Origin of Univ Theories

Origin of the Universe Theories
A look at current theories for the origin of the universe and methods used to
validate these theories.
Complexity and the Universe II

PH 367U
Spring 2001
Ross Amans
Dan Ragland
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................4
2.0 Investigating a theory’s validity. .....................................................................................4
2.1 Theory defined. ............................................................................................................4
2.2 Legitimacy of theories .................................................................................................5
2.3 Theory analysis techniques ..........................................................................................8
3.0 Mainstream Theories .......................................................................................................9
3.1 Mainstream Big Bang Theories ...................................................................................9
3.1.1 History .................................................................................................................9
3.2 Shortcomings of the “Standard” Cosmology / Big Bang ..........................................12
3.3 Mainstream Religious Theory ...................................................................................13
3.3.1 Creationism in a nutshell ...................................................................................13
3.3.2 The Basis of Creationism...................................................................................14
3.3.3 Organization of Creationist Research................................................................14
3.3.4 Sources for further reading ................................................................................15
4.0 Non-Mainstream or Substream Theories .......................................................................16
4.1 Example 1—“The Big Bang Never Happened”........................................................16
4.1.1 Sample Web Site Content ..................................................................................16
4.1.2 Initial Review.....................................................................................................16
4.1.3 What others say..................................................................................................17
4.1.4 Analysis .............................................................................................................19
4.2 Example 2— Jean Schneider .....................................................................................19
4.2.2 Analysis .............................................................................................................22
4.3 Example 3— Big Bang Philosophy...........................................................................22
4.3.2 Analysis .............................................................................................................23
4.4 Example 4— Pseudo-religious origin of the universe ...............................................23
4.4.2 Analysis .............................................................................................................25
5.0 Key Learning .................................................................................................................25
6.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................31
Appendix A: Further Reading ..................................................................................................34
Appendix B: More Websites ....................................................................................................39
Page 2
Preface
The purpose of this report is to establish an initial starting point
(draft) of a tutorial which students can use as they begin to study
origin of the universe theories. This report is written in a
somewhat informal manner such that students may more easily
digest it. While sources are still sighted, formalities such as
footnotes/endnotes have been intentionally omitted. In addition we
have taken a more conversational approach in our writing.
Page 3
1.0 Introduction
Throughout history mankind has struggled to explain how the universe came into
existence. Over time many ideas and conjectures have been conceived in an attempt to
explain just how the universe was formed. Throughout the ages many of these ideas
have been disproved yet many are continuing to undergo scientific investigation. These
“ideas” under investigation are called theories. This report will examine theories
ranging from the big bang to creation. With the existence of countless varying origin of
the universe theories it is important that one approaches each theory skeptically. There
are many techniques that should be used when evaluating these theories. This report
will explore the methods used in determining the validity of these theories.
2.0 Investigating a theory’s validity.

Before we even look at origin theories we must first understand how to evaluate
theories in general. Theories should not be accepted as fact. Instead theories should be
closely examined and scrutinized for accuracy. The goal of this section is to discuss
what theories are and what techniques are available to distinguish the good from the
bad and fact from fiction.
2.1 Theory defined.
Let us start by looking at the dictionaries definition of a theory. Why is this

important? There are many misnomers about what a “theory” is. For example,
consider Einstein’s theory of relativity and the theory of evolution. Many
assume that both of these theories could be equally proven as facts. The truth,
however is that many scientists would say that Einstein’s theory has a much
better chance of being proven factual than the theory of evolution. The point is
that neither has been fully proven even though many people believe they are
Page 4
facts. The dictionary definition of “theory” (shown below) will be the basis for
our use of the term.
Theory
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena,
especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to
make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles,
and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: “a fine musician who had never studied
theory.”
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: “a decision based on experience rather than theory.”
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: “staked out
the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.”
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Source:
The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/20/T0152000.html
2.2 Legitimacy of theories

There are many good recourses designed to help readers separate good and
accurate information from inaccurate or misinformation. The two tables below
have been adjusted to fit with the analysis of theories.
Methods for evaluating legitimacy of theories
i. Accuracy
• How reliable and free from error is the information?
• Has the presentation been fact-checked, accuracy-checked, equations been checked?
• Has the theory been peer reviewed?
ii. Authority
• What are the author’s qualifications for writing on the subject?
• How reputable is the publisher?
• If author’s name listed, his/her qualifications frequently absent
• Publisher responsibility often not indicated
• How knowledgeable is the individual or group on the subject matter of the theory?
• Is the theory sponsored or co-sponsored by an individual or group that has authority in the
field?
iii. Objectivity
• Is the information presented with a minimum of bias?
• To what extent is the information trying to sway the opinion of the audience?
• Does the theorist explain what would disprove his theory?
Page 5
iv. Currency
• Is the content of the work up-to-date?
• Is the original publication date clearly indicated?
• Is the latest revision date clearly indicated?
v. Coverage
• What topics are included in the work?
• To what depth are topics explored?
• Is the relationship to related theories explained?
vi. Organization and structure

• Does the text follow basic rules of grammar, spelling and literary composition?
• Is there a clear and obvious organization to the presentation?
vii. Presentation
• Is the information presented completely, as an outline, or just the headings slides from a
presentation?
• Is it presented in the form of a news item, a textbook, technical paper, thesis, or an article for
a magazine?
• Are technical terms explained, or expanded in a glossary?
• Are equations and other math explained?
• Is it written assuming an extensive background in the subject, or so that any college level
student should be able to understand it, or at least work their way through it?
• Is the presentation comparable with related sources?
• Is the format appropriate?
viii. Professionalism
• Is an official writing standard followed?
• Are sources cited in the form of footnotes or bibliography?
• Are data sources documented?
• Are sources of equations cited?
• Are further study resources listed?
ix. Completeness
• Does he explain the origin and history of his theory?
• Does he explain his plans to continue research to collect data to support or disprove his
theory?
• Are significant steps in the development or explanation of his theory missing?
x. Consensus
• Are there supporters of the theory? How many? How authoritative are they?
• Are there detractors of the theory? How many? How authoritative are they?
• Are citations by others of the theory listed?
xi. Consistency
• Has the theorist written other papers on the subject?
• Has the theorist written on other subjects?
• What are his writings on other subjects like?
xii. Other
• How reliable are the links; are there blind links, or references to sites that have moved?
• Is contact information for the author or producer included in the document?
Source:
This a modified version based on the following: “Web Resource Evaluation Techniques” by Jan
Alexander & Marsha Ann Tate, Wolfgram Memorial Library, Widener University.
http://www2.widener.edu/Wolfgram-Memorial Library/webevaluation/webeval.htm
Page 6
Distinguishing Scholarly Journals from Other Periodicals
DEFINITIONS
Webster’s Third International Dictionary defines scholarly as:

1) Concerned with academic study, especially research, 2) Exhibiting the methods and attitudes of a
scholar, and 3) Having the manner and appearance of a scholar.
• Substantive is defined as having a solid base, being substantial.
• Popular means fit for, or reflecting the taste and intelligence of, the people at large.
• Sensational is defined as arousing or intending to arouse strong curiosity, interest or reaction.
Keeping these definitions in mind, and realizing that none of the lines drawn between types of journals
can ever be totally clear-cut, the general criteria are as follows.
SCHOLARLY
Scholarly journals generally have a sober, serious look. They often contain many graphs and charts
but few glossy pages or exciting pictures.
Scholarly journals always cite their sources in the form of footnotes or bibliographies.
Articles are written by a scholar in the field or by someone who has done research in the field.
The language of scholarly journals is that of the discipline covered. It assumes some scholarly
background on the part of the reader.
The main purpose of a scholarly journal is to report on original research or experimentation in order
to make such information available to the rest of the scholarly world.
Many scholarly journals, though by no means all, are published by a specific professional
organization.
Examples of Scholarly Journals:
• American Economic Review
• Archives of Sexual Behavior
• JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
• Journal of Marriage and the Family
• Modern Fiction Studies
Source:
“Distinguishing Scholarly Journals from Other Periodicals”, Cornell University Library.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/okuref/research/skill20.html
Page 7
Special Note:
Please be aware that we had to correct typos in the above scholarly view. Apparently scholarly does not
require proofreading.
2.3 Theory analysis techniques

The previous two summaries of techniques you can use to assess a theory are
logical, reasonable, and biased. They rely on surface appearances and prior
authority figures. Often new theories are proposed that fly in the face of the old
school. The old school often takes the stance that it is under attack by the new
theory, and fights back by suppressing it, ridiculing it, and ignoring it. Quality
evaluation is often lacking, because those best experienced to do the evaluation
are too biased in favor of the old school of thought, too dogmatic to be able to
look at the new idea. Many currently accepted theories have gone through this
battle. Conversely, when someone comes up with a new theory that appears to
support the old school, the old school will take the “our hero” stance and back it,
even if it is not a good theory. The old school is again sometimes too biased to
do a good review of the theory, because they need it too much.
So what is a good way to evaluate a new theory? Is it logical? Is it reasonable?

Does it fit the facts? Is it based primarily on currently observed phenomena?
People commonly believed to be lunatics have proposed many good theories.
Some people believed it was possible for man to fly, and were ridiculed for that
belief. Of course, many of their attempts to fly were ludicrous, which merely
indicated their inability to prove their theory. But theories are commonly
believed not to be provably true, just provably false, or supported by data. Were
people able to fly? Yes. Were the lunatics wrong? No. Were the establishment
old school authorities right? No. So what does this show? That depending on
authorities to decide what you should believe can be a grievous mistake.
So what does that say about the first two views for assessing a theory? That
those views are only useful for assessing whether the theory is scholarly, i.e.,
fitting the current definition of scholarly.
Page 8
So what is a useful view to use to decide whether a person is a crackpot or

someone you should listen to? If their theory fits the known data, and if their
theory is logical and reasonable in its parts as well as its whole, and if their
theory is stated in current language, you may be justified in spending time and
effort on it. That is, if they make up words or terms which are not commonly
used, or useful, or at all necessary, perhaps they have a problem.
3.0 Mainstream Theories

Mainstream theories are theories that are held by the authorities in the field. They are
published in peer-reviewed journals, books, and textbooks. They are cited in the works
of scholars in the field. They tend to be presented to the public at large as fact. Many
people and schools are willing to put their name in the public list of those who believe,
as well as actively support, those theories. Governments are convinced to support these
ideas through funding teaching and research in those theories.
3.1 Mainstream Big Bang Theories

We will endeavor to explore some of current Big Bang theories. Some of the
modern Big Bang theories go way out on a limb, postulating stage after stage of
evolution of the universe, which we will never be able to observe. Many of these
theories propose time scales that have serious conflicts with current thinking. This
section will endeavor to discover and explore some of these problems in this thesis.
Much of the discussion will be presented in a non-mathematical language, but will
have mathematical sections, which the reader can skip without too much loss of
understanding.
3.1.1 History
First we can start with a little history. Every recent civilization or culture has
had its theory or theories of the origin of the universe. Even in the time of the
Greeks, most everyone believed that a god or gods had made the universe. This
Page 9
was a religious belief, strongly held and defended. A person could lose their
life by making claims contrary to this belief. Some of the origins of the
universe theories are believed in very strongly, so much so that their supporters
refuse to break with them in spite of strong evidence against their accuracy.
The steady state theories are in this camp. So we will try to avoid being
dogmatic on these issues.
Just as the big bang theory is the core belief held by the mainstream scientific
community the mainstream religious community holds creation as its core
belief. Creationists, as they call themselves, believe that a supreme being (God)
created the earth and the universe.
The first to propose a big bang was Georges Lemaitre, who developed a
cosmological theory that included the idea that the universe has been expanding
from an explosive moment of creation. He based his ideas on Alexander
Friedmann’s complete solution of Albert Einstein’s relativity equations. So
Einstein was the source of the big bang. Einstein put forth his theory of special
relativity in 1905, general relativity in 1915, and his first cosmological theory in
1917. Friedmann put out his solution in 1922, along with the idea that the
universe was expanding. Lemaitre, in 1927, proposed the same thing. At that
time, there was no evidence for either an expansion, or a hot beginning, to the
universe. They thought the idea up. Both men discarded Einstein’s
cosmological constant, which Einstein had used to make a steady state universe
out of his equations. Both thought that the universe was curved, not flat in the
Euclidian sense. Their idea was that the universe was either closed, spherical,
and would eventually collapse, or open, hyperbolic, infinite, and expanding
forever.
In 1931 Einstein and William de Sitter proposed a critical density that allowed
the universe to be spatially flat and expanding, although infinite.
Page 10
These are the three basic universes of the early big bang theory.
.
This Table is from Joseph Silk, Pg. 106.
Edwin Hubble proposed in 1929 that the galactic redshift that was observed was
proportional to the distance of the galaxies. This was the first evidence used to
support expansion. Hubble stated, right up until his death, that the large
redshifts observed were apparent velocities, not actual velocities.
George Gamow, in 1946, coined the term “big bang” for these theories of the
start of the universe. He also proposed that the universe started out as a very
hot (1010 °k) gas, which he called ylem, made up of neutrons, which decayed
into protons, electrons, and neutrinos. He and Ralph Alpher theorized in 1948
that all the elements in the universe resulted from early thermonuclear action.
Later, Gamow and Alpher theorized that the universe started out in a fiery
explosion, which spread out and cooled off, leaving a predicted background
radiation, which was not detectable at the time.
In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected the Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation (CMBR). It appeared to be isotropic and homogeneous.
Evidence for the hot beginning had been found.
Page 11
All the big bang theories propose a very hot beginning for the universe. The
CMBR supports this belief by giving the universe a base temperature, currently
at 2.725 °k.
The inflation theory, proposed by Alan Guth strengthened the big bang theory.
His theory was that the universe expanded very quickly early in its life. Guth
estimated the expansion rate as a 1050 increase in size in 1032 seconds, and
Linde estimated the expansion rate as a 101,000,000 increase in size.
The table below outlines the top issues with the inflation theory:
1 Will the universe expand forever or collapse?
2 Antigravity, and the cosmological constant?
3 How did we get galaxies so fast?
4 Why didn’t we just start out as a big black hole?
5 What is this coincidence that Omega just happens to equal 1?
3.2 Shortcomings of the “Standard” Cosmology / Big Bang

Despite the self-consistency and remarkable success of the standard Hot Big Bang
model in describing the evolution of the universe back to only one hundredth of a
second, a number of unanswered questions remain regarding the initial state of the
universe. The table below lists some of the key concerns or shortcomings:
Page 12
Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology
1. The flatness problem

Why is the matter density of the universe so close to the unstable critical value between perpetual
expansion and re-collapse into a Big Crunch?
2. The horizon problem

Why does the universe look the same in all directions when it arises out of causally disconnected regions?
This problem is most acute for the very smooth cosmic microwave background radiation.
3. The density fluctuation problem

The perturbations, which caused gravitational collapse and the formation of galaxies, must have been
primordial in origin; from whence did they arise?
4. The dark matter problem

Of what stuff is the Universe predominantly made? Nucleosynthesis calculations suggest that the dark
matter of the Universe does not consist of ordinary matter - neutrons and protons?
5. The exotic relics problem

Phase transitions in the early universe inevitably give rise to topological defects, such as Magnetic
monopoles, and exotic particles. Why don't we see them today?
6. The thermal state problem

Why should the universe begin in thermal equilibrium when there is no mechanism by which it can be
maintained at very high temperatures?
7. The cosmological constant problem

Why is the cosmological constant 120 orders of magnitude smaller than naively expected from quantum
gravity?
8. The singularity problem

The cosmological singularity at t=0 is an infinite energy density state, so general relativity predicts its own
breakdown.
9. The timescale problem

Are independent measurements of the age of the Universe consistent using Hubble's constant and stellar
lifetimes?
Source:
Cambridge Cosmology Hot Big Bang page, “Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology”
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_problems.html
3.3 Mainstream Religious Theory

Another category of origin of the universe theories is what we will call “Religious
Mainstream”. This category consists of theories held by mainstream religious
groups. Our focus will be on mainstream Christian/Jewish/Catholic/Muslim
theories and more specifically Creationism.
3.3.1 Creationism in a nutshell
Page 13
Just as the big bang theory is the core belief held by the mainstream scientific
community the mainstream religious community holds creation as its core
belief. Creationists, as they call themselves, believe that a supreme being (God)
created the earth and the universe. Creationists embrace the Bible not only for
its religious content but also for its recording of history. Arguably, many
mainstream scientists also value the Bible for its historical importance. The first
verse in the Bible contains the initial basis for the creation theory. This familiar
verse reads “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. This
belief is often summarized as the universe was built “by design” and not simply
by chance as the big bang theory assumes.
3.3.2 The Basis of Creationism

As mentioned earlier the Bible and the belief that God created the universe is
the core of creationist theory. It is based, in part, on the belief that the Bible is a
factual historic record. The idea is that someone had to put the universe in
motion.
Creationists focus much of their research on disproving the building blocks of

evolution and big bang theories. Creationists believe in a “young earth”. They
believe the earth is approximately 10,000 years old. This age is based on
biblical record and geologic evidence. Creationists use fossils to show the lack
of evolving species claimed by the big bang theory.
Universe expansion is another area which creationists question. The

mainstream scientific community believes that redshift shows that the universe
is continuing to expand. Creationists point out that this expansion contradicts
the law of conservation of energy. Creationists believe if there was a big bang
then the universe should be decelerating rather than accelerating.
3.3.3 Organization of Creationist Research
Page 14
Like the mainstream scientific community creationists follow similar processes

of peer review. There are several major organizations coordinating creation
research. These include Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Center for
Scientific Creation, and the Creation Research Society among others. The ICR,
for example has a staff of over seventy scientists all holding relevant doctorate
degrees from secular universities. These groups publish monthly/quarterly
journals all of which undergo peer review prior to printing.
3.3.4 Sources for further reading
In the box below is a listing of sources used for this section and where you can
obtain additional information about Religious Mainstream Theories.
Sources:
1. Institute for Creation Research: THE CURRENT STATE OF CREATION ASTRONOMY,
DANNY R. FAULKNER, Ph. D.:
http://www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm
2. Center for Scientific Creation:
http://www.creationscience.com/
3. Creation Research Society
http://www.creationresearch.org/
4. Brown, Walt (Ph D.), In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 7th
Ed, 2001.
Page 15
4.0 Non-Mainstream or Substream Theories

In this section we’ll look at some examples of theories that tend to fall into the
category of “non-mainstream”. These theories are those that the scientific
community generally reject or at least do not acknowledge. In some cases these
non-mainstream theories are said to be authored by whackos.
4.1 Example 1—“The Big Bang Never Happened”

This section contains a review of a web site titled “The Big Bang Never
Happened”.
4.1.1 Sample Web Site Content
In the box below is an excerpt from a website. It is intended to show you only a
small clip from the site we reviewed for this particular theorem/idea.
The Big Bang Never Happened

By Eric J. Lerner May 1992 edition; 466 pages
Review by Harald Illig, 1994
The author first describes the Cosmic Tapestry, the structure of the known universe, its
organization. Diagrams and photos make accessible, for example, the scale of stars and their
separation, and that of other objects. Galaxies, groups of stars, belong to Clusters, which in
turn are parts of Superclusters.
Lerner maintains that the Big Bang's parameters are arbitrary, hypothetical entities, such as
are the posited cosmic strings of string theory. They exist just to make things come out right
for the theorists, and that fact contradictory evidence leads him else where -- to a plasma
alternative. Lerner draws heavily on the work of Swedish Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven,
and on his own work, to show that eddies, or vortexes in plasma are sufficient to explain the
genesis of all the observed structure of the universe. The cover of the paper back book
depicts the action of magnetic plasma filaments, which feature prominently on all scales of
the cosmos; the example shown is the center of our very own galaxy, the milky way.
Source:
Internet Site— http://www.nowscape.com/big-bang.htm
4.1.2 Initial Review
Page 16
At first glance, this is just a site to sell a book. It is listed on Crank.net

(http://www.crank.net/bigbang.html) as one of the crankiest sites on the big
bang theory. Lerner mentions Hannes Alfven, a Nobel laureate, but nowhere on
the site is any indication given of whether or not the two have ever
communicated, much less the statement the Hannes agrees with Eric. Name-
dropping. Since Hannes is dead, you cannot ask him if he is a supporter, either.
The theory is not detailed on this site. You are supposed to buy the book.
4.1.3 What others say

http://www.nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm.
BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE 1 William C. Mitchel
(As Published in Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997)
Wait a minute. The same guys that host this site sells Eric’s book. Hmm. They
are probably very impartial marketers. At the end of this article, which I liked,
was this endnote, before a bibliography:
Endnotes
1 much of this paper is from The Cult of the Big Bang (Cosmic Sense Books, 1995, ISBN 0-9643188-0-6)
by the same author. “
Oh, so this guy wants to sell a book, too. Almost all of his references are from
popular science magazines.
http://www.users.fast.net/~aparise/bigbang.html
This is just Anthony Parise’s personal page. He liked the book.
http://www.millennial.org/pubs/ffn/1_5/cosmo.html
The Significance of Cosmology
By Geoffrey McKinley
Vol. 1 No. 5 First Foundation News April 1995
This site is an advocacy site for space colonization. They seem kind of crazy.
They like Eric’s book.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Cosmo/bang.txt
“Victor J. Stenger
Published in Skeptical Inquirer 16, 412, Summer1992.
Victor J. Stenger is professor of physics and astronomy

at the University of Hawaii and the author of _Not by
Page 17
Design: The Origin of the Universe_ (Prometheus Books,

1988) and _Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World
Beyond the Senses_ (Prometheus Books, 1990).”
Victor’s article is a criticism of Eric’s theory. He does not agree with Eric at
all. He is a legitimate authority figure.
http://members.tripod.com/~geobeck/frontier/bbangint.html
George Beckingham.
This is a personal page, which actually explains Eric’s theory.

http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v30n2/aas192/abs/S052006.html
We have correlated infrared fluxes in the IRAS 1.2 Jy Survey Redshift Data (Infrared
Astronomical Satellite), (Fisher et al., 1997) with radio fluxes in the NVSS Source Catalog
(NRAO/VLA Sky Survey), (Condon et al., 1996) in order to see whether the radio absorption by
the intergalactic medium (IGM) claimed by Big Bang critic Eric Lerner actually exists. The
reason that this is important is that the conventional interpretation of the cosmic background
radiation (CBR) as a relic of the Big Bang assumes that the intergalactic medium (IGM) is
highly transparent to radio frequency radiation. We have chosen infrared fluxes for 178 galaxies
selected randomly from 3920 available sources from the 1.2 Jy IRAS catalog. The Infrared flux
interval is from 1.2 Jy to 10 Jy. Their corresponding radio fluxes were taken from the NVSS
source catalog. The analysis of the plot of these two luminosities shows a non-linear correlation
in which the radio luminosity for a given IR luminosity is independent of distance. When a
redshift dependent term is added to this correlation, the improvement in the fit is statistically
insignificant. “
Source:
“N. Molayem, E. Wright (UCLA) [52.06] IR-Radio Correlation Using the NVSS and the 1.2 Jy
IRAS Catalog N. Molayem, E. Wright (UCLA)
This could be a problem. This is an article published by the American

Astronomical society, a presentation that says that one of Eric’s predictions is
correct. He predicted that there is absorption of radio waves, that the ether is
not at all transparent at those frequencies, as CMBR interpreters claim. This
data appears to say that the interpretation that the CMBR is a big bang relic is
completely invalid. This was presented Wednesday, June 10th , 1998, and listed
in the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 1998, Volume 30 # 2
AAS 192nd Meeting, San Diego, CA, June 1998.
Page 18
It turns out that many of these studies have been done, with conflicting results.
Perhaps what is going on here is the “You can prove anything with statistics”
deal.
4.1.4 Analysis
To summarize, this author has 1560 search hits on Google, many supporters, is
listed as a crank by many authorities, and has no other bizarre publications. The
only way you can decide whether or not he is a crank, is to read his theory. This
could be difficult, because he does not post it. You have to pay for the book.
He wins (he gets your money, which may be his only goal, or at least his most
important goal.)
4.2 Example 2— Jean Schneider

This section contains a review of a web site developed by Jean Schneider.
small clip from the site we reviewed for this particular theorem/idea.
Page 19
Cosmology and Big Bang Theory
Present status of the work of Jean Schneider
Astrophysical cosmology
In standard Big Bang theory, the àge' of the universe, measured from a given surface of
constant density or constant temperature, is the same èverywhere', i.e. independant from
the point on that surface from which that age is calculated.
But that is not necessarily the case, and a model is developped in which the age of the
universe is not the same everywhere.
Applications of this idea have been made with M.N. Celerier for two problems: the large
scale heterogeneity of the 3K cosmic black body radiation and the horizon problem.
Further applications are in preparation.
References:
J. Schneider, M. N. Celerier, 1999
Models of Universe with an inhomogeneous Big Bang singularity. II. CMBR dipole
anisotropy as a byproduct of a conic Big Bang singularity.
Astron. & Astrophy., 348, 25
paper
M . N. Celerier, J. Schneider, 1998
A Solution to the Horizon Problem: A Delayed Big-Bang Singularity
Phys.Lett., A249 37-45
paper
Epistemology of cosmology
See the Time page.
References:
La nature n'a pas de passé ni d'origine. Topique no. 73 "A l'origine", 2000 (in French)
L'univers n'a pas d'histoire, le Big Bang n'a jamais eu lieu. (in French)
in proceedings of L'Origine Primordiale. Paris, July 1998. To be published
J. Schneider works on:

Extrasolar Planets and Exobiology
updated every day
Time, Quantum Mechanics and the Mind/Body Problem
updated 10 October 2000
Cosmology
updated 10 October 2000
Source:
Internet Site— http://darc2.obspm.fr/~schneider/cosmo.html
This site starts out sounding like a legitimate site. Then we go to her Time,
Quantum Mechanics and the Mind/Body Problem site.
Page 20
Time, Quantum Mechanics & the Mind-Body Problem
Present status of the work of Jean Schneider
Time:
There is a dimension of time completely left aside by physics: the becoming. Re-analyzed
in modern terms, the becoming is entangled with the production of a sign and it deserves the
name of `semiotic time'. The study of this dimension of time offers an angle to investigate
the Mind-body problem. It reveals that the semiotic time must be discretized.
Quantum Mechanics:
The ìnterpretation' of Quantum Mechanics, i.e. the understanding of the state-vector
collapse in a measurement process, is one of the major scientific problem of our time. The
Semiotic Interpretation of QM pushes further the Von Neumann point of view that
èxperience only makes statements of this type: an observer has made a certain observation;
and never any like this: a physical quantity has [I add: per se] a certain value.)' (Math.
Found. of QM p . 420 Princeton U. Press).
According to this view, the state-vector collapse is not a physical phenomenon, but only the
production of a sign, in the sense of Semiotics (the Science of Signs; see for instance the
work of C.S. Peirce). This production is impersonnal, not issued from some psychological
subject; thus it does not lead to some solipsism (on the contrary, the Subject is an effect of
signs).
The production of a sign always takes some time (see above). Thus the state-vector collapse
cannot be instanteneous, a specific prediction of the present model.
Mind-Body Problem:
On the one hand, Mind is not a substance of some peculiar, subtle, type. It is Ex-pression.
On the other hand, the Body is not some substantial matter. According to the above
interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the properties of the body are the result of state-vector
collapses of several types, i.e. the production of signs. In fact the universe of signs is very
rich: a sign can have a conceptual `value' (like in physics), or, for instance, an affective value
(like in many human behaviors). In the latter case, the Semiotic Interpretation of QM gives
a way to understand how a mental representation can modify the state of the body.
A formal tool: non-stratification
Some of these ideas can hardly be expressed in plain language. A formal tool, sometimes
called `self-referential logic' (Fitch 1974 Elements of Combinatory Logic, Yale Univ.
Press), and which I prefer to call `non-stratification' is used to describe the concepts I have
developed. It makes use of the idea that an item a can be equal to formal relations R[a] of
which a is an element. An account of this tool can be found in some of the papers below.
A first account of this work is published under the title `The Now, Relativity Theory and
Quantum Mechanics' in the book ` Time, Now and Quantum Mechanics ' (M. Bitbol
and E. Ruhnau Eds. ISBN 2-86332-152-8 Editions Frontieres, BP 33, 91192 Gif/Yvette
Cedex, France).
A presentation was made at the Workshop on `Time, Physics and Psycho-analysis' (New-
York, 7 December 1996) ` Time and the Mind/Body Problem: a Quantum Perspective ',
published in American Imago, vol 54, p. 307, 1997.
Papers
La nature n'a pas de passé ni d'origine. Topique no. 73 "A l'origine", 2000 (in French)
L'univers n'a pas d'histoire, le Big Bang n'a jamais eu lieu. (in French)
in proceedings of L'Origine Primordiale. Paris, July 1998. To be published
Time, the mind/body problem and the semiotic state vector collapse in quantum mechanics.
in Toward a Science of Consciousness 1998 "Tucson III" , April 27-May 2, 1998
Time and the Mind/Body Problem: a Quantum Perspective

American Imago, 54, 307, 1997.
La non-stratification (in French)

im La psychanalyse et la reforme de l'entendement
Page 21
im La psychanalyse et la reforme de l'entendement

R. Lew Ed. Editions Lysimaque/College International de Philosophie. p. 147, 1997
The Now, Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics
in Time, Now and Quantum Mechanics
(M. Bitbol and E. Ruhnau Eds. ISBN 2-86332-152-8 Editions Frontieres, BP 33, 91192
Gif/Yvette Cedex, France).1994
Source:
Internet Site— http://darc2.obspm.fr/~schneider/cosmo.html
4.2.2 Analysis
This sounds like complete babbling to me. I hate this stuff. The problem is,
this person is using formal philosophical terminology. They are not making up
words. I hate formal philosophy. Does that make this site a crackpot site? NO!
This is a perfect example of a problem that you must avoid: personal bias that
has nothing to do with the theory. This person turns out to be a legitimate
researcher, whose work is famous and world-renowned, although you do not
recognize the name. Jean is a member of a team that finds extra-solar planets.
So whenever you hear of a new planet being found around another star, you
may actually be hearing about the work the team Jean is on is doing.
4.3 Example 3— Big Bang Philosophy

This section contains a review of a web site developed by Jean-Pierre Burri. The
site is titled “…Big Bang Philosophy”.
small clip from the site we reviewed for this theorem/idea.
Page 22
Welcome to the website of the Big Bang Philosophy

This website is made to exchange ideas about the philosophy of the Big Bang
Jean-Pierre Burri
Geneva, Switzerland.
SUMMARY OF THE BIG BANG PHILOSOPHY
1st hypothesis:
THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE.
The universe, finite and intelligible in all its parts, cannot be infinite and unintelligible in its
whole. It cannot have two completely different natures simultaneously. The infinite is a
philosophical concept of the absolute that does not apply to the universe.
If the universe came into being around 12.000.000.000 years ago, it has not had the time to
become infinite. Limited in time, it is also necessarily limited in space.
If the universe were infinite, it would present particularities so strange as to be absurd. For
example, a human being having a finite number of atoms, in an infinite universe every one
of us would have an infinite number of doubles living in exactly the same conditions as
ourselves. “
Source:
Internet Site— http://www.bigbang.org/~jpburri/
4.3.2 Analysis
This site is fairly easy to judge. This person is babbling. There is a substantial
lack of logic in their statements, right from the start. If you like literature, and
fiction, as entertainment, then you have found a home. I guess I would have to
classify this as science fiction, though.
4.4 Example 4— Pseudo-religious origin of the universe

This section contains a review of a web site titled "Taimat Split" by Iemhetep Si
Ptah.
small clip from the site we reviewed for this theorem/idea.
Page 23
There have been many efforts by scientists and archaeologists to find out the origin of the
universe, and how we came about. How was it created? Were we created, or did we evolve?
A small part of the puzzle has now been solved.
The whole story can be found in the ancient Sumerian tablets called the Enuma Elish. Many
of us have read it, and learned much from it. Yet many call all the Sumerian/Akkadian
writings myths or legends. Although there are people like Zakaria Sitchin and others out to
prove that it is no mere myth or story like the Bible.
Here is an excerpt of the Enuma Elish:
They rejoiced, they proclaimed: ‘Marduk is King!' They invested him with sceptre, throne,
and staff-of-office. They gave him an unfaceable weapon to crush the foe. ‘Go, and cut off
the life of Tiamat! Let the winds bear her blood to us as good news!' The gods his fathers
thus decreed the destiny of the lord And set him on the path of peace and obedience. He
fashioned a bow, designated it as his weapon, Feathered the arrow, set it in the string. He
lifted up a mace and carried it in his right hand, Slung the bow and quiver at his side, Put
lightning in front of him, His body was filled with an ever-blazing flame. He made a net to
encircle Tiamat within it, Marshalled the four winds so that no part of her could escape:
South Wind, North Wind, East Wind, West Wind, The gift of his father Anu, he kept them
close to the net at his side. He created the imhullu-wind (evil wind), the tempest, the
whirlwind, The Four Winds, the Seven Winds, the tornado, the unfaceable facing wind. He
released the winds which he had created, seven of them. They advanced behind him to make
turmoil inside Tiamat. The lord raised the flood-weapon, his great weapon, And mounted
the frightful, unfaceable storm-chariot. He had yoked to it a team of four and had harnessed
to its side ‘Slayer', ‘Pitiless', ‘Racer', and ‘Flyer'; Their lips were drawn back, their teeth
carried poison. They know not exhaustion, they can only devastate. He stationed on his
right Fiercesome Fight and Conflict, On the left Battle to knock down every contender (?).
Clothed in a cloak of awesome armour, His head was crowned with a terrible radiance.
The Lord spread his net and made it encircle her, To her face he dispatched the imhullu-wind
so that she could not close her lips. Fierce winds distended her belly; Her insides were
constipated and she stretched her mouth wide. He shot an arrow which pierced her belly,
Split her down the middle and split her heart, Vanquished her and extinguished her life.
Basic facts extracted from Enuma Elish:
Enuma Elish la nabu shammamu
When in the heights, the sky had not been named
Shapiltu ammamatum shuma la zakraat
And below, the earth had not been created
The storyline is written like it is a great heroic plot. The great God Marduk, the son of the
pure ground, vanquishing his foe Taimat, the maiden of life. He faced this villian and after
the fight split her in two. One part of Taimat he made the Earth and the other was scattered
constellations and comets. Don't read into the Enuma Elish like it is a mythic story, read it
and extract the real facts.
The four winds that Marduk used were either space ships with gravitational forces, or some
gravitational pull beam. The orbit of Taimat and other planets was disturbed, he split Taimat
by going deep inside the core of the Earth. As the Earth split he there was debris and the
earths gravitational pull drew a sattelite/moon. Now I know you are asking yourself, did this
really happen?
Page 24
The story of Isaiah recalled the Priveval days when the might of the LORD(Marduk) cut up
the Haughty One and made the watery one to spin and dried up the waters of Tehom Raba.
Tehom means watery deep, which is close to the word Tiamat. Tehom Raba means great
Tiamat.
Source:
Internet Site— http://free.freespeech.org/aten2000/split.html
4.4.2 Analysis
This site is fairly easy to judge. This person is babbling. There is a substantial
lack of logic in their statements, right from the start. If you like literature, and
fiction, as entertainment, then you have found a home. I guess I would have to
classify this as science fiction, though. Oops, isn’t this the same review as
above? Yep.
5.0 Key Learning
In order to not bore you with too much data, we will attempt to summarize our
research. There are many ways to look at the theories out there. One way is to classify
them. A preliminary classification is as follows: mainstream and non-mainstream. In
the non-mainstream, we found five major types, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-
philosophical, pseudo-religious, fantasy, and sheer babbling. Some examples of each
are:
Pseudo-scientific:
The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric J. Lerner

http://www.nowscape.com/big-bang.htm
There are actually many references to this theory on the web. I will explain below.
Big Bang and Black Hole Are Science-Fiction
http://www.olduniverse.com Hüseyin Yilmaz
Yilmaz says Einstein made many mistakes. There are only two references to this
theory on the web, and the other one is selling a book.
Page 25
Why the Big Bang is Wrong, and the Compton effect, by John Kierein
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG
There are many references to this theory, which I will explain below.
Pseudo-philosophical:
Welcome to the website of the Big Bang Philosophy by Jean-Pierre Burri

http://www.bigbang.org/~jpburri/
Nature of Existence
An ex nihilo theory founded in logic and geometry, derives
the universe as the unique consequence of the impossibility
of a state of nothing (the embodiment of a simple integer count).
http://www.ebtx.com/ by ? (He never gives his name)
I actually like this guy, most of his writing is just common sense, and quite
reasonable. He just isn’t clear on the origin of the universe.
Pseudo-religious:
"Taimat Split" by Iemhetep Si Ptah

http://free.freespeech.org/aten2000/split.html
A summary definition of mainstream

a. Mainstream theories are presented by peer reviewed articles and books,
although the websites are generally not peer-reviewed. This means that major
money is spent on each of these publications. The publisher is willing to have
their name attached to that theory. It is stocked in libraries and bookstores
around the world. Many other people besides the originator present and
publish these theories, often to simplify or teach the theory. These people
write textbooks, popular articles, and websites. Generally they give credit for
the theory to the first person that proposed it. They are also willing to have
their names listed as among those who believe the theory.
b. Mainstream theories are supported by observations, data, and histories. In
astronomy and astrophysics, the data are collected mostly by important
reference instrumentation (telescopes and observatories), which are expensive,
documented, and supported by funding from governments or schools. The
data is available for further analysis and fact checking.
c. Mainstream scientific theories discuss what, when, where, how, why, and
who. What happened, when it happened, where it happened, how it happened,
Page 26
why it happened, and who saw it happen. They mostly involve visible or
measurable things. Most of the details about the theory are logical, sensible,
reasonable, and believable. The theories avoid improvable details.
d. Mainstream theories make predictions which are checked whenever possible.
e. Mainstream scientists look for data that will disprove mainstream theories,
and theorizers accept such critical data. They also look for criticism of their
theory, which they often accept and are willing to discuss, perhaps even
leading to a modification of their theory. In general, mainstream scientists can
be said to be open-minded.
f. The theorist who proposes a mainstream theory does not own it, although the
theory may be named after them. Instead, many others take up the banner and
teach and expand the theory.
g. Mainstream theories are openly criticized and argued. These criticisms take
place in mail, email, newsgroups, classrooms, articles in journals, books, and
anywhere else one or more persons happen to be who are interested in the
theory.
h. In mainstream theories, the data and observations are more important than the
theory. The theory must fit the data and observations. If the theory does not
fit, the theory gets tossed out, not the data.
i. Mainstream sources cite other mainstream sources.
j. Mainstream theories often use technical terminology. This terminology is
explained, possibly in glossaries. If you are not familiar with a term, you can
search for it and find many web references to it, so it will be explained,
although not necessarily understandable. A famous example of a term made
up, and not commonly in use, is ylem, which Gamow named the early hot
matter. I believe this is actually a religious reference. This does not happen
often in scholarly work.
A summary definition of substream

a. Substream theories rarely use peer review. They use pamphlets, emails, web
pages, magazines, even books (science fiction?). An example book would be
Page 27
Chariots of the Gods. Occasionally, the theory will be so spectacular that

many others will gladly carry the banner. These can often be called cults of
followers. But for most theories, other people would rather not have their
name connected with it. Sometimes even the originator stays anonymous.
b. Substream views are rarely supported by data, observations, or histories.
They tend to ignore all current data, work on old data, or are very selective
about the data and studies they use. Or, they fantasize data. They take
information out of context, particularly historical information.
c. Substream views often involve imagined (never seen) gods, aliens, energies,
and incidents. They mostly involve invisible or immeasurable things. Most
of the details about the theory are illogical, insensible, unreasonable, and
unbelievable. The theories often abound in improvable details.
d. Substream theories often make predictions which never come to pass, or are
disproved These are prophecies of the end of the world, the coming of aliens,
a new world or society, new scientific discoveries and inventions. They often
include dates, which pass without incident. The failure of these prophecies
usually has no effect on the theorist. In general, these predictions are rarely if
ever checked.
e. Substream scientists often look for data that will disprove mainstream
theories, but rarely appear to be looking for anything which will disprove their
substream theory. They also do not appear to look for or listen to criticism of
their theory. In general, they appear to be working with blinders, giving them
a severe case of tunnel vision.
f. The theorist who proposes a substream theory owns it. He sometimes does
not put it out except in books that you must buy. Often very few others, if
any, take up the banner and teach and expand the theory.
g. Substream theories are rarely criticized and argued. Most people do not waste
their time on them. The exception is sites that list crank sites and ideas, and a
few sites that critic in detail a few substream ideas. I certainly applaud these
sites, and encourage them to continue in their work.
Page 28
h. In substream views, the theory is far more important than the reality. Any
observations, data, or histories that do not fit the theory are ignored or
ridiculed. If there appears to be a need for observations, data, or histories,
they are invented to fit.
i. Substream theories rarely cite any other sources, except religious ones. They
apparently would not like to share the credit. When they do refer to others,
they pretty much always take things out of context.
j. Substream views are often discussed using invented names and words never
heard before or since. The writer sometimes defines them, although that
definition often does not clarify things. If you search for them on the web,
you will not find other uses of them. An example is ‘neutroid’, which Rufus
names the large neutron star at the center of the galaxy. He apparently is a
member of that group who does not believe in black holes.
(http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/ RUFUS'S GALAXY WEB PAGE, The Steady State Galaxy
Theory, by R. Rufus Young) If you search for it on the web, you will find two
references to him, and some references to a software program named neutroid
2, which has nothing to do with the theorist.
Another way to analyze the substream theories is by the errors they make.
a. Many of them misunderstand the basic concepts of science. Some of them
only misunderstand some subtle concepts. An example is a person who
details Einstein’s theory of the variation of the speed of light, and his own
corrections to Einstein’s theory.
b. Some of them misunderstand or misinterpret data.
c. Some of them misunderstand mathematical methods, make math errors, are
confused, and are too hasty in their work. They do not check their work, do
not put the answers they get back into the equations they used to see if they
make sense. They do not go back up the equation path to see if their
derivation of an equation works.
d. Some of them are being emotional instead of logical. They say obviously
from this, that, when this and that are not even related, or do not follow. An
Page 29
example is found above: “The universe, finite and intelligible in all its parts, cannot be infinite
and unintelligible in its whole.“
e. Some of them are attacking ideas and people. The primary person to attack is
Einstein, and the primary groups attacked are the Big Bang and Inflation
groups.
f. Some of them have no significant connections with planet earth. They operate
in a fantasyland their own making.
A particular detail to stay aware of is that many of the anti-big-bangers have banded
together. Apparently, their theory is that any enemy of their enemy (the big bang,
and inflation) is their friend. Some of these people are:
1. R. Rufus Young (http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/),
2. John Kierein ("Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton
Effect"),
3. Grote Reber ("Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe"),
4. Keith Stein (http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/stein.html)
5. Paul Marmet (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/)
6. Dr. Thomas Van Flandern, http://www.metaresearch.org/
7. Menahem Simhony http://www.word1.co.il/physics/bigbang.html
8. Hannes Alfven http://www-plasma.umd.edu/alfven.html
9. Halton Arp
10. Sir Fred Hoyle
11. Geoffrey Burbidge
12. Vincent Sauvé http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/
Some of them have an official organization:

Natural Philosophy Alliance - Member Web Pages
(http://members.home.net/saiph/mem_pgs.htm)
What this means is that you can get many hits to each of these persons’ ideas,
because they refer to each other. This is a form of citation in imitation of the
scholarly works.
Page 30
Some of these people attempt to do scholarly work, and so they have citations and
references. Often these references turn out to be popular science articles, or other
cult members’ works. Sometimes they cite mainstream scientific works, simply to
show their “errors”, or when they misunderstand them.
So there is a somewhat organized attack on the big bang and inflation theories by
the “wackos”, who I should stop labeling, and just refer to as reality challenged.
There is also a somewhat organized attack on the anti big bangers by many of the
big bang “cultists” (as the anti guys say). Neither of these are productive,
professional, scholarly, or adult methods of behavior.
This does not mean that they get everything wrong, although, in general, they make
at least one major mistake so early on that their whole thought process is skewed.
We always say we should learn from our mistakes, and perhaps it is easier to learn
from the mistakes of others. Many of them have different viewpoints, and perhaps
the different viewpoint could be useful.
6.0 Conclusions
We have seen that throughout history man has made attempts to explain how the
universe came into existence. Many ideas and conjectures have come and gone while
some remain. Throughout the ages many of these ideas have been disproved yet many
continue to undergo scientific investigation. This report has shown mainstream
theories ranging from the big bang to creation. Furthermore it has shown that due to
the existence of increasingly numerous “origin of the universe” theories it is important
that we approach each theory skeptically. We have seen several techniques that can
and should be used when evaluating these theories. It is the hope of the authors that
after you read this report you will carefully examine origin of the universe theories and
apply the techniques we have illustrated as your consider the validly, truthfulness, and
accuracy of each theory.
Page 31
During our investigation of cranks, crackpots, and the web, we first found the official
methods for validating web sources, and modified them to apply to scientific theories.
We then rejected them because they were primarily worried about form and
appearances, not the actual content, the theory. We devised our own methods for
evaluating cranks, and used them for the rest of the paper. When we investigated web
sites, we found some cranks who had terrible form, scholar-wise, and some who had
excellent form. If we had used the official methods, we would not have rejected some
of the crackpots, and we would have rejected some of the good guys.
We found many sites that told how to evaluate crackpots. We found some sites that
analyzed the crackpots for errors. We found many sites that listed great crackpot sites.
We did not use any of these in developing our report. This report started out by saying
that dependence on authorities led to using those authorities’ agendas, priorities, and
biases. So we worked from actual data, the crackpots’ websites. This means that this
report has only our agendas, priorities, and biases.
We did not have the time to actually correspond with the crackpots, or the authorities.
We did not have time to track down and read their books, articles, or mail. This means
that our data came strictly from viewing their websites. Analyzing website presentation
of crackpots (and authorities, to some extent) was the primary goal of this paper, so that
was ok.
Our methods of analyzing the crackpots’ websites were as follows.

• Did they present a coherent theory? Was there a clear and understandable
statement of their theory, including an understandable explanation of all important
details and terminology?
• Was the theory logical and reasonable? Did the theory and explanations make
sense? Did each statement logically follow from the previous? Did they only base
each piece on other pieces that obviously related in a sensible way? (For example,
what is the logic in “The universe, finite and intelligible in all its parts, cannot be infinite and
unintelligible in its whole.”)
Page 32
• Was the theory testable? Was every part of the theory measurable or observable
using current or reasonable future methods and technology? Did any of their
theory rest on unseen, unheard, unfelt, immeasurable, past, unrepeatable, unreal
events or processes (aliens or aether, for example)?
• If testable, had they tested it? Did they have good data to back up their claims?
Were observations or experiments performed and detailed so that others could
easily replicate them?
• Did they have good methodology for obtaining their data? Was their methodology
scientific? Would the methodology stand up under scrutiny?
• Did their theory fit current data? Did they or could they use the data or
observations of others, taken in context, to support their claims?
• Does their theory expand on current theories, making the current theories a subset
of theirs? Or does their theory cover new territory? Does their theory contradict
any current theories, and if so, do they give detailed justification for their
disagreement?
• How free from error is their presentation?
Page 33
Appendix A: Further Reading

We found further web info on crackpots in science, which you should read before you
venture out into the jungle of the web. We also found some good books on the subject of
cranks. Links to them appear below.
Anti-crank science pages:
http://www.randi.org/
James Randi, perhaps the first, and most famous crackpot debunker.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html
Errors in some popular attacks on the Big Bang
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html
Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity
Books on Cranks:
Cranks, Quarks and the Cosmos," by science writer and physicist Jeremy Bernstein
Casti, J.L. (1989). Paradigms lost: Images of man in the mirror of science. New York:
William Morrow.
Carl Sagan The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions
of Our Time by Michael Shermer, Stephen Jay Gould
How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science by Michael Shermer
How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age by Theodore
Schick, Lewis Vaughn (Contributor)
An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural : James
Randi's Decidedly Skeptical Definitions of Alternate Realities by James Randi, Arthur
Charles Clarke (Introduction)
Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions by James Randi, Isaac
Asimov (Designer)
Page 34
The Borderlands of Science by Michael Shermer
Believing in Magic by Stuart A. Vyse
Pseudoscience and the Paranormal by Terence Hines

Good articles on Crackpots:
http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html
Did Einstein cheat?
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1999/08/17/crackpots/
Crackpot authorities
Some of these crackpot raters have quite amusing methods. An example follows.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
THE CRACKPOT INDEX

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.
1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely
accepted real experiment.
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective
keyboards).
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided

(without good evidence).
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of
sanity.
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have
been working on it.
12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking
them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
Page 35
13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in
your theory.
14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is
conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if
this were somehow a point against it.
16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena
correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
17. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special
or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical
mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded
to your past theories.
23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he
or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special
relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics
textbooks.)
26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards
the ideas you now advocate.
27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial
civilization (without good evidence).
28. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers,
or brownshirts.
29. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy"
to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
30. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition
is hard at work on your case, and so on.
Page 36
31. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day
science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about
show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
32. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable
predictions.
URLs to other fun anti-crackpot pages follow.
www.crank.net
http://charlotte.phys.psu.edu/~randy/misc/crackpot/
The CRACKPOT Page
http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper16/16-69.html
http://www.sigfpe.com/Physics/pots.html
Not The Crackpot Files
http://www.e-skeptic.de/
E-Skeptic Archive
http://w4.lns.cornell.edu/~riehle/crank.html
Crank Menagerie
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
SCIENCE HOBBYIST
http://www.complex.is/asylum/
Web crackpots
Crank menagerie
Anders' Mad Scientist Page
The kooks museum
The Anomalist
Anders' Weird Page
Out to Lunch
Gonzo links
Weird Site of the Week
Tweaker's Crank Depot
Page 37
Other guides to High WWWeirdness

The Weird Places On The Net
The CRACKPOT Page
Trism's Links on the Fringe
The Fringes of Reason
Crackpot Alert!
The SPHINX Group -- Alternative Theory Links
Mad Martian: Wonderfully Weird Links!
Jason R. Keyes's Internet Quackery Directory
Kracked Links
Donald Simanek's Page
Point Communications --> The Road Less Traveled
http://www.raw-data.com/crackpot.html
Crackpot Theories
http://www.amasci.com/weird.html
Weird Research, Anomalous Physics
http://space.mit.edu/~pswoj/crackpot/crackpot.html
The Crackpot Page
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5963/theories.html
Crackpot Theories
http://www.bmumford.com/art/index.html
Bryan Mumford, Crackpot Inventor
http://www.alexchiu.com/
Immortality Device
Neodymium Immortality Rings
http://www.geocities.com/clrconnolly/
Crackpot Trivia
http://www.speakeasy.org/~ohh/theories.htm
The Tolkien Crackpot Theories Page
Page 38
Appendix B: More Websites

All the urls were found with Copernic by searching for big bang theory. The search was for
inflation theory, origin of the universe, steady state theory, geometry universe, dark matter, end
of the universe, edge of the universe, infinite universe, and finite universe.
Official:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/big_bang.html
http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/pub/bigbang/part1.html
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry//ask/acosmexp.html
http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo.html
http://www.webservr.com/science/
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/
Expert:
http://www.dcd.net/NBP/hawking_origins.html
http://splorg.org/lectures/dyson.html
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/dyson.txt
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html
College “scientific”
http://www.bowdoin.edu/dept/physics/astro.1997/astro4/bigbang.html
http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/darkmat/bbn.html
http://www.bowdoin.edu/dept/physics/astro.1997/astro4/bigbang.html
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/violence-root.html
http://scruffy.phast.umass.edu/a114/lectures/lec33/node1.html
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html
Popular “scientific”
http://www.bam.ie/bambrat/ubigbang.htm
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/cosm/cosmol.html
http://www.engineeringandphysics.org/big_b.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/starburst_990921.html
http://www.netusa1.net/~kazik/
Scientific LaLas:
http://www.the-origin.org/
Scientific bang problems
http://www.nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm
http://www.nowscape.com/big-bang.htm
Scientific crackpots
http://www.polaris.net/~ksn/
http://www.cosmiccommode.com/
http://sites.netscape.net/drsyedameen1/
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/intellectualsscientificforum
http://www.grandunification.com/hypertext/The_Big_Bang.html
Page 39
http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/LudwigPlutonium/File025.html
http://users.erols.com/sclufer/EmUniv.html
http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/
http://www.fractalcosmology.com/
Menahem Simhony
http://www.word1.co.il/physics/bigbang.html
Mills, Hydrino
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/blacklight_power_000522.html
Kierein:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
Boaz Tibon
http://members.iol.co.il/the_bigbang/index.html
Gene Nutting
http://www.wiredweb.com/~nutting/
(H. Yilmaz and Carol O. Alley)

http://www.olduniverse.com/index.html
Philosipher scientists:
http://www.ebtx.com/
Religious crackpots
http://www.usarc.net/intro.htm
http://www.advantagegod.com/
http://www.cosmologytrust.blogspot.com/
http://5dspace-time.org/Universe-Origins.html
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/cowokev8_intro.cfm/xid,7280/yid,1264908
http://www.concentric.net/~Rcamp/bigbang.htm
http://www.probe.org/docs/origuniv.html
http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2000/09/00128.html
Creationists
http://www.geocities.com/ulrich_utiger/gen11.html
http://www.kiva.net/~kls/
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-216.htm
Wackos.
http://home.swbell.net/kkmartin/index.htm
http://www.christianspiritualism.org/articles/bigbang.htm
Not Yet Classified:

http://redrival.com/reason/index.html. Aetheists and believers discuss both sides
http://www.c-parr.freeserve.co.uk/hcp/collapse.htm
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/rjtiess/theories.htm
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/origin.html
http://www.probe.org/docs/origuniv.html
Page 40
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0741_Origin_of_the_Univer.html
http://free.freespeech.org/aten2000/split.html
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/universe.html
http://members.nbci.com/ahmedbaki/index.htm
http://www.finderscope.com/cosmology/origins.html
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/web/doct-03.html
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/SeedsStructure.html
http://5dspace-time.org/Universe-Origins.html
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/051997spin/051997horgan.html
http://www.myhomepage.net/~sal_pam/origin.html
http://www.livingcosmos.com/
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/origuniv.html
http://www.indiastar.com/closepet5.html
http://www.thinkquest.org/library/lib/site_sum_outside.html?tname=C006238&url=C006238/
http://rvavrick.ne.mediaone.net/ran/creation/
http://members.nbci.com/OriginUnivrs/
http://www.execpc.com/patrickbaker/
http://www.etext.org/Zines/ASCII/HoltzLusiNation/holtz/Thoughts/
http://www.hatem.com/science.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/7730/Evolution/index.html
http://www.unification.net/1996/960801.html
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/
http://www.schoolofwisdom.com/cosmo.html
http://ktm.kaist.ac.kr/~racs/links/cs/cspaper/RTB-paper/papers/quantumgrav.html
http://www.spaceviews.com/1998/01/15l.html
http://igpp-sw.ucsd.edu/
above was search for: origin universe
below was search for: “end of the universe”
http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9701/15/end.universe/
Page 41
http://physics.about.com/science/physics/library/weekly/aa012001a.htm
http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/apr99/924092257.As.r.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/end.html
following is results of search on: inflation theory universe
http://3w.ltc.edu.tw/~albert/inflationary.htm
http://2think.org/tiu.shtml
http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Planck/report/redbook/142.htm
http://exmormon.org/boards/honestboard/messages/2746.html
http://bluegrass.rs.itd.umich.edu/~xuex/cosmo.txt
http://bustard.phys.nd.edu/Phys171/lectures/inflation.html
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~jcohn/inflation.html
http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/darkmat/inflation.html
http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/GlossaryF_J.htm
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/010510/dasi.shtml
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/inflation.html
http://dhushara.tripod.com/book/quantcos/inf/inflat.htm
http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm
below was search for: geometry universe
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/debate/debate98.html
http://www.thinkquest.org/library/lib/site_sum_outside.html?tname=2647&url=2647/geometry/glossary.htm
http://members.tripod.com/noneuclidean/applications.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~syncad/
http://deep.ucolick.org/overview/geometry.html
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/oir/Research/supernova/HighZ.html
http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Cosmology.html
http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/courses/astro201/geometry.htm
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html
http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/courses/astro201/top_cosmology.htm
http://blueox.uoregon.edu/~karen/astro123/lectures/lec13.html
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/pbourke/geometry/
below was search for: edge universe:
Page 42
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry//ask/a11246.html
http://http.hq.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-1995/pr-11-95.html
http://www.mightywords.com/browse/details_bc05.jsp?sku=MWW4J6&privateLabel=false
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/5662.html
http://universe.sonoma.edu/activities/no_edges.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/853695834.As.r.html
http://www.hia.nrc.ca/STAFF/jpv/magnet/
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/cmbr_anis.html
http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/classroom/activity1.html
http://www.universetoday.com/
http://www.earthmatrix.com/ancient/pi.htm
http://www.spacetoday.org/About/About.html
http://www.uq.net.au/~zzmwhybi/Drivel/Infinite.html
http://www.mebbs.com/tenny/rabidingo/lastchnc.htm
http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/broadcast/trans1.html
below was search for: infinite universe
http://www.everythingforever.com/index.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~pnhaseman/
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/new91/randuniv.html
http://www.everythingforever.com/intro.htm
http://www.geocities.com/m_l_perez/QuantumPhysics.html
http://www.magi.com/~lstewart/ipreview.html
below was search for: finite universe
http://www.sciam.com/1999/0499issue/0499weeks.html
http://www.bartleby.com/173/31.html
http://www.novan.com/galaxies.htm
http://www.fm/7-sphere/finite.htm
http://www.ams.org/new-in-math/mathnews/universe.html
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/nas_neg/index.html
Page 43
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10694.html
http://www.kitada.com/time/199904/0142.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~chris.davison/
http://www.udel.edu/mvb/PS146htm/146noov.html
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s05/p3900.html
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~mackie/royal_society/nzst_article/universe.htm
http://darc.obspm.fr/~luminet/etopo.html
http://www.creationists.org/universeisfinite.html
http://www.bomis.com/rings/Mastronomy-cosmology -science/37
http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/cosmo.html
http://www.teleport.com/~rhett/quantum-d/posts/mkafatos_3-15-96.html
http://www.kitada.com/time/199904/0133.html
http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/cosmo.html
http://www.khouse.org/articles/biblestudy/biblecodes.html
http://www.kchisos.com/infinity.htm
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug97/866554631.Ph.q.html
http://www.gsu.edu/other/timeline/cosmo.html
http://www.libertyjoe.com/gutframe.html
below was search for: steady state theory universe
http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/Note/Kagaku/E/kag102_teijou_e.html
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/davidelm/steady.htm
http://www.ccsbbs.com/users/taeksoon/universe/cosmos.htm
http://www.cvil.wustl.edu/~gary/SF/spaldings.html
http://www.necroscope.com/bio/sstheory.html
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/steady.htm
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/study/sci/cosmo/internal/steady.htm
http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/univ_steady.html
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-09/msg0027986.html
Page 44
http://www.crank.net/steady.html
http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/darkmat/cosprinc.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2000/955459987.As.r.html
http://web.syr.edu/~tpjones/PhysicsProject/SteadyState.html
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/parade/lg53/futuuniv.htm
http://scibook.viamall.com/hundowun.html
http://www.csulb.edu/~gordon/bbang.html
http://spacekids.broaddaylight.com/spacekids/FAQ_48_3204.shtm
http://education.vsnl.com/umesh_mitra/
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98/908105709.As.r.html
http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/note/kagaku/E/Kag_e.html
http://www.xrefer.com/entry/492804
http://bustard.phys.nd.edu/Phys171/lectures/cmbr.html
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/Footprints.html
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/5925.html
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma4.htm
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0850109.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm
below was search for: dark matter
http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/0398cosmos/0398rubin.html
http://xrtpub.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter.html
http://www.netlabs.net/hp/tremor/dmatter.html
http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/ukdmc/
http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/darkmat/dm.html
http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm0.html
http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm1.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/darkmatter980507.html
http://www.dmtelescope.org/index.htm
http://www.lps.umontreal.ca/~zacekv/picasso/picasso.html
http://www.space-talk.com/
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9904251
Page 45
http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/group/directdet/pubs/sadoulet_lecture_nov95/dmtoc.html
http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/simulations/DARK_MATTER/
http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/r/e/redingtn/www/netadv/dkmatter.html
http://aci.mta.ca/TheUmbrella/Physics/P3401/Investigations/MassGalaxyDM.html
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/dm20/
http://wwwmacho.mcmaster.ca/
http://www.fyi.net/~henry/writing/darkmatter.html
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2000/split/pnu479-1.htm
http://dir.lycos.com/Science/Physics/Particle/Astro+Particle/Dark+Matter/
http://avmp01.mppmu.mpg.de/cresst/
http://www.lngs.infn.it/lngs/htexts/dama/
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1999/split/pnu446-1.htm
http://www.psg.com/~ted/bcskeptics/ratenq/Re3.3-Dark.html
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Lensing/
http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/DM/
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/physics/physics43/physics43.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~agm/darkmtr.html
http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/darkmat/flowchart.html
http://csep1.phy.ornl.gov/guidry/violence/darkmatter.html
http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/darkmat/essay.html
http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/ukdmc/dark_matter/other_searches.html
http://lyoinfo.in2p3.fr/manoir/web_eng.html
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/introduction/dark_matter.html
below was search for: inflation theory universe
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/inflation.html
http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/Note/Kagaku/E/kag03_e.html
http://www.2think.org/tiu.shtml
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec99/945370741.As.q.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/html/big_bang.html
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1200/n9_v153/20382941/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm
Page 46
http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/04/26d.html
http://spaceassembly.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/inflation_010429.html
http://www.monmouth.com/~snaef/STAR/c15.1.html
http://spaceboy.nasda.go.jp/note/kagaku/E/Kag_e.html
http://members.tripod.com/~woobieman/index.html
http://cfpa.berkeley.edu/darkmat/inflation.html
http://physics.hallym.ac.kr/education/lecture/netadv/cosmo.html
http://jean-luc.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Papers/Tag/anninos91b/anninos91b.html
http://www.findarticles.com/m1200/n9_v153/20382941/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~brookes/html/inflation.html
http://www.jersey.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/apr14/early.html
http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo.html
http://www.findarticles.com/m1202/1_100/62744958/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.kheper.auz.com/cosmos/universe/Inflation.html
http://www.nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm
http://www.onlineastronomy.com/astr162/lect/cosmology/inflation.html
http://3w.ltc.edu.tw/~albert/inflationary.htm
http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Planck/report/redbook/142.htm
http://www.sciam.com/1998/0798issue/0798scicit1.html
http://unisci.com/stories/20012/0430012.htm
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/inflation.html
http://www.oilcity.org/research/unthryu.htm
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~jcohn/inflation.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/980720/20bang.htm
http://www.bizspaceaerospace.com/Maxima.htm
http://www.inasan.rssi.ru/INASAN/JENAM/abstr/prog_s01.html
Page 47

Origin of Univ Theories

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Origin of Univ Theories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Origin of the Universe Theories

Complexity and the Universe II

2.0 Investigating a theory’s validity.

2.1 Theory defined.

Let us start by looking at the dictionaries definition of a theory. Why is this

2.2 Legitimacy of theories

Methods for evaluating legitimacy of theories

vi. Organization and structure

Distinguishing Scholarly Journals from Other Periodicals

Webster’s Third International Dictionary defines scholarly as:

• Substantive is defined as having a solid base, being substantial.

• Sensational is defined as arousing or intending to arouse strong curiosity, interest or reaction.

Examples of Scholarly Journals:

• American Economic Review

• Archives of Sexual Behavior

• JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

• Journal of Marriage and the Family

• Modern Fiction Studies

2.3 Theory analysis techniques

So what is a good way to evaluate a new theory? Is it logical? Is it reasonable?

So what is a useful view to use to decide whether a person is a crackpot or

3.0 Mainstream Theories

3.1 Mainstream Big Bang Theories

3.2 Shortcomings of the “Standard” Cosmology / Big Bang

Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology

1. The flatness problem

2. The horizon problem

3. The density fluctuation problem

4. The dark matter problem

5. The exotic relics problem

6. The thermal state problem

7. The cosmological constant problem

8. The singularity problem

9. The timescale problem

3.3 Mainstream Religious Theory

3.3.1 Creationism in a nutshell

3.3.2 The Basis of Creationism

Creationists focus much of their research on disproving the building blocks of

Universe expansion is another area which creationists question. The

3.3.3 Organization of Creationist Research

Like the mainstream scientific community creationists follow similar processes

3.3.4 Sources for further reading

4.0 Non-Mainstream or Substream Theories

4.1 Example 1—“The Big Bang Never Happened”

4.1.1 Sample Web Site Content

The Big Bang Never Happened

4.1.2 Initial Review

At first glance, this is just a site to sell a book. It is listed on Crank.net

4.1.3 What others say

This is just Anthony Parise’s personal page. He liked the book.

Victor J. Stenger is professor of physics and astronomy

Design: The Origin of the Universe_ (Prometheus Books,

This is a personal page, which actually explains Eric’s theory.

This could be a problem. This is an article published by the American

4.2 Example 2— Jean Schneider

4.2.1 Sample Web Site Content

Cosmology and Big Bang Theory

Present status of the work of Jean Schneider

J. Schneider works on:

Time, Quantum Mechanics & the Mind-Body Problem

Present status of the work of Jean Schneider

Time and the Mind/Body Problem: a Quantum Perspective

La non-stratification (in French)

im La psychanalyse et la reforme de l'entendement