Sheldon: The politicization of science evidently started before Ethan’s graduate schooling, as Hoyle and his post-doc Chandra Wickramasinghe tell in their biographical writings.
It all sounds so much like religion, actually, but maybe that’s the direction in which High Science is heading.
Make no mistake, the Big Bang is unpopular in many quarters and an exterminator has long been sought. Here’s the problem: The explanation for an event may be outside the event. In that case, one can’t derive an explanation from within the event.
We don’t doubt that 2 + 2 = 4 can be dissolved in like manner, as long as the needed incentive is present. And it’s no secret that a great many cosmologists hate the Big Bang for philosophical reasons.
Sheldon: I have long advocated a rewrite of the Big Bang model that converts the cosmic microwave numbers into a Hubble constant. But strangely, like Darwin’s model in biology, we see few cosmologists willing to kill the sacred cow. They would rather change the laws of physics (“new physics”) than change their model.
Sheldon: More and more independent measurements of the Hubble constant (H0), reveal that it is very close to 73.9 km/s/Mpc, which is 6 or so sigma (deviations) from the Planck determination of 67.4 km/s/Mpc using the cosmic ray background radiation (CMBR) and the standard Big Bang (BB) Model.
Sheldon:Well, like most astronomy press releases in the past decade, it is 3/4 hype, and 1/4 data, and it has nothing to do with dark matter. Since many people never read beyond the headline, the title is written to be as provocative as possible without outright lying.
Sheldon: It is becoming clear to everyone that: (a) cosmology behaves as a degenerative research programme; and (b) the problem lies in the BB model first put together in the 50’s and 60’s.
As Cardinal Pell has been recently cleared, perhaps some may be willing to learn from this telling vid: No, Virginia, you do not get a world from no-thing. END
Sheldon: Since no one discusses the result as a potentially embarrassing over-correction, naturally the whole local-motion discussion is given short shrift. Just another example of the hubris that lies at the foundation of scientism and seems to especially infect cosmology.
And, according to a Fermilab spokesman, if we did find out, the actual story “won’t sound like popular science literature.” Which raises the question of why such concepts, usually sponsored by atheist cosmologists, dominate so many people’s thinking. Whatever the answer is, it isn’t “science!”
But doesn’t seem to have a ticket. So a mechanism that caused the Universe to come into existence with these properties already in place? But then what caused that mechanism? If a mechanism caused that mechanism, what in turn caused the previous mechanism? Siegel obviously wants to get past the idea of an actual beginning but orthodox science does not seem to allow that. Some religious propositions might suffice, of course, but he does not want to go there. Advice from readers?
We are told that thousands of anti-hydrogen atoms have now been captured and stored, though it isn’t easy.
Siegel doesn’t really explain why we can be sure that space, time, and the laws of physics preexisted the Big Bang; the idea that they pre-existed has the effect of untethering them from the tiresome demand for evidence. But might that be part of the charm of the idea?
At Space.com: But ultra high-energy neutrinos shouldn’t be able to pass through the Earth. That suggests that some other kind of particle — one that’s never been seen before…