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.
Big Bang
What is it about the Big Bang these days that is making people nervous?
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.
Missing matter of the universe FOUND? Rob Sheldon says, hold on a minute…
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.
At Astronomy Mag: Is the Big Bang in Crisis? Rob Sheldon responds
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.
L& FP41: Dawkins, Krauss and trying to pull a world out of “no-thing”
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
Tossing overboard the assumptions about our universe? Rob Sheldon responds
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.
What happened before the Big Bang is not really a science question
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!”
Forbes’ physics columnist Ethan Siegel can’t wait to get beyond the Big Bang
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?
One explanation for the matter-antimatter discrepancy in the universe is ruled out
We are told that thousands of anti-hydrogen atoms have now been captured and stored, though it isn’t easy.
Ethan Siegel warns us against five myths about the Big Bang
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?
Do mysterious particles flying out of Antarctica threaten the Standard Model of physics?
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…
Another sally against the Big Bang
Look at it like this: If the multiverse prevails instead, science can be opened up to a vast variety of viewpoints and interests. Because facts really won’t matter any more.
Sabine Hossenfelder: Physicists’ theories of how the universe began “aren’t any better than traditional tales of creation”
Sabine Hossenfelder: Physicists may simply have produced a lot of mathematical stories about how it all began, but these aren’t any better than traditional tales of creation.
Rob Sheldon on a claim that the Big Bang did not happen
We need to go back to Philip Johnson’s insight 30 years ago. At that time the creationists were all attacking each other over local/global flood, the meaning of “yom”, the historicity of Adam, etc, whereas the Darwinists had a united front–Darwin was a genius. What Johnson discovered, was that the Darwinists had a huge internal battle over nearly every assumption of their model, but politically were unified in their opposition to Creation. By putting his finger on their critical assumption of Methodological Naturalism, which was contrary to nature and to nature’s laws, Johnson was able to unite the creationists behind this cause and turn the tables.
New Scientist: Dark matter’s no-show casts doubt on Big Bang; Rob Sheldon replies
Sheldon: The recent publication of the Italians+Silk paper has now voiced the unspeakable: there is something wrong with the Lambda-CDM Big Bang model, and by inference, the 2011 Nobel Prize. Neither “dark matter” nor “dark energy” seem to exist in a form that makes the model work.