You are on page 1of 47

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

Origin of the Universe Theories

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 4.2.1 Sample Web Site Content ..................................................................................19 4.2.2 Analysis .............................................................................................................22 4.3 Example 3— Big Bang Philosophy...........................................................................22 4.3.1 Sample Web Site Content ..................................................................................22 4.3.2 Analysis .............................................................................................................23 4.4 Example 4— Pseudo-religious origin of the universe ...............................................23 4.4.1 Sample Web Site Content ..................................................................................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

Origin of the Universe Theories

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

Origin of the Universe Theories

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.


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

The dictionary definition of “theory” (shown below) will be the basis for our use of the term. especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. accuracy-checked. Methods for evaluating legitimacy of theories i. as opposed to practice: “a fine musician who had never studied theory. Abstract reasoning. 6. a conjecture. and methods of analysis.html 2. 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 .” 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. 2. Accuracy • How reliable and free from error is the information? • Has the presentation been fact-checked. http://www. speculation: “a decision based on experience rather than Theory 1. 2000. 3.2 Legitimacy of theories There are many good recourses designed to help readers separate good and accurate information from inaccurate or misinformation. iii.bartleby. 5.Origin of the Universe Theories facts.” A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. equations been checked? • Has the theory been peer reviewed? • • • • • • 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? ii. The two tables below have been adjusted to fit with the analysis of theories. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Source: The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. accepted principles.” An assumption based on limited information or knowledge. 4.

are there blind links. Wolfgram Memorial Library. a textbook.widener.htm Page 6 . 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? 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? 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? Other • How reliable are the links.Origin of the Universe Theories iv. Widener University. or just the headings slides from a presentation? • Is it presented in the form of a news item. technical paper. Currency • Is the content of the work up-to-date? • Is the original publication date clearly indicated? • Is the latest revision date clearly indicated? Coverage • What topics are included in the work? • To what depth are topics explored? • Is the relationship to related theories explained? Organization and structure • Does the text follow basic rules of grammar. as an outline. or an article for a magazine? • Are technical terms explained. spelling and literary composition? • Is there a clear and obvious organization to the presentation? Presentation • Is the information presented completely. vi. viii. or references to sites that have moved? • Is contact information for the author or producer included in the document? x. thesis. or at least work their way through it? • Is the presentation comparable with related sources? • Is the format appropriate? • • • • • 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? v. ix. xii. Source: This a modified version based on the following: “Web Resource Evaluation Techniques” by Jan Alexander & Marsha Ann Tate. xi. or so that any college level student should be able to understand Library/webevaluation/webeval. vii. or expanded in a glossary? • Are equations and other math explained? • Is it written assuming an extensive background in the subject. http://www2.

2) Exhibiting the methods and attitudes of a scholar. Sensational is defined as arousing or intending to arouse strong curiosity. the general criteria are as follows. and 3) Having the manner and appearance of a scholar. http://www. • • • Substantive is defined as having a solid base.cornell. the people at large. Cornell University Many scholarly journals. interest or reaction. Articles are written by a scholar in the field or by someone who has done research in the field.html Page 7 . Scholarly journals always cite their sources in the form of footnotes or bibliographies. being substantial. The language of scholarly journals is that of the discipline covered.library.Origin of the Universe Theories Distinguishing Scholarly Journals from Other Periodicals DEFINITIONS Webster’s Third International Dictionary defines scholarly as: 1) Concerned with academic study. or reflecting the taste and intelligence of. 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. especially research. SCHOLARLY Scholarly journals generally have a sober. Popular means fit for. 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”. It assumes some scholarly background on the part of the reader. are published by a specific professional organization. Keeping these definitions in mind. They often contain many graphs and charts but few glossy pages or exciting pictures. though by no means all. serious look. and realizing that none of the lines drawn between types of journals can ever be totally clear-cut.

and were ridiculed for that belief. They rely on surface appearances and prior authority figures.Origin of the Universe Theories Special Note: Please be aware that we had to correct typos in the above scholarly view. Were the establishment old school authorities right? No. But theories are commonly believed not to be provably true. reasonable. too dogmatic to be able to look at the new idea. Quality evaluation is often lacking. Conversely.. because they need it too much. because those best experienced to do the evaluation are too biased in favor of the old school of thought. the old school will take the “our hero” stance and back it. Were people able to fly? Yes. which merely indicated their inability to prove their theory. Page 8 . many of their attempts to fly were ludicrous. and fights back by suppressing it. The old school is again sometimes too biased to do a good review of the theory. just provably false.3 Theory analysis techniques The previous two summaries of techniques you can use to assess a theory are logical. fitting the current definition of scholarly. Often new theories are proposed that fly in the face of the old school. and ignoring it. Apparently scholarly does not require proofreading. 2. Some people believed it was possible for man to fly. ridiculing it.e. even if it is not a good theory. and biased. Of course. So what does this show? That depending on authorities to decide what you should believe can be a grievous mistake. or supported by data. 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. i. Many currently accepted theories have gone through this battle. Were the lunatics wrong? No. 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. The old school often takes the stance that it is under attack by the new theory. when someone comes up with a new theory that appears to support the old school.

and if their theory is logical and reasonable in its parts as well as its whole. or useful. postulating stage after stage of evolution of the universe. those theories. you may be justified in spending time and effort on it.0 Mainstream Theories Mainstream theories are theories that are held by the authorities in the field. Even in the time of the Greeks. if they make up words or terms which are not commonly used. They are cited in the works of scholars in the field.1 History First we can start with a little history. This Page 9 . Many people and schools are willing to put their name in the public list of those who believe. 3. Every recent civilization or culture has had its theory or theories of the origin of the universe. Some of the modern Big Bang theories go way out on a limb. They are published in peer-reviewed journals. which we will never be able to observe. which the reader can skip without too much loss of understanding.1. and if their theory is stated in current language. That is. Governments are convinced to support these ideas through funding teaching and research in those theories. 3. books.1 Mainstream Big Bang Theories We will endeavor to explore some of current Big Bang theories. but will have mathematical sections. 3. and textbooks. They tend to be presented to the public at large as fact. This section will endeavor to discover and explore some of these problems in this thesis. or at all necessary. perhaps they have a problem. Many of these theories propose time scales that have serious conflicts with current thinking. Much of the discussion will be presented in a non-mathematical language. as well as actively support. most everyone believed that a god or gods had made the universe.Origin of the Universe Theories 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.

general relativity in 1915. 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. infinite. The steady state theories are in this camp. He based his ideas on Alexander Friedmann’s complete solution of Albert Einstein’s relativity equations. proposed the same thing. to the universe. Some of the origins of the universe theories are believed in very strongly. They thought the idea up. A person could lose their life by making claims contrary to this belief. Both thought that the universe was curved. At that time. believe that a supreme being (God) created the earth and the universe. not flat in the Euclidian sense. hyperbolic. So we will try to avoid being dogmatic on these issues. spherical. and expanding forever. in 1927. In 1931 Einstein and William de Sitter proposed a critical density that allowed the universe to be spatially flat and expanding. which Einstein had used to make a steady state universe out of his equations. Lemaitre. and his first cosmological theory in 1917. so much so that their supporters refuse to break with them in spite of strong evidence against their accuracy. Einstein put forth his theory of special relativity in 1905.Origin of the Universe Theories was a religious belief. So Einstein was the source of the big bang. strongly held and defended. or open. there was no evidence for either an expansion. as they call themselves. and would eventually collapse. although infinite. or a hot beginning. Their idea was that the universe was either closed. along with the idea that the universe was expanding. Friedmann put out his solution in 1922. Creationists. Both men discarded Einstein’s cosmological constant. Page 10 . 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.

Hubble stated. Page 11 . which spread out and cooled off. Pg. He also proposed that the universe started out as a very hot (1010 °k) gas. made up of neutrons. Later. Evidence for the hot beginning had been found. in 1946. not actual velocities. This was the first evidence used to support expansion. 106. . This Table is from Joseph Silk. Gamow and Alpher theorized that the universe started out in a fiery explosion. Edwin Hubble proposed in 1929 that the galactic redshift that was observed was proportional to the distance of the galaxies. George Gamow. In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).Origin of the Universe Theories These are the three basic universes of the early big bang theory. which decayed into protons. that the large redshifts observed were apparent velocities. right up until his death. which he called ylem. He and Ralph Alpher theorized in 1948 that all the elements in the universe resulted from early thermonuclear action. electrons. leaving a predicted background radiation. which was not detectable at the time. and neutrinos. coined the term “big bang” for these theories of the start of the universe. It appeared to be isotropic and homogeneous.

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.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.Origin of the Universe Theories All the big bang theories propose a very hot beginning for the universe.000 increase in size.725 °k. a number of unanswered questions remain regarding the initial state of the universe. and Linde estimated the expansion rate as a 101. and the cosmological constant? How did we get galaxies so fast? Why didn’t we just start out as a big black hole? What is this coincidence that Omega just happens to equal 1? 3. The table below outlines the top issues with the inflation theory: 1 2 3 4 5 Will the universe expand forever or collapse? Antigravity.000. The CMBR supports this belief by giving the universe a base temperature. proposed by Alan Guth strengthened the big bang theory. The inflation theory. The table below lists some of the key concerns or shortcomings: Page 12 . currently at 2.

1 Creationism in a nutshell Page 13 . This category consists of theories held by mainstream religious groups.3 Mainstream Religious Theory Another category of origin of the universe theories is what we will call “Religious Mainstream”. The cosmological constant problem Why is the cosmological constant 120 orders of magnitude smaller than naively expected from quantum gravity? 8. 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.neutrons and protons? The singularity problem The cosmological singularity at t=0 is an infinite energy density state. 9. “Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology” from whence did they arise? 4.html 3. The density fluctuation problem The 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 . 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. and exotic particles. so general relativity predicts its own breakdown. Why don't we see them today? 6.Origin of the Universe Theories Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology 1. The exotic relics problem Phase transitions in the early universe inevitably give rise to topological defects. which caused gravitational collapse and the formation of galaxies. Our focus will be on mainstream Christian/Jewish/Catholic/Muslim theories and more specifically Creationism. 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. 3.damtp. 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. such as Magnetic monopoles. must have been primordial in origin. 3.

Creationists. on the belief that the Bible is a factual historic record. Universe expansion is another area which creationists question. Creationists use fossils to show the lack of evolving species claimed by the big bang theory. Creationists believe if there was a big bang then the universe should be decelerating rather than accelerating. as they call themselves. It is based. Creationists believe in a “young earth”.Origin of the Universe Theories 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. They believe the earth is approximately 10.000 years old. Creationists embrace the Bible not only for its religious content but also for its recording of history. in part. 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”. believe that a supreme being (God) created the earth and the universe.3 Organization of Creationist Research Page 14 . Creationists point out that this expansion contradicts the law of conservation of energy. Arguably.3. 3. This age is based on biblical record and geologic evidence. many mainstream scientists also value the Bible for its historical importance. This belief is often summarized as the universe was built “by design” and not simply by chance as the big bang theory assumes. Creationists focus much of their research on disproving the building blocks of evolution and big bang theories. 3. The mainstream scientific community believes that redshift shows that the universe is continuing to expand.2 The Basis of Creationism As mentioned earlier the Bible and the belief that God created the universe is the core of creationist theory. The idea is that someone had to put the universe in motion.3. 4. There are several major organizations coordinating creation research.creationresearch. These groups publish monthly/quarterly journals all of which undergo peer review prior to printing. D. Walt (Ph D. Center for Scientific Creation. Institute for Creation Research: THE CURRENT STATE OF CREATION ASTRONOMY.htm 2. DANNY R. Brown. These include Institute for Creation Research (ICR). 2001. and the Creation Research Society among others. Creation Research Society 3. The ICR.: http://www. Sources: 1.). Page 15 . for example has a staff of over seventy scientists all holding relevant doctorate degrees from secular universities. 7th Ed.3.Origin of the Universe Theories Like the mainstream scientific community creationists follow similar processes of peer review. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. . FAULKNER.creationscience. Ph.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. Center for Scientific Creation: http://www.

Lerner May 1992 edition. and on his own work. Source: Internet Site— http://www.htm 4.Origin of the Universe Theories 4. or vortexes in plasma are sufficient to explain the genesis of all the observed structure of the universe.1. and that fact contradictory evidence leads him else where -. Diagrams and photos make accessible. 4. They exist just to make things come out right for the theorists. the scale of stars and their a plasma alternative.1 Example 1—“The Big Bang Never Happened” This section contains a review of a web site titled “The Big Bang Never Happened”.nowscape. 4. The cover of the paper back book depicts the action of magnetic plasma filaments. belong to Clusters. hypothetical entities. which in turn are parts of Superclusters. the example shown is the center of our very own galaxy.1 Sample Web Site Content In the box below is an excerpt from a website. In some cases these non-mainstream theories are said to be authored by whackos.2 Initial Review Page 16 . Galaxies. such as are the posited cosmic strings of string theory. The Big Bang Never Happened By Eric J. Lerner draws heavily on the work of Swedish Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven. 1994 The author first describes the Cosmic Tapestry. to show that These theories are those that the scientific community generally reject or at least do not acknowledge. the milky way. It is intended to show you only a small clip from the site we reviewed for this particular theorem/idea. the structure of the known universe. its organization. for example.1. which feature prominently on all scales of the cosmos. and that of other objects.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”. 466 pages Review by Harald Illig. Lerner maintains that the Big Bang's parameters are arbitrary. groups of stars.

either. The theory is not detailed on this site. much less the statement the Hannes agrees with Eric. http://www. too. They are probably very impartial marketers. They seem kind of Hmm. You are supposed to buy the book. http://spot. He liked the book.html) as one of the crankiest sites on the big bang theory. Almost all of his references are from popular science magazines. Number 2.colorado.html The Significance of Cosmology By Geoffrey McKinley Vol. 1 No.1. Stenger Published in Skeptical Inquirer 16. which I liked. you cannot ask him if he is a supporter. It is listed on Crank.nowscape. a Nobel laureate. before a bibliography: Endnotes 1 much of this paper is from The Cult of the Big Bang (Cosmic Sense Books.Origin of the Universe Theories At first glance. June 1997) Wait a minute. At the end of this 5 First Foundation News April 1995 This site is an advocacy site for space colonization. 412. 4. this is just a site to sell a book.txt “Victor J. was this endnote. BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE 1 William C. Victor J. Stenger is professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and the author of _Not by Page 17 .htm. Lerner mentions Hannes Alfven.3 What others say http://www. Namedropping.crank. so this guy wants to sell a book. ISBN 0-9643188-0-6) by the same author. Mitchel (As Published in Physics Essays Volume 10. 1995. They like Eric’s book. ( Since Hannes is “ Oh. The same guys that host this site sells Eric’s book. but nowhere on the site is any indication given of whether or not the two have ever communicated.html This is just Anthony Parise’s personal page.

Molayem. This is a personal page. Volume 30 # 2 AAS 192nd Meeting.tripod. He does not agree with Eric at all.06] IR-Radio Correlation Using the NVSS and the 1. that the ether is not at all transparent at those frequencies. San Diego. 1997) with radio fluxes in the NVSS Source Catalog (NRAO/VLA Sky Survey). 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. “ Source: “N. Wright (UCLA) [52. Page 18 .2 Jy IRAS catalog. 1998. Molayem.Origin of the Universe Theories Design: The Origin of the Universe_ (Prometheus Books. This data appears to say that the interpretation that the CMBR is a big bang relic is completely invalid.html We have correlated infrared fluxes in the IRAS 1. the improvement in the fit is statistically insignificant. June 10th . This was presented Wednesday.aas. which actually explains Eric’s theory.2 Jy IRAS Catalog N. (Condon et al. 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.2 Jy Survey Redshift Data (Infrared Astronomical Satellite). This is an article published by the American Astronomical society. He predicted that there is absorption of radio waves. E. as CMBR interpreters claim.html George Beckingham. Wright (UCLA) This could be a problem. Their corresponding radio fluxes were taken from the NVSS source catalog.” Victor’s article is a criticism of Eric’s theory. 1998. E. http://www.. 1988) and _Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World Beyond the Senses_ (Prometheus The Infrared flux interval is from 1. and listed in the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society. He is a legitimate authority figure. June 1998. 1990).2 Jy to 10 Jy.. 1996) in order to see whether the radio absorption by the intergalactic medium (IGM) claimed by Big Bang critic Eric Lerner actually exists. When a redshift dependent term is added to this correlation. a presentation that says that one of Eric’s predictions is correct. We have chosen infrared fluxes for 178 galaxies selected randomly from 3920 available sources from the 1. (Fisher et al. CA.

this author has 1560 search hits on Google.Origin of the Universe Theories It turns out that many of these studies have been done.2. It is intended to show you only a small clip from the site we reviewed for this particular theorem/idea. is listed as a crank by many authorities. which may be his only goal. many supporters. 4. because he does not post it. 4. This could be difficult.2 Example 2— Jean Schneider This section contains a review of a web site developed by Jean Schneider. Perhaps what is going on here is the “You can prove anything with statistics” deal. and has no other bizarre publications. Page 19 . He wins (he gets your money.) 4. The only way you can decide whether or not he is a crank. or at least his most important goal.1 Sample Web Site Content In the box below is an excerpt from a website. is to read his theory. You have to pay for the book.1. with conflicting results.4 Analysis To summarize.

the `age' of the universe.Lett. Quantum Mechanics and the Mind/Body Problem updated 10 October 2000 Cosmology updated 10 October 2000 Source: Internet Site— http://darc2. & Astrophy.Origin of the Universe Theories Cosmology and Big Bang Theory Present status of the work of Jean Schneider Astrophysical cosmology In standard Big Bang theory. Further applications are in preparation.e.obspm. July 1998. CMBR dipole anisotropy as a byproduct of a conic Big Bang singularity. Schneider. A249 37-45 paper Epistemology of cosmology See the Time page. 25 paper M .. independant from the point on that surface from which that age is calculated. II.. Celerier. But that is not necessarily the case. Celerier for two problems: the large scale heterogeneity of the 3K cosmic black body radiation and the horizon problem. and a model is developped in which the age of the universe is not the same everywhere. (in French) in proceedings of L'Origine Primordiale. Applications of this idea have been made with M. Topique no. To be published J. measured from a given surface of constant density or constant temperature. Astron. Paris. 348. Page 20 .html This site starts out sounding like a legitimate site. le Big Bang n'a jamais eu lieu. Schneider works on: Extrasolar Planets and Exobiology updated every day Time. Celerier. 2000 (in French) L'univers n'a pas d'histoire. J. Then we go to her Time. References: J. i. 1999 Models of Universe with an inhomogeneous Big Bang singularity. Schneider. N. is the same `everywhere'. 73 "A l'origine". References: La nature n'a pas de passé ni d'origine.N. 1998 A Solution to the Horizon Problem: A Delayed Big-Bang Singularity Phys. Quantum Mechanics and the Mind/Body Problem site. M.

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. subtle. This production is impersonnal. the understanding of the state-vector collapse in a measurement process. the Semiotic Interpretation of QM gives a way to understand how a mental representation can modify the state of the body. ISBN 2-86332-152-8 Editions Frontieres. It reveals that the semiotic time must be discretized. i. Paris. Found. The production of a sign always takes some time (see above). It makes use of the idea that an item a can be equal to formal relations R[a] of which a is an element. According to this view. A first account of this work is published under the title `The Now. p. Quantum Mechanics: The `interpretation' of Quantum Mechanics. of QM p . Peirce). 1997.Origin of the Universe Theories Time. Mind-Body Problem: On the one hand. According to the above interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. A presentation was made at the Workshop on `Time. the becoming is entangled with the production of a sign and it deserves the name of `semiotic time'. sometimes called `self-referential logic' (Fitch 1974 Elements of Combinatory Logic. an affective value (like in many human behaviors). BP 33. Press).)' (Math. 7 December 1996) ` Time and the Mind/Body Problem: a Quantum Perspective '. Now and Quantum Mechanics ' (M. The study of this dimension of time offers an angle to investigate the Mind-body problem. (in French) in proceedings of L'Origine Primordiale. 2000 (in French) L'univers n'a pas d'histoire. 1998 Time and the Mind/Body Problem: a Quantum Perspective American Imago. Bitbol and E. type. the properties of the body are the result of state-vector collapses of several types. le Big Bang n'a jamais eu lieu. vol 54. 307. To be published Time. published in American Imago. Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics' in the book ` Time. 420 Princeton U.S. not issued from some psychological subject. 91192 Gif/Yvette Cedex. a specific prediction of the present model. It is Ex-pression. thus it does not lead to some solipsism (on the contrary. but only the production of a sign. The Semiotic Interpretation of QM pushes further the Von Neumann point of view that `experience only makes statements of this type: an observer has made a certain observation. A formal tool: non-stratification Some of these ideas can hardly be expressed in plain language. and which I prefer to call `non-stratification' is used to describe the concepts I have developed. 307. Ruhnau Eds. Press). In fact the universe of signs is very rich: a sign can have a conceptual `value' (like in physics). July 1998. Papers La nature n'a pas de passé ni d'origine. 1997. In the latter case. or. Topique no. the Body is not some substantial matter. in the sense of Semiotics (the Science of Signs. see for instance the work of C. 73 "A l'origine". April 27-May 2. the state-vector collapse is not a physical phenomenon. in Toward a Science of Consciousness 1998 "Tucson III" . the production of signs. Thus the state-vector collapse cannot be instanteneous.e. An account of this tool can be found in some of the papers below. is one of the major scientific problem of our time. Yale Univ. the Subject is an effect of signs). 54. A formal tool. Re-analyzed in modern terms. for instance. and never any like this: a physical quantity has [I add: per se] a certain value. i.e. Physics and Psycho-analysis' (NewYork. Mind is not a substance of some peculiar. the mind/body problem and the semiotic state vector collapse in quantum mechanics. France). La non-stratification (in French) im La psychanalyse et la reforme de l'entendement Page 21 . On the other hand.

The problem is. although you do not recognize the name.html 4.3.obspm. Lew Ed.Origin of the Universe Theories im La psychanalyse et la reforme de l'entendement R. p.2 Analysis This sounds like complete babbling to me. I hate this stuff. 4. this person is using formal philosophical terminology. ISBN 2-86332-152-8 Editions Frontieres. It is intended to show you only a small clip from the site we reviewed for this theorem/idea. Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics in Time. This person turns out to be a legitimate researcher.2. BP 33.1994 Source: Internet Site— http://darc2. I hate formal philosophy. They are not making up words. Page 22 . 91192 Gif/Yvette Cedex. 1997 The Now. 147. 4.1 Sample Web Site Content In the box below is an excerpt from a website. Now and Quantum Mechanics (M. Bitbol and E. So whenever you hear of a new planet being found around another whose work is famous and world-renowned. France). Jean is a member of a team that finds extra-solar planets. The site is titled “…Big Bang Philosophy”. Ruhnau Eds. 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. Editions Lysimaque/College International de Philosophie.3 Example 3— Big Bang Philosophy This section contains a review of a web site developed by Jean-Pierre Burri. you may actually be hearing about the work the team Jean is on is doing.

The infinite is a philosophical concept of the absolute that does not apply to the universe.1 Sample Web Site Content In the box below is an excerpt from a website. finite and intelligible in all its parts. Page 23 . It is intended to show you only a small clip from the site we reviewed for this theorem/idea.000.Origin of the Universe Theories 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.2 Analysis This site is fairly easy to judge. it has not had the time to become infinite. SUMMARY OF THE BIG BANG PHILOSOPHY 1st hypothesis: THE UNIVERSE IS FINITE. If the universe came into being around 12. it is also necessarily limited in space. If you like literature.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. 4. and fiction. There is a substantial lack of logic in their statements. For example. in an infinite universe every one of us would have an infinite number of doubles living in exactly the same conditions as ourselves. though.bigbang. 4. Limited in time. right from the start. Switzerland. The universe. This person is babbling.4.3. cannot be infinite and unintelligible in its whole. then you have found a home. a human being having a finite number of atoms. It cannot have two completely different natures simultaneously. “ Source: Internet Site— http://www. I guess I would have to classify this as science fiction.000 years ago.000. If the universe were 4. as entertainment. it would present particularities so strange as to be absurd.

North Wind. the sky had not been named Shapiltu ammamatum shuma la zakraat And below. the son of the pure ground. the unfaceable facing wind. designated it as his weapon. Now I know you are asking yourself. ‘Go. Although there are people like Zakaria Sitchin and others out to prove that it is no mere myth or story like the Bible. or some gravitational pull beam. they proclaimed: ‘Marduk is King!' They invested him with sceptre. ‘Pitiless'. Basic facts extracted from Enuma Elish: Enuma Elish la nabu shammamu When in the heights. Her insides were constipated and she stretched her mouth wide. Don't read into the Enuma Elish like it is a mythic story. vanquishing his foe Taimat. he kept them close to the net at his side. the maiden of life. The Lord spread his net and made it encircle her. 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. The four winds that Marduk used were either space ships with gravitational forces. He shot an arrow which pierced her belly. Put lightning in front of him. the earth had not been created The storyline is written like it is a great heroic plot. they can only devastate. Yet many call all the Sumerian/Akkadian writings myths or legends. the Seven Winds. And mounted the frightful. The whole story can be found in the ancient Sumerian tablets called the Enuma Elish. They gave him an unfaceable weapon to crush the foe. He created the imhullu-wind (evil wind). On the left Battle to knock down every contender (?). he split Taimat by going deep inside the core of the Earth. ‘Racer'. The great God Marduk. To her face he dispatched the imhullu-wind so that she could not close her lips. and how we came about. Many of us have read it. He had yoked to it a team of four and had harnessed to its side ‘Slayer'. How was it created? Were we created. Vanquished her and extinguished her life. did this really happen? Page 24 . He faced this villian and after the fight split her in two. Marshalled the four winds so that no part of her could escape: South Wind. read it and extract the real facts. He made a net to encircle Tiamat within it. his great weapon. Their lips were drawn back. He released the winds which he had created. Here is an excerpt of the Enuma Elish: They rejoiced. the tempest. West Wind. Fierce winds distended her belly. He fashioned a bow. East Wind. and learned much from it. His head was crowned with a terrible radiance. His body was filled with an ever-blazing flame. He lifted up a mace and carried it in his right hand. One part of Taimat he made the Earth and the other was scattered constellations and comets. throne. He stationed on his right Fiercesome Fight and Conflict. Feathered the arrow. They know not exhaustion. or did we evolve? A small part of the puzzle has now been solved. The orbit of Taimat and other planets was disturbed. seven of them.Origin of the Universe Theories There have been many efforts by scientists and archaeologists to find out the origin of the universe. unfaceable storm-chariot. Clothed in a cloak of awesome armour. Slung the bow and quiver at his side. and ‘Flyer'. As the Earth split he there was debris and the earths gravitational pull drew a sattelite/moon. the whirlwind. set it in the string. and staff-of-office. They advanced behind him to make turmoil inside Tiamat. Split her down the middle and split her heart. The gift of his father Anu. The lord raised the flood-weapon. The Four Winds. their teeth carried poison. the tornado.

isn’t this the same review as above? Yep. we found five major Hüseyin Yilmaz Yilmaz says Einstein made many mistakes.nowscape. and sheer babbling. pseudo-scientific. There are many ways to look at the theories out there. This person is There is a substantial lack of logic in their statements.html 4. we will attempt to summarize our research. and the other one is selling a book. Page 25 . There are only two references to this theory on the web. Lerner http://www. Oops. Tehom Raba means great Tiamat. Big Bang and Black Hole Are Science-Fiction http://www.0 Key Learning In order to not bore you with too much data. 5.htm There are actually many references to this theory on the web. Source: Internet Site— http://free. I will explain below. If you like literature. then you have found a home. Tehom means watery deep. though. Some examples of each are: Pseudo-scientific: The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric J. and fiction. as entertainment.olduniverse.2 Analysis This site is fairly easy to judge. right from the start. fantasy. which is close to the word Tiamat.4. In the non-mainstream.Origin of the Universe Theories 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. One way is to classify them. I guess I would have to classify this as science fiction. pseudophilosophical. A preliminary classification is as follows: mainstream and non-mainstream.

where it happened.bigbang. and histories. Mainstream theories are supported by observations. by ? (He never gives his name) I actually like this guy. These people write textbooks. popular articles. He just isn’t clear on the origin of the Pseudo-philosophical: Welcome to the website of the Big Bang Philosophy by Jean-Pierre Burri http://www.html A summary definition of mainstream a. b. documented. This means that major money is spent on each of these publications. often to simplify or teach the theory.angelfire. and who. Mainstream scientific theories discuss Nature of Existence An ex nihilo theory founded in logic and geometry. http://www. Generally they give credit for the theory to the first person that proposed it. Mainstream theories are presented by peer reviewed articles and books. by John Kierein http://www.Origin of the Universe Theories Why the Big Bang is There are many references to this theory. and supported by funding from governments or schools. What happened. when it happened. data. In astronomy and astrophysics. which are expensive. when. although the websites are generally not peer-reviewed. where. The data is available for further analysis and fact checking. how it happened. which I will explain below. Many other people besides the originator present and publish these theories. Pseudo-religious: "Taimat Split" by Iemhetep Si Ptah http://free. the data are collected mostly by important reference instrumentation (telescopes and observatories). how. It is stocked in libraries and bookstores around the world. The publisher is willing to have their name attached to that theory. most of his writing is just common sense. and quite reasonable. and websites.ebtx. Page 26 . derives the universe as the unique consequence of the impossibility of a state of nothing (the embodiment of a simple integer count). and the Compton effect. c. They are also willing to have their names listed as among those who believe the theory.

and not commonly in use. If you are not familiar with a term. These criticisms take place in mail. A summary definition of substream a. This terminology is explained. Most of the details about the theory are logical. If the theory does not fit. is ylem. Mainstream theories are openly criticized and argued. and theorizers accept such critical data. g. i. They also look for criticism of their theory. the data and observations are more important than the theory. A famous example of a term made up. articles in journals. the theory gets tossed out. although not necessarily understandable. In mainstream theories. j.Origin of the Universe Theories why it happened. and who saw it happen. The theories avoid improvable details. perhaps even leading to a modification of their theory. which Gamow named the early hot matter. This does not happen often in scholarly work. The theory must fit the data and observations. so it will be explained. magazines. and anywhere else one or more persons happen to be who are interested in the theory. I believe this is actually a religious reference. e. Mainstream theories make predictions which are checked whenever possible. which they often accept and are willing to discuss. Mainstream theories often use technical terminology. Mainstream sources cite other mainstream sources. email. reasonable. web pages. and believable. newsgroups. The theorist who proposes a mainstream theory does not own it. d. possibly in glossaries. many others take up the banner and teach and expand the theory. Mainstream scientists look for data that will disprove mainstream theories. An example book would be Page 27 . h. f. sensible. Instead. classrooms. not the data. even books (science fiction?). They mostly involve visible or measurable things. mainstream scientists can be said to be open-minded. you can search for it and find many web references to it. Substream theories rarely use peer review. although the theory may be named after them. They use pamphlets. In general. emails. books.

the coming of aliens. Or. energies. or are very selective about the data and studies they use. They tend to ignore all current data. insensible. d. and a few sites that critic in detail a few substream ideas. Most of the details about the theory are illogical. I certainly applaud these sites. the theory will be so spectacular that many others will gladly carry the banner. or histories. and encourage them to continue in their work. Most people do not waste their time on them. In general. The failure of these prophecies usually has no effect on the theorist. Substream views often involve imagined (never seen) gods. but rarely appear to be looking for anything which will disprove their substream theory. new scientific discoveries and inventions. They often include dates. f. work on old data. they appear to be working with blinders. and incidents. unreasonable. The theories often abound in improvable details. He sometimes does not put it out except in books that you must buy. aliens. Substream theories are rarely criticized and argued.Origin of the Universe Theories Chariots of the Gods. and unbelievable. But for most theories. Substream views are rarely supported by data. observations. Page 28 . giving them a severe case of tunnel vision. b. particularly historical information. take up the banner and teach and expand the theory. a new world or society. They take information out of context. Occasionally. These can often be called cults of followers. other people would rather not have their name connected with it. which pass without incident. if any. c. Sometimes even the originator stays anonymous. They mostly involve invisible or immeasurable things. they fantasize data. The exception is sites that list crank sites and ideas. g. or are disproved These are prophecies of the end of the world. Substream theories often make predictions which never come to pass. In general. The theorist who proposes a substream theory owns it. Substream scientists often look for data that will disprove mainstream theories. these predictions are rarely if ever checked. Often very few others. e. They also do not appear to look for or listen to criticism of their theory.

Some of them are being emotional instead of logical. which Rufus names the large neutron star at the center of the galaxy. the theory is far more important than the reality. They say obviously from this. They do not go back up the equation path to see if their derivation of an equation works. by R. An Page 29 . Substream views are often discussed using invented names and words never heard before or since. Rufus Young) If you search for it on the RUFUS'S GALAXY WEB PAGE. j.Origin of the Universe Theories h. Some of them only misunderstand some subtle concepts. data. c. (http://personal. Any observations. d. They do not check their work.nb. The writer sometimes defines them. except religious ones. you will find two references to him. which has nothing to do with the theorist. and some references to a software program named neutroid 2. Substream theories rarely cite any other sources. An example is a person who details Einstein’s theory of the variation of the speed of light. Many of them misunderstand the basic concepts of science. and his own corrections to Einstein’s theory. that. He apparently is a member of that group who does not believe in black holes. When they do refer to others. Some of them misunderstand or misinterpret data. If there appears to be a need for observations. do not put the answers they get back into the equations they used to see if they make sense. you will not find other uses of them. The Steady State Galaxy Theory. b. An example is ‘neutroid’. although that definition often does not clarify things. i. They apparently would not like to share the credit. they are invented to fit. If you search for them on the web. or do not follow. they pretty much always take things out of context. data.nbnet. make math errors. Some of them misunderstand mathematical methods. or histories. and are too hasty in their work. Another way to analyze the substream theories is by the errors they make. or histories that do not fit the theory are ignored or ridiculed. In substream views. when this and that are not even related. are confused. a.

html 8. Keith Stein (http://personal.pacbell.html) 7. Some of them have no significant connections with planet earth.umd. 3.htm) What this means is that you can get many hits to each of these persons’ ideas. John Kierein ("Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect"). f. Vincent Sauvé http://home.Origin of the Universe Theories example is found above: “The universe. their theory is that any enemy of their enemy (the big bang. A particular detail to stay aware of is that many of the anti-big-bangers have banded together. Grote Reber ("Endless.“ e. http://www. Halton Arp 10.nbnet. Paul Marmet ( Page 30 Apparently. Sir Fred Hoyle 11. cannot be infinite and unintelligible in its whole. This is a form of citation in imitation of the scholarly works. because they refer to each other. Boundless.html 9.Member Web Pages (http://members. finite and intelligible in all its parts. Hannes Alfven Some of them have an official organization: Natural Philosophy Alliance .ca/) 6.nbnet.nb. and inflation) is their friend. Some of these people are: 4.metaresearch. Menahem Simhony http://www. Rufus Young (http://personal. Thomas Van Flandern. The primary person to attack is Einstein. and the primary groups attacked are the Big Bang and Inflation groups. Stable Universe"). Some of them are attacking ideas and people. Geoffrey Burbidge 12. 2. They operate in a fantasyland their own

professional. who I should stop labeling. We have seen several techniques that can and should be used when evaluating these theories. and perhaps it is easier to learn from the mistakes of others. or adult methods of behavior. This does not mean that they get everything wrong. Many ideas and conjectures have come and gone while some remain. although. 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. scholarly. and just refer to as reality challenged. and so they have citations and references. 6. or other cult members’ works. they make at least one major mistake so early on that their whole thought process is skewed. Page 31 .0 Conclusions We have seen that throughout history man has made attempts to explain how the universe came into existence. This report has shown mainstream theories ranging from the big bang to creation. So there is a somewhat organized attack on the big bang and inflation theories by the “wackos”. or when they misunderstand them. Many of them have different viewpoints. Sometimes they cite mainstream scientific works. There is also a somewhat organized attack on the anti big bangers by many of the big bang “cultists” (as the anti guys say). simply to show their “errors”. We always say we should learn from our mistakes.Origin of the Universe Theories Some of these people attempt to do scholarly work. and perhaps the different viewpoint could be useful. truthfulness. Often these references turn out to be popular science articles. Throughout the ages many of these ideas have been disproved yet many continue to undergo scientific investigation. Neither of these are productive. in general. 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. and accuracy of each theory.

We then rejected them because they were primarily worried about form and appearances. If we had used the official methods. So we worked from actual data. We found many sites that listed great crackpot sites. the crackpots’ websites. This means that this report has only our agendas. We devised our own methods for evaluating cranks. scholar-wise. articles. Our methods of analyzing the crackpots’ websites were as follows. and biases. we first found the official methods for validating web sources. We did not have the time to actually correspond with the crackpots. we found some cranks who had terrible form. or the authorities. cannot be infinite and unintelligible in its whole. and some who had excellent form. priorities.”) Page 32 . 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. finite and intelligible in all its parts. and biases. We found some sites that analyzed the crackpots for errors. crackpots. and the web. or mail. This report started out by saying that dependence on authorities led to using those authorities’ agendas. the theory. what is the logic in “The universe.Origin of the Universe Theories During our investigation of cranks. and used them for the rest of the paper. We found many sites that told how to evaluate crackpots. • Did they present a coherent theory? Was there a clear and understandable statement of their theory. to some extent) was the primary goal of this paper. We did not use any of these in developing our report. When we investigated web sites. priorities. and we would have rejected some of the good guys. not the actual content. and modified them to apply to scientific theories. we would not have rejected some of the crackpots. We did not have time to track down and read their books. so that was ok. This means that our data came strictly from viewing their websites. Analyzing website presentation of crackpots (and authorities.

immeasurable. unreal events or processes (aliens or aether. past.Origin of the Universe Theories • 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. for example)? • If testable. making the current theories a subset of theirs? Or does their theory cover new territory? Does their theory contradict any current theories. to support their claims? Does their theory expand on current theories. and if so. unheard. unfelt. unrepeatable. do they give detailed justification for their disagreement? • How free from error is their presentation? Page 33 . 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.

html Some Scientifically Inaccurate Claims Concerning Cosmology and Relativity Books on Cranks: Cranks. James Randi.Science as a Candle in the Dark Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience. New York: William Morrow.randi." by science writer and physicist Jeremy Bernstein Casti. which you should read before you venture out into the jungle of the web. Carl Sagan The Demon-Haunted World . and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer. J. We also found some good books on the subject of cranks.Origin of the Universe Theories Appendix A: Further Reading We found further web info on crackpots in science. Quarks and the Cosmos. and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural : James Randi's Decidedly Skeptical Definitions of Alternate Realities by James Randi. Links to them appear below.ucr. Lewis Vaughn (Contributor) An Encyclopedia of Claims.L. Frauds. (1989). and most famous crackpot debunker. perhaps the first. http://www. Anti-crank science pages: http://www.html Errors in some popular attacks on the Big Bang http://math. and Other Delusions by James Randi. Paradigms lost: Images of man in the mirror of ESP. Isaac Asimov (Designer) Page 34 .astro. Arthur Charles Clarke (Introduction) Flim-Flam! Psychics. 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.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be Crackpot authorities Some of these crackpot raters have quite amusing methods. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 9.Origin of the Universe Theories The Borderlands of Science by Michael Shermer Believing in Magic by Stuart A. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it. 2. A -5 point starting 7.html THE CRACKPOT INDEX A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics. 10. 3. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 12. 11. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. 8. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). An example follows. 6. for fear that your ideas will be stolen. Page 35 . as if this were evidence of sanity. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 1. Vyse Pseudoscience and the Paranormal by Terence Hines Good articles on Crackpots: http://www.ucr.html Did Einstein cheat? http://www. "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". 5 points for each mention of "Einstien". 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school.

27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". 25. 24. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory". 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly. 29. suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case.Origin of the Universe Theories 13. (E. or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 30 points for suggesting that Einstein.. or fails to provide a "mechanism". 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. 17. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. Page 36 . it doesn't explain "why" they occur. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. or brownshirts. 19. 28. 15. but my theory is conceptually right. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis. 30. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo.) 26. 18. and so on. 20. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". 23. or suchlike. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).g. as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein. was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. stormtroopers. that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity. 14. so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". 22. 21. in his later years. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame. as if this were somehow a point against it. 16. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

uga.html Not The Crackpot Files http://charlotte.html http://www. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.sigfpe.html Crank Menagerie http://www.Origin of the Universe Theories 31. URLs to other fun anti-crackpot pages The CRACKPOT Page SCIENCE HOBBYIST http://www. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally 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 .edu/itforum/paper16/ E-Skeptic Archive http://w4.lns.complex.) 32.phys.eskimo. present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is.

html Crackpot Theories The Crackpot Page Anomalous Physics Crackpot Trivia http://www. Keyes's Internet Quackery Directory Kracked Links Donald Simanek's Page Point Communications --> The Road Less Traveled http://www.Alternative Theory Links Mad Martian: Wonderfully Weird Links! Jason R.Origin of the Universe Theories 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 -.amasci.speakeasy.geocities.html Crackpot Theories http://www.html Weird Research.alexchiu. Crackpot Inventor http://www.html Bryan Immortality Device Neodymium Immortality Rings http://www.htm The Tolkien Crackpot Theories Page Page 38 .org/~ohh/

end of the and finite http://www. origin of the Popular “scientific” http://www.phast.bigbang.nasa.webservr.1997/astro4/bigbang. dark matter. edge of the universe.grandunification.html Page 39 .net/~ksn/ http://www.html College “scientific” Official: http://map.html geometry Scientific bang problems http://www.htm http://csep10.htm http://itss.html http://www. steady state Expert: http://www.netusa1.the-origin.html The search was for inflation theory.html http://splorg.1997/astro4/bigbang.htm Scientific crackpots http://www.html http://scruffy.html http://www.nowscape.dcd.txt Scientific LaLas: http://www.rl.html http://sites.html http://www.berkeley.Origin of the Universe Theories Appendix B: More Websites All the urls were found with Copernic by searching for big bang theory.gsfc.superstringtheory. infinite http://clubs.html

org/articles/ Alley) http://www.olduniverse. Yilmaz and Carol Boaz Tibon http://members.html http://personal.nbnet.html Mills.html of the Universe Theories http://www.htm http://members.7280/yid. Hydrino http://www.htm Religious crackpots http://www.html http://www.htm Aetheists and believers discuss both sides http://www.htm http://www.html.html Gene Nutting http://www. Menahem Simhony http://www.htm Not Yet Classified: http://redrival.html Kierein: http://www.nbci.html Philosipher scientists: http://www.html Page 40 .org/ Creationists ( http://5dspace-time.html http://www.cfm/xid.

org/deepspace/timeline/index.ucsd.html http://www.html http://www.html http://free.html http://www.hatem.html http://cfa-www.freespeech.execpc.html http://www.html http://www.Origin of the Universe Theories http://forerunner.html http://www.html http://www.html http://www.spaceviews.html?tname=C006238&url=C006238/ http://rvavrick.htm http://www.livingcosmos.uiuc.sprl.universe/ Page 41 .com/cosmology/origins.html above was search for: origin universe below was search for: “end of the universe”

harvard.htm http://deep.html http://casswww.htm below was search for: geometry universe http://antwrp.html http://astro.cornell.ucolick.html http://exmormon.html http://cfa-www.phys.html http://math.susx.tripod.berkeley.ltc.umich.html http://bluegrass.utk.nasa.html http://astrosun.ucr.html?tname=2647&url=2647/geometry/glossary.htm http://dhushara.html http://home.txt http://bustard.htm http://blueox.Origin of the Universe Theories http://physics.itd.html http://astrosun.html following is results of search on: inflation theory universe below was search for: edge universe: Page 42 .edu/courses/astro201/

princeton.html http://www.uq.html http://www.html http://www.htm http://www.pbs.html http://www.html http://www.html http://www.Origin of the Universe Theories http://imagine.sonoma.htm http://www.ams.html below was search for: finite universe http://www.sciam.html Page 43 http://www.htm http://www.magi.html http://www.universetoday.hq.bigbang.geocities.html http://www.damtp.html below was search for: infinite universe http://image.nasa.html

org/articles/biblestudy/ -science/37 http://www.udel.libertyjoe.htm http://www.creationists.Origin of the Universe Theories http://www.html http://www.lns.htm http://www.bomis.btinternet.html http://zebu.wustl.khouse.html http://image.html Page 44 http://www.nb.html http://www.vuw.html http://www.html http://www.html http://www.html below was search for: steady state theory universe http://www.

go.html Page 45 .html http://www.html of the Universe Theories http://www.html http://abcnews.nasda.html http://www.htm http://scibook.html http://web.ncsa.pathlights.html http://www.html http://www.vsnl.madsci.html http://spaceboy.crank.html http://www.dmtelescope.rl.astro.html http://archive.htm http://hepwww.html http://education.html http://www.htm below was search for: dark matter http://www.astro.

berkeley.aip.biols.sciam.html http://spaceboy.go.infn.html http://www.mcmaster.html http://map.html http://www.html below was search for: inflation theory universe http://www.2think.html http://lyoinfo.berkeley.Origin of the Universe Theories http://cfpa.html http://imagine.html http://www.html http://www.html Page 46 .phy.htm

monmouth.html http://www.utk.kheper.usnews.htm http://cfa-www.html http://www.superstringtheory.phys.htm http://www.html http://physics.html http://www.berkeley.esa.htm http://3w.html http://www.uiuc.html http://astro.htm Page 47 http://www.html http://www.htm of the Universe Theories http://cfpa.