Big Bang Intelligent Design

At CNN: The Problem with the Big Bang Theory

Spread the love

No, not the TV sitcom. The cosmology theory cosmologists love to hate. The story is really about the fact that inflation theory — way Cooler than the Big Bang — was not especially confirmed:

Astronomers used a telescope facility called BICEP-3 (short for Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) to study the CMB and its polarization. The telescope’s South Pole location, with its altitude of nearly two miles above sea level and incredibly dry air, is an ideal place to conduct this kind of research. BICEP-3 scientists combined their data with measurements at other facilities and found no indication of B-modes originating from the CMB. If B-modes are present in the CMB, they are very small. So, does that mean that the theory of inflation must be thrown out? No, although the data has disproved some of the simpler theories of inflation, it isn’t sensitive enough to rule out the more complex versions. Still, the failure to observe CMB B-modes is unsettling, causing some scientists to go back to the drawing board.

There are those who are discomfited when a scientific measurement draws into question a theory that is popular among researchers, but they shouldn’t be. The self-correcting nature of science is actually its strongest asset.

Don Lincoln, “The problem with the Big Bang theory” at CNN (November 4, 2021)

Note: “While those people who crave certainty in their life might be unhappy because of the new measurement, it’s important to remember that there are no sacred cows in science, and scientists are always checking and rechecking even their favorite universal models.” – Don Lincoln

Try doubting that humans are responsible for global warming and watch the herd of sacred cows stampede…

Okay, here’s the sitcom:

You may also wish to read: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

7 Replies to “At CNN: The Problem with the Big Bang Theory

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    Yeah the last I checked inflation was an attempt to explain the Big Bang and it’s funny because years back and bicep2 results tried to confirm chaotic inflation and it turned out to be cosmic dust

    Now 3 is killing that theory

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Hmm, The results were published on October 4, 2021,

    Blowing Up the Universe: BICEP3 Tightens the Bounds on Cosmic Inflation – Oct. 27, 2021
    A new analysis of the South Pole-based telescope’s cosmic microwave background observations has all but ruled out several popular models of inflation.
    Excerpt: “Once-promising models of inflation are now ruled out,” said Chao-Lin Kuo, a BICEP3 principal investigator and a physicist at Stanford University and the Department of Energy’s SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.
    The results were published on October 4, 2021, in Physical Review Letters,,,
    https://scitechdaily.com/blowing-up-the-universe-bicep3-tightens-the-bounds-on-cosmic-inflation/

    And yet, on October 13, 2021, a week after the results came out, Ethan Siegel appealed to inflation to try to get around the fact that the universe had a beginning.

    Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore – Ethan Siegel – October 13, 2021
    Excerpt: cosmic inflation preceded and set up the Big Bang, changing our cosmic origin story forever.
    https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/big-bang-beginning-universe/

    Critics Respond to Stephen Meyer’s New Book (Without Mentioning Him by Name) – Brian Miller – October 16, 2021
    Excerpt: Siegel attempts to find a loophole for the conclusion of a cosmic beginning by appealing to the theory known as eternal chaotic inflation. Inflationary theory was initially developed to explain the fine-tuning implied by the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The flatness represents the lack in curvature of space that the theory of general relativity would normally predict. According to the standard Big Bang model, the lack of curvature required the mass density of the early universe to have been fine-tuned to greater than 1 part in 1060 (a 1 with 60 zeros behind it).
    Inflationary theory attempts to explain the flatness of space and the uniformity of the CMBR without the need for such extreme fine-tuning. It postulates a field permeating space that causes the universe to expand at a phenomenal rate. The earliest versions assumed that the expansion occurred a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang and only lasted for an exceedingly short period. This expansion purportedly flattened space and generated a CMBR with the observed uniformity.,,,
    Unfortunately, Siegel’s claim was completely discredited by the research of leading cosmologists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin. They developed the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin (BGV) theorem that demonstrates that all universes, which are on average expanding, must have had a beginning. Our universe falls into this category, so it must have had a beginning even if eternal inflation were true.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/critics-respond-to-stephen-meyers-new-book-without-mentioning-him-by-name/

    OOPS!

  3. 3
    zweston says:

    Guys who post the main Stories on here: Jordan Peterson (with Ben Shapiro) shines a light on sexual selection (largely ignored by evolutionists) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5CFoVsM9lg

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    As Dr. Miller pointed out, Inflationary theory was initially developed to “explain away’ the fine-tuning implied by the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).

    “Inflationary theory was initially developed to explain the fine-tuning implied by the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).”
    – Brian Miller – Critics Respond to Stephen Meyer’s New Book (Without Mentioning Him by Name) – October 16, 2021
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/critics-respond-to-stephen-meyers-new-book-without-mentioning-him-by-name/

    The interesting thing about theoretical physicists trying to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning implied by the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is that the Bible, (long before the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) were even discovered), is on record at to ‘predicting’ the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).

    Job 38:4-5
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    Who marked off its dimensions?
    Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    That the Bible predicted this really should not be all that surprising. After all, besides the Bible correctly, and uniquely, predicting a beginning for the universe in the first place, modern science itself was born out of Judeo-Christian worldview, and the Judeo-Christian worldview alone, and modern science is still very much predicated on presuppositions that can only be reasonably grounded within the Judeo-Christian worldview.

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.theistic.net/papers.....cience.pdf

    But anyways, in spite of the fact that theoretical physicists ignore, and/or have been deceived about, the fact that they are dependent upon Judeo-Christian presuppositions in the first place, there are a few interesting things to note about the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).

    In regards to the flatness of the universe we find that, “The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness.”

    “The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness. And that means it must have been born in an even flatter state, as Dicke and Peebles, two of the Princeton astronomers involved in the discovery of the 3 K background radiation, pointed out in 1979. Finding the Universe in a state of even approximate flatness today is even less likely than finding a perfectly sharpened pencil balancing on its point for millions of years, for, as Dicke and Peebles pointed out, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged. Like the pencil balanced on its point and given the tiniest nudges, the Universe soon shifts away from perfect flatness.”
    ~ John Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang

    Yet if the universe were not ‘ever so boringly flat’, then the rules of Euclidean geometry would not apply.

    Why We Need Cosmic Inflation
    By Paul Sutter, Astrophysicist | October 22, 2018
    Excerpt: As best as we can measure, the geometry of our universe appears to be perfectly, totally, ever-so-boringly flat. On large, cosmic scales, parallel lines stay parallel forever, interior angles of triangles add up to 180 degrees, and so on. All the rules of Euclidean geometry that you learned in high school apply.
    But there’s no reason for our universe to be flat. At large scales it could’ve had any old curvature it wanted. Our cosmos could’ve been shaped like a giant, multidimensional beach ball, or a horse-riding saddle. But, no, it picked flat.
    https://www.space.com/42202-why-we-need-cosmic-inflation.html

    How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017
    Excerpt: We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,,
    Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing.
    In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts.
    Which seems like an insane coincidence.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

    Simply put, without some remarkable degree of exceptional, and stable, flatness for the universe, (as well as exceptional stability for all the other constants), Euclidean (3-Dimensional) geometry would not be applicable to our world. or to the universe at large, and this would make science and engineering for humans, for all practical purposes, all but impossible.

    Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006
    Excerpt: “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.”
    The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge (if they hold up): The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”,,,
    The speed of light, for instance, might be measured one day with a ruler and a clock. If the next day the same measurement gave a different answer, no one could tell if the speed of light changed, the ruler length changed, or the clock ticking changed.
    http://www.space.com/2613-scie.....-laws.html

    This ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe, that allows us to apply abstract mathematics to the universe in the first place, adds considerable weight to both Einstein’s and Wigner’s claim that the applicability of math to the universe is, by all rights, to be considered a miracle:

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides chaotic inflation theory failing to explain “the fine-tuning implied by the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), chaotic inflation also fails to explain ‘unexpected anomalies’ in the CMBR.

    Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe (Disconfirms inflationary models) – video
    Quote at 2:00 minute mark: “What’s surprising in Planck’s latest findings and is inconsistent with prevailing theories, is the presence of unexpected large scale anomalies in the sky. Including a large cold region. Stronger fluctuations in one half of the sky than the other. And less light signals than expected across the entire sky.”
    Planck spokesman: “When we look at only the large features on this (CMBR) map you find that our find that our best fitting theory (inflation) has a problem fitting the data.”
    “Planck launched in 2009,, is the 3rd mission to study the Cosmic Microwave Background to date. While these unusual features in the sky were hinted at the two previous US missions, COBE and WMAP, Planck’s ability to measure the tiniest of fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background has made these so called anomalies impossible to ignore.”
    Planck spokesman: “Because of these features that we are finding in the sky, people really are in a situation now where they cannot ignore them any more. ,,, We’ve established them (the anomalies) as fact!”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2CWaLU6eMI

    More interesting still, some of these anomalies in the CMBR, which chaotic inflation theory is at an impasse to explain, are found to ‘unexpectedly’ line up with the earth and solar system:

    Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR data, that ‘unexpectedly’ line up with the earth and solar system, in an easy to understand manner.

    Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Moreover, besides the earth and solar system ‘unexpectedly’ lining up with these anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy also now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the eclipticcite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropiescite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sourcescite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.4134.pdf ?

    Moreover, this surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe also happens to combine with the anomalies in the CMBR data to ‘unexpectedly’ give the earth a ‘central’ position in the universe.

    As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,

    “Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.”
    For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
    “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”
    – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..
    Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.”
    http://www.robertsungenis.com/.....20Wars.pdf
    – Illustration
    https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png

    Thus, contrary to the presumptions of atheists, far from the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of random quantum fluctuations, as they erroneously presuppose to be true in their chaotic inflation theory, the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR, (due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being ‘flat to 1 part within 10^57), are found to correspond to the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ and these ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ reveal “a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”.

    In short, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, and the large scale structures in the universe, combine with each other to reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth from the start of the universe. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke as atheists had erroneously presupposed in their chaotic inflation theory.

    And again, this ‘special’ position for the earth in the universe really should not be all that surprising to discover. Besides the Bible correctly, and uniquely, predicting a beginning for the universe, as well as the Bible correctly, and uniquely, predicting that the universe would be flat, and that a circle would be inscribed on the ‘face of the deep’, (and besides the fact that modern science itself is crucially dependent on presuppositions that can only be reasonably grounded in the Judeo-Christian worldview), besides all that, the Bible is also on record as to correctly, and uniquely, predicting that the Earth was specifically intended by God from the very beginning of creation.

    Genesis 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

  6. 6
    PaV says:

    BA77:

    Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..

    What secret powers do you have?

    I’ll presume you meant to write 2013. 🙂

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks PaV,,, now corrected,,, (at least in my notes),,,

Leave a Reply