Is there a legit challenge to the Big Bang Theory in this?

[FBM]

http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

I'm well informed enough to follow the gist of what they're saying (plea for funding aside), but I thought maybe some of you would be able to offer some insight into whether any of it would even be worth funding.

Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists
5-27-4

Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences.

Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Signed:

(Institutions for identification only)

Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /
Earthtech.org

www.earthtech.org

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273

http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)

James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)

Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)

Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)

Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)

Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)

Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)

Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)

[Animavore]

Lol! Because you capitalised it I thought you meant the TV show

[Animavore]

33 scientists (some not even in the correct field from what I can make out) dissenting does not impress me any more than a handful of scientists (also often not even in the correct field) doubting AGW or evolution by natural selection.

|

[mistermack]

33 scientists (some not even in the correct field from what I can make out) dissenting does not impress me any more than a handful of scientists (also often not even in the correct field) doubting AGW or evolution by natural selection.|

So, small numbers of people don't impress you, but big numbers do? Whatever happened to the evidence, as a way of getting impressed?

I don't see any explanation in that piece for the fact that all the observed galaxies etc are moving away from each other in a way that points to a big bang, when extrapolated back in time.

That's the evidence for the big bang. There might be problems of inflation, and dark matter. But they aren't things that point in some other direction. They just point up a gap in our understanding of the whole sequence of events. They don't invalidate the overall reason for thinking that the Universe began in a big bang.

[cronus]

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Seems to be plenty of evidence for inflation and all. Is there a alternative to evolution?

[FBM]

Well, I'd like to know something more substantial about this part:

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Emphasis added.

[Audley Strange]

I've always thought perhaps the big bang is a misnomer and that perhaps there are lots of little bangs.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I think the funding could be better spent, say, working on a cure for Miley Cyrus.

[Animavore]

33 scientists (some not even in the correct field from what I can make out) dissenting does not impress me any more than a handful of scientists (also often not even in the correct field) doubting AGW or evolution by natural selection.|

So, small numbers of people don't impress you, but big numbers do? Whatever happened to the evidence, as a way of getting impressed?

They're not mutually exclusive. If most scientists are agreeing the evidence points one way and another small fraction argues otherwise it's fair to follow the majority. Especially when it transpires that the smaller group have ulterior motives like in the case of AGW-denialists and anti-evolutionists. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I'm not holding my breath that anything of import has been elucidated here.

[Clinton Huxley]

A challenge to the big bang theory? MON Dieu!

[Tero]

It's just a conspiracy theory. They are very popular now. I blame the Internet.

[Tyrannical]

There is the little bang theory......

[FBM]

33 scientists (some not even in the correct field from what I can make out) dissenting does not impress me any more than a handful of scientists (also often not even in the correct field) doubting AGW or evolution by natural selection.|

So, small numbers of people don't impress you, but big numbers do? Whatever happened to the evidence, as a way of getting impressed?

They're not mutually exclusive. If most scientists are agreeing the evidence points one way and another small fraction argues otherwise it's fair to follow the majority. Especially when it transpires that the smaller group have ulterior motives like in the case of AGW-denialists and anti-evolutionists. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I'm not holding my breath that anything of import has been elucidated here.

I see what you mean, but if you think historically, there was a time when the heliocentic model was only held by a minority. The same for the atomic, quantum theories, etc etc. The mere fact that only a minority of scientists are interested in pursuing this possibility doesn't seem to me to be a strong enough argument to abandon it. And if you think towards the future, do you not foresee a time when our current models will all prove to be obsolete? I do. That's not to say that I know enough to support any of the current challenges to the Big Bang theory or, for that matter, the Copenhagen Interpretation or any other reigning model, but I do think that looking at the question from a larger historical perspective would suggest to the wise person to keep a somewhat open mind. Within the realms of mathematical plausibility, I mean, not mysticism and that drivel.

[Animavore]

33 scientists (some not even in the correct field from what I can make out) dissenting does not impress me any more than a handful of scientists (also often not even in the correct field) doubting AGW or evolution by natural selection.|

So, small numbers of people don't impress you, but big numbers do? Whatever happened to the evidence, as a way of getting impressed?

They're not mutually exclusive. If most scientists are agreeing the evidence points one way and another small fraction argues otherwise it's fair to follow the majority. Especially when it transpires that the smaller group have ulterior motives like in the case of AGW-denialists and anti-evolutionists. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I'm not holding my breath that anything of import has been elucidated here.

I see what you mean, but if you think historically, there was a time when the heliocentic model was only held by a minority. The same for the atomic, quantum theories, etc etc. The mere fact that only a minority of scientists are interested in pursuing this possibility doesn't seem to me to be a strong enough argument to abandon it. And if you think towards the future, do you not foresee a time when our current models will all prove to be obsolete? I do. That's not to say that I know enough to support any of the current challenges to the Big Bang theory or, for that matter, the Copenhagen Interpretation or any other reigning model, but I do think that looking at the question from a larger historical perspective would suggest to the wise person to keep a somewhat open mind. Within the realms of mathematical plausibility, I mean, not mysticism and that drivel.

I could be said that what you just said is exactly the type of thing that quacks and hacks love to say when people don't take their pet theory seriously.

I'm not trying to dismiss the OP. I'm not qualified to do so. I'm just cautious of it and would love to see the response, if any.

[FBM]

33 scientists (some not even in the correct field from what I can make out) dissenting does not impress me any more than a handful of scientists (also often not even in the correct field) doubting AGW or evolution by natural selection.|

So, small numbers of people don't impress you, but big numbers do? Whatever happened to the evidence, as a way of getting impressed?

They're not mutually exclusive. If most scientists are agreeing the evidence points one way and another small fraction argues otherwise it's fair to follow the majority. Especially when it transpires that the smaller group have ulterior motives like in the case of AGW-denialists and anti-evolutionists. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I'm not holding my breath that anything of import has been elucidated here.

I see what you mean, but if you think historically, there was a time when the heliocentic model was only held by a minority. The same for the atomic, quantum theories, etc etc. The mere fact that only a minority of scientists are interested in pursuing this possibility doesn't seem to me to be a strong enough argument to abandon it. And if you think towards the future, do you not foresee a time when our current models will all prove to be obsolete? I do. That's not to say that I know enough to support any of the current challenges to the Big Bang theory or, for that matter, the Copenhagen Interpretation or any other reigning model, but I do think that looking at the question from a larger historical perspective would suggest to the wise person to keep a somewhat open mind. Within the realms of mathematical plausibility, I mean, not mysticism and that drivel.

I could be said that what you just said is exactly the type of thing that quacks and hacks love to say when people don't take their pet theory seriously.

I'm not trying to dismiss the OP. I'm not qualified to do so. I'm just cautious of it and would love to see the response, if any.

Yeah, I think we're both trying to find a balance between close-minded, dogmatic orthodoxy and pull-it-out-of-your-ass woo. That's pretty much the point of my OP. I don't take sides in this. I'm just looking for informed imput. The author(s) of this thing seem to fall short of being outright wingnuts, but they are definitely espousing a minority perspective. I'm not willing to dismiss them simply for their minority status. But neither am I tilting at windmills here. If they're wrong, they're wrong. But I do want to see some rational, structured explanation of why they're wrong.