Planck data simply haven’t provided much support for these no-Bang, two-Bang, everywhere-a-bang bang universes.
Sheldon: In any case, the many recent comet missions are going to provoke a reanalysis of the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis paradigm
The most common explanation for the formation of planet Earth is that it formed by gravitational collapse from a cloud of particles (gas, ice, dust) swirling around the Sun. Specifically, the idea is that small planetesimals form as the various particles clump together (perhaps initially by cohesion, then by gravity), eventually growing into planets. Known Read More…
Pop culture rants, raves, and peeves have somehow found their expression today as “science.” This stuff doesn’t change; it just acquires science labels.
He explains why the Big Bang model is best given the current scientific data.
Of course, the Big Bang has never been popular. See Big Bang exterminator wanted, will train.
It sounds like a fun problem, actually, dare we say—a lighter moment?
First, cosmologists have been trying to falsify the Big Bang for decades. Many do not like it because of its theistic implications.
Most likely nothing will kill cosmic inflation theory. Nothing will kill multiverse theory. And nothing will kill the vampire.
But if time is infinite in the past, doesn’t that violate Hilbert’s Hotel? In which case, logic will tell us if physics doesn’t?
The researchers’ thesis does not, however, account for the Big Bang. That’s a biggie, so to speak.
Sheldon’s view is that, using Occam’s razor, dust should have been the first hypothesis. The logic of the multiverse explains why it ended up being the last.
Luke Barnes has been mentioned favorably twice at Uncommon Descent. I mentioned him in Nuclear Physicist asks, “Why is PZ Myers so dumb?” and slams Victor Stenger to boot. VJ Torley mentioned him favorably in Is fine tuning a fallacy. I “learned” intro cosmology from Barbara Ryden’s book, but I put “learned” in quotes because Read More…
I think we need to watch a video by Friend of UD, Kirk Durston. But first, a loop-back note: I have been rather busy elsewhere with issues like AS-AD, Kondratiev waves, Hayek’s investment triangle, SD and Schumpeterian creative destruction.(Pardon the resulting absence.) BTW, this line of thought leads me to hold that the oh- so- Read More…
Actually, it is true that modern cosmologists “found more theologically friendly models of the Big Bang ‘disturbing,’ and wanted to refute them.” They have, to their credit, never made any secret of it.