Readers may recall that we’d noticed recently several pieces fussing that the Big Bang is a discreditable theory, despite its wide acceptance. On Saturday, Evolution News and Science Today asked whether some cosmologists were responding to Steve Meyer’s new book, The Return of the God Hypothesis, which they did not want to mention by name.
Can’t know for sure but the pieces were far-fetched enough to prompt some thought about the motives.
Anyway, physicist Brian Miller offers some thoughts about the piece by Paul Sutter which argues that “a cosmological model based on causal set theory demonstrates that the universe might not have had a beginning”:
Sutter asserts that Bento and Zalel’s article offers a credible response against the evidence for a cosmic beginning. Yet this claim is only based on what might be possible in the realm of the imagination. The referenced paper is a highly theoretical and entirely speculative cosmological model that is almost entirely divorced from physical reality. Sutter even acknowledges this point. …Brian Miller, “Attempt to Explain Away the Beginning of the Universe Fails to Distinguish Imagination from Reality” at Evolution News and Science Today (October 19, 2021)
Here’s the article Sutter’s speculations are based on.
One question is, how long can the nonsense be kept going before some realities must be faced? What would it take to bring about realistic cosmology?
You may also wish to read: Another shot in the campaign against the Big Bang. Bento’s theory sounds convincing — compared to the Easter Bunny. The question we should be asking is, why is the Big Bang so unpopular with these people?
Ethan Siegel makes another paper assault on the Big Bang Is the Big Bang the least popular widely accepted science theory? Theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel wishes it out of existence by positing a cosmic inflation that wipes out all possibility of knowledge.