This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
I have taken out the technical stuff, which I struggled to understand and which most of the readers would struggle with. I also took out the religious dimension, I want to discourage that kind of blurring of the line, not encourage it. That left about the right word length. Tell me if there are problems: dj
Big bang theory. By Alan Sparx. It is said that the strength of a scientific theory lies in whether or not it can be used to make predictions. This presents a problem for the Big Bang theory. It is yet to be used to make any successful predictions. The Big Bang theory has received far more than it's share of attention by debaters both within and without science. One thing good scientists learn is to not be too attached to a theory. Even theories that become scientific law may be found wanting for such a minor infraction as not accounting for the perihelion of the planet Mercury. The Big Bang theory has been found wanting for a large number of much more significant reasons. There are a growing number of scientists who are extremely concerned that the peer review system has become nothing more than a conformity check. This does not augur well for the progress of science. Scientists who make discoveries that do not support the current paradigm, are excluded and not given access to reasoned criticism from their peers; they are filtered out. And this applies not just to cosmology and astronomy but most of the sciences and other fields of inquiry; even archaeology does not escape untarnished. Our funding system is in need of a major re-think. The Big Bang was given its name by noted astronomer Fred Hoyle. Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian scientist referred to as father of the Big Bang hypothesis, described his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation" and Hoyle disparagingly gave it the name Big Bang. The argument derived from the so called “Doppler effect”, a phrase coined by Christian Doppler in 1842 for why the pitch of sounds change when the source speeds past an observer (when a train whistle goes past, for example, it changes in pitch). This negan in sound but was soon adapted to light. In 1848, French physicist Hippolyte Fizeau described a Doppler redshift for light. He pointed to the shift in spectral lines seen in stars as being due to the Doppler effect. That effect is now mostly described as redshift. That we can measure the speed of stellar objects moving away from an observer by determining the extent of redshift is unchallenged. As recently as a hundred years ago the view of most, if not all, astronomers was that our Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe and that it was static. But in 1915 Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity, a theory of gravity. Einstein found that his equations did not allow for a static universe unless he inserted a certain constant in the mathematics which became know as the cosmological constant. Then in 1922 the Russian Aleksandr Friedmann (1888 – 1925) found solutions to Einstein's equations which allowed the universe to either expand, contract or be static. When, in1927 Belgian priest/scientist Georges Lemaitre also discovered these solutions, possibly independently, he chose to promote the idea that the universe is expanding rather than static. He put forward his "Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation" which was parodied by Hoyle as
By the 1930s the front page of the New York times stated that we live in an expanding universe though for almost the next 40 years the scientific community remained undecided between the static or the expanding universe. But by the 1960s it was discovered that there were now a large number of objects out there that were not respectably close to the line. They have some very strange properties. By comparison. sometimes referring to as a twentieth century Galileo. which puts it very much further away than the galaxy. He is seen as a hero by many. particularly those with apparent association with Quasars. There is a kind of lemming-like momentum in science faculties today. They certainly did not seem to be galaxies. . the greater the redshift. The most obvious interpretation of this was that the more distant. such as super massive black holes. following the idea that there is only one possible explanation for redshift. on the face of it. and therefore the fainter the galaxy. the American Edwin Hubble made possibly the most important astronomical discovery of the twentieth century: that the shift in the spectra of galaxies is proportional to their apparent brightness. because they appeared to be star like and yet they have more calculated luminance than two trillion stars all together. Yet he is systematically prevented from publishing his results and from having telescope time. then you may have sufficient luminosity. in 1929. who had a PhD from Caltech. a nice straight line with the data respectably close to the line. Big bang and string theory scientists alike are devoted to. Then Quasi Stellar Objects or Quasars were discovered. who died in 1953.000 light-years across whilst Quasars are typically less than one light-year across and often not much larger than our solar system. To continue to insist that Quasars are at the distance suggested by their redshift. The moment one considers other possible explanations then the foundations are shaken and continued funding is likely to not be forthcoming. if we take them to be at the distance the redshift suggests. astronomy and cosmology. our galaxy is 100. with little option but to resign. it must have a different means of creating brightness than the galaxy. If we see near a normal galaxy a Quasar with similar brightness it would be assumed to be the same distance from the observer. So getting all those stars from one hundred galaxies to fit into that rather small space is. astronomers and cosmologists may have taken on the challenge of creating a new theory to account for the different redshifts of Quasars. and yet the only thing we should be able to see at those distances are galaxies. The head of the Californian Institute of Technology”s (Caltech) telescope allocation committee disallowed Arp telescope time for pursuing his interest in peculiar galaxies. Or. Worse. to put it an another way. and get funding for. However. Indeed Quasars. populated the universe. including Hubble himself. Ergo the faster they are moving away from us.the “Big Bang”. it is necessary to contrive a whole new mechanism. Stars become fainter with increasing distance because their energy is spread out over a larger and larger surface. This speculative contrivance is completely un-testable and verges on the metaphysical and theoreticians. yet it has similar brightness to the galaxy. Official photos are routinely cropped to exclude his exciting discoveries. the Quasars will have much greater redshift. They thoroughly defy Hubble's Law and brought with them such anomalous results that Hubble’s law should probably have been de-merited to a theory. These peculiar objects were called Quasi Stellar Objects. This imposition left Arp. no one knew what they were. just not on. According to their redshift distances they must be spectacularly bright. But having witnessed the treatment of one of their colleagues they may now be reluctant. Next. Since the Quasar is much further away. must have a luminosity 2 trillion times that of our sun. The person is the astronomer Halton Arp. To add to the conundrums Quasars are small. Scientists were still finding it a bit hard to come to terms with the idea of galaxies other than our own. This is the name that has stuck. according to its redshift. The interpretation of redshift is the founding premise for a large number of jobs in physics. Hubble created a graph of brightness vs redshift for galaxies. if you took all of the stars of one hundred Milky Way galaxies and crammed them all together.
Yet press releases in Space Telescope Science Institute. its expansion is accelerating. the research arm of NASA's Hubble telescope.and all of this just to support the current interpretation of redshift! Hoyle was very discouraged by this trend and rather cynically said. you're only going to find what you know is already up there. not only is the universe expanding. The Big Bang theory has degenerated into little more than a strongly established prejudice.” followed by the vacuous: “They are separated by time and space.. has a protrusion linking two stellar objects. simply does not exist. It might even be said that cosmology has become not so much a science as a kind of metaphysics. This is not recent. the existence of yet other substances that we cannot find anywhere in the universe: dark energy and dark matter.” In denial of any physical link it was concluded that this was proof there was no contradiction with the current expanding universe paradigm. or perhaps fabricate. the two objects don't even live in the same city.” Scientists these days cling too strongly to ideas they are sure are right and are far too reluctant to consider non-supportive arguments.This is leading to a form of corruption within University campuses. According to the current paradigm. to the extent that departments will issue falsified data. or alter images to convince us that something which has been photographically observed. but it is clearly not how good scientists think. Perhaps it is just human nature. To sustain the argument. stating “. . which was confirmed by Jack Sulentic in the early 1980s. one particular denial has been going on since 1966. presented shallow field images which did not show the link. it is necessary to claim. “Any time you point a new telescope in the sky now. Arp discovered that one galaxy. NGC4319. Dark energy and dark matter are now supposed to comprise 95-96% of the universe -.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.