBT in the first place.
I have always suspected it was nothing but science fiction. No one has yet convinced me that once upon a time there was no universe. A scientific theory in my mind is just a fancy scientific term for a speculation about observations.
The concept of there once being no universe in my mind is the same concept as the biblical myth teaches. ie..Once there was nothing except a mythical being who created the universe which did not exist before he created it.
The story is the same only the flavor and color is different. One has a religious flavour/ color and the other a scientific flavour/color. In the end its just a mythical horse of a different color.

Exactly, you have no idea what science is talking about and are arguing from the position of incredulity and ignorance.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 12:22:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There seems like so much to comment on since last time I posted, but others seems to be dealing with the points well.

Let me just add this statement. Scientists for the most part are not sitting down with this question;

"Big Bang: (Yes / No)"

If during some part of research they must rely on part of the physics, or assumptions of the theory, so be it, but even where they are working on topics that could re-enforce or contradict the theory, the target is not "BBT, NO".
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 12:23:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 11:17:06 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists...
The article can be found on http://rense.com...

I am not a scientist but I sometimes read scientific articles due to personal interest. I came across the one on the above site and thought I would direct anyone interested toward it.

I gather from the article that at least all the scientists which have signed it, seem to believe the dominance of the big bang theory is all about money and funding than anything else.

Excerpt from the article...
"Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, ...."

"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."

I find it interesting that the so called TOP scientists named in the article are admitting that hypothetical scientific objects like the hypothetical inflation field, dark matter and dark energy are FUDGE FACTORS. In other words it is a dishonest manipulation of HYPOTHETICAL and IMAGINARY OBJECTS which have never been observed in reality. They are IMAGINARY THINGS.

It appears many scientists are biased toward the big bang theory due to getting funding to pursue it.
Another excerpt from the article....

"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 enquiry."
.....
"Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang."


In other words scientists are telling the "big bang supporters" who are funding them exactly what they are paid to tell them. If they do not, they lose their funding which is also their income source.

It just shows how people can be manipulated and biased by MONEY.

Wow. Science costs money? Really? I thought they were just given that Large hardon smasher thingy as a donation, free of charge.