The Big Bang
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
"Believe" is the wrong word.The idea emerges as a possibility from the equations, that's all, but so do other things, like the Big Bang being a quantum tunneling event from another universe, or a random quantum fluctuation, or a rebound from a Big Crunch in a previous universe, or the other side of a black hole in another universe... And there's a sort of tongue-in-cheek principle in theoretical physics to the effect that anything not forbidden is compulsory, so whatever the laws of nature allow has to happen eventually.
I posted a review on Amazon a few years ago about a book called The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner.. I haven't changed my opinion in support of the skepticism. It stems from the same root as AGW, and is an example of the dissolution of Western Science into occult superstition.
The Big Bang has gained a reputation of invincibility. It has become in the last 40 years a central pillar of scientific orthodoxy. It is the modern creation myth. The vehicle, however, is in constant need of shoring up and bailing out as its original intuitive simplicity is stoved in. Missing links, large and small, abound. Increasingly eccentric views of the architecture are pronounced to compensate for rips and gaps in the sciences needed to support it. New subatomic 'dimensions' are casually added, the noetic ether of superstrings, to accommodate an evermore insubstantial construct.
Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, undefined and unconstrained by understood natural properties, are imposed to compensate for disequilibriums that have developed in the standard model. Time has lost its contingency as to 'direction' or spatial integrity. . Structural beams such as the primacy of light speed are tossed to notions of 'inflation' to account for the universe's 'lumpiness'. Uncertainty, entropy and 'consciousness' form an occult ethos of blind acceptance in respected scientific circles. All has become a magical superstructure understood within a closely held cryptography. Lerner's engaging critique is a colloquial history of the Big Bang, related to the societal and scientific cultures that spawned it. He argues the apprehension of the infinite universe, an anathema to the Big Bang, is directly related to an era's technological vigour.
The pervasive current in modern cosmology is that of its growing alienation from observable experiment. 'Experiments' conducted at the limits of conjectural horizons can produce only attributed results. Every 'finding' or anomaly must be insinuated into the grand master plan, geometrically complicating its conceptual foundation. By necessity, then, the test of validity becomes credulity, consonant with the scientist's rank in the priestly hierarchy, rather than by scientific method. A spectral edifice is the result, integrated into an understanding which relies on symbolic consistency rather than physical verification. Lerner notes that forces of electromagnetism and plasma physics provide a much more accessible explanation for the universe's large scale structure, using the pioneering theories of Hannes Alfven's filamentary universe. This takes the altogether reasonable route of explaining events of the past in terms of processes visible today. These, however, are so much less portentous and profound than a primal mythical singularity..
It is difficult to come up with one constructive industrial application that has been developed from contemporary cosmology beyond those based on the state of atomic science as at the end of Second World War. Its realms are now remote, exotic mathematics, far too refined and theologically pleasing than to be subjected to standards of empiricism or function. Unanchored by technological progress science loses its fundamental inspiration. One harkens back to Oswald Spengler's 'Decline of The West', where he predicted all sciences in late stage civilization would converge into number forms, abandon their proofs and utilities, and manifest boundless belief systems.
A vast academic bureaucracy, tenure, life works, Nobel prizes, research grants are now totally invested in the Big Bang. The current drift in the intellectual tides seems destined to continue along with public fascination. Lerner's contribution is in reasserting a healthy skepticism and proposing some realistic alternatives. Scientific paradigms have been fiercely defended throughout history, but have also been subjected to recurrent revolutions as their focus becomes more inward and aesthetic than useful.
The Big Bang has gained a reputation of invincibility. It has become in the last 40 years a central pillar of scientific orthodoxy. It is the modern creation myth. The vehicle, however, is in constant need of shoring up and bailing out as its original intuitive simplicity is stoved in. Missing links, large and small, abound. Increasingly eccentric views of the architecture are pronounced to compensate for rips and gaps in the sciences needed to support it. New subatomic 'dimensions' are casually added, the noetic ether of superstrings, to accommodate an evermore insubstantial construct.
Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, undefined and unconstrained by understood natural properties, are imposed to compensate for disequilibriums that have developed in the standard model. Time has lost its contingency as to 'direction' or spatial integrity. . Structural beams such as the primacy of light speed are tossed to notions of 'inflation' to account for the universe's 'lumpiness'. Uncertainty, entropy and 'consciousness' form an occult ethos of blind acceptance in respected scientific circles. All has become a magical superstructure understood within a closely held cryptography. Lerner's engaging critique is a colloquial history of the Big Bang, related to the societal and scientific cultures that spawned it. He argues the apprehension of the infinite universe, an anathema to the Big Bang, is directly related to an era's technological vigour.
The pervasive current in modern cosmology is that of its growing alienation from observable experiment. 'Experiments' conducted at the limits of conjectural horizons can produce only attributed results. Every 'finding' or anomaly must be insinuated into the grand master plan, geometrically complicating its conceptual foundation. By necessity, then, the test of validity becomes credulity, consonant with the scientist's rank in the priestly hierarchy, rather than by scientific method. A spectral edifice is the result, integrated into an understanding which relies on symbolic consistency rather than physical verification. Lerner notes that forces of electromagnetism and plasma physics provide a much more accessible explanation for the universe's large scale structure, using the pioneering theories of Hannes Alfven's filamentary universe. This takes the altogether reasonable route of explaining events of the past in terms of processes visible today. These, however, are so much less portentous and profound than a primal mythical singularity..
It is difficult to come up with one constructive industrial application that has been developed from contemporary cosmology beyond those based on the state of atomic science as at the end of Second World War. Its realms are now remote, exotic mathematics, far too refined and theologically pleasing than to be subjected to standards of empiricism or function. Unanchored by technological progress science loses its fundamental inspiration. One harkens back to Oswald Spengler's 'Decline of The West', where he predicted all sciences in late stage civilization would converge into number forms, abandon their proofs and utilities, and manifest boundless belief systems.
A vast academic bureaucracy, tenure, life works, Nobel prizes, research grants are now totally invested in the Big Bang. The current drift in the intellectual tides seems destined to continue along with public fascination. Lerner's contribution is in reasserting a healthy skepticism and proposing some realistic alternatives. Scientific paradigms have been fiercely defended throughout history, but have also been subjected to recurrent revolutions as their focus becomes more inward and aesthetic than useful.
Last edited:
Tool Kit,,,Astronomy Instruments
#1 eyes
#2 hands
#3 mind
#4 parchment
#5 writing sticks
#6 math
#7 ideas
#8 beer
#1 eyes
#2 hands
#3 mind
#4 parchment
#5 writing sticks
#6 math
#7 ideas
#8 beer
#9 Ice
It's a head-scratcher for us mere mortals but that's where faith comes into the picture.
And what it really means is that you're content with not understanding and not knowing. That doesn't work for all of us.
I am quite at peace with my beliefs, as you are with yours.
Does it really matter that we have differing beliefs?
- Takes Truth and Proof the Prove the Truth; believe what you will; you are entitled to/by your Opinion.
- If there is no God; 1 will be created. Then we will know for sure, there is 1.
OR...If there is, No 1, 1 will be created. Then we will know for sure, that there is 1( + or - 3
)...Is better than nothin'.
- It's called Particle Physics; by the hand of God.
- Everything is Energy and InFormation; the Rest, Recyclable.
- Whatdya get when ya Drive Somethin' the Speed of Light into a Black Hole?
A BIG BANG BABY!....Bwua HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ha Ha ha ha .....ha...ummm ummm...Sorry.
---------------------------
Scientists love their Science. Mother Nature holds her Mysteries close...God knows for sure; but he/It s ain't, tellin no secrets.
- If there is no God; 1 will be created. Then we will know for sure, there is 1.
OR...If there is, No 1, 1 will be created. Then we will know for sure, that there is 1( + or - 3
)...Is better than nothin'.- It's called Particle Physics; by the hand of God.
- Everything is Energy and InFormation; the Rest, Recyclable.
- Whatdya get when ya Drive Somethin' the Speed of Light into a Black Hole?
A BIG BANG BABY!....Bwua HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ha Ha ha ha .....ha...ummm ummm...Sorry.
---------------------------
Scientists love their Science. Mother Nature holds her Mysteries close...God knows for sure; but he/It s ain't, tellin no secrets.
Last edited:
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that because it all boils down to an individual's choice of outlook/perspective.
In the OP I mention how little we know
Another point would be not noting what is right before our eyes.
Recently a new knee ligament was discovered. How many surgeons, how many autopsies, how man scans, how much study, and poof, well guys we got us a new knee ligament
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...new-knee-ligament/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Last month, knee surgeons from the University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium announced that they had found a new knee ligament, one that had not previously been specifically identified despite untold numbers of past knee dissections and scans. This surprising announcement, in The Journal of Anatomy, should improve our understanding of how the knee works and why some knee surgeries disappoint and also underscores the continually astonishing complexity of human anatomy.
To find and characterize this new knee part, the orthopedic surgeons Dr. Steven Claes and Dr. Johann Bellemans and their colleagues gathered 41 knee joints from human cadavers and began minutely dissecting them.
The knee, as those of us who own and operate a pair know, is complicated and somewhat fragile, an intricate construction of bones, cartilage, fluids, ligaments (which attach bones to bones) and tendons (which attach muscles to bones). Ideally, the various parts move together smoothly, but they can tear, rupture or fracture if the knee abruptly twists or overpivots. Knee injuries and pain drive millions of people to doctors every year and result in millions of knee exams, scans and surgeries.
But knee specialists themselves have long been less sanguine. As far back as 1879, a French surgeon named Paul Segond first speculated that, in addition to the four obvious structural knee ligaments known then — the anterior cruciate, medial collateral, posterior cruciate and lateral collateral, which loop around and through the joint — other ligaments must exist in the knee or it would not be stable. He wrote that during dissections he had noticed a “pearly, resistant fibrous band” originating at the outside, front portion of the thighbone and continuing to the shinbone, which, in his estimation, must stabilize the outer part of the knee, preventing it from collapsing inward.
Another point would be not noting what is right before our eyes.
Recently a new knee ligament was discovered. How many surgeons, how many autopsies, how man scans, how much study, and poof, well guys we got us a new knee ligament
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...new-knee-ligament/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Last month, knee surgeons from the University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium announced that they had found a new knee ligament, one that had not previously been specifically identified despite untold numbers of past knee dissections and scans. This surprising announcement, in The Journal of Anatomy, should improve our understanding of how the knee works and why some knee surgeries disappoint and also underscores the continually astonishing complexity of human anatomy.
To find and characterize this new knee part, the orthopedic surgeons Dr. Steven Claes and Dr. Johann Bellemans and their colleagues gathered 41 knee joints from human cadavers and began minutely dissecting them.
The knee, as those of us who own and operate a pair know, is complicated and somewhat fragile, an intricate construction of bones, cartilage, fluids, ligaments (which attach bones to bones) and tendons (which attach muscles to bones). Ideally, the various parts move together smoothly, but they can tear, rupture or fracture if the knee abruptly twists or overpivots. Knee injuries and pain drive millions of people to doctors every year and result in millions of knee exams, scans and surgeries.
But knee specialists themselves have long been less sanguine. As far back as 1879, a French surgeon named Paul Segond first speculated that, in addition to the four obvious structural knee ligaments known then — the anterior cruciate, medial collateral, posterior cruciate and lateral collateral, which loop around and through the joint — other ligaments must exist in the knee or it would not be stable. He wrote that during dissections he had noticed a “pearly, resistant fibrous band” originating at the outside, front portion of the thighbone and continuing to the shinbone, which, in his estimation, must stabilize the outer part of the knee, preventing it from collapsing inward.
I'm of two minds on that one. On the one hand there is simply no excuse for judging someones personal choices simply because they don't conform with your own. But on the other hand, I suppose if one were truly convinced of a singular right path and truly wished to help others, then I can understand trying to convey that and convince others. I think maybe there's just a fine line between informing and intruding when it comes to these matters. The ability to employ tact comes in handy.
I'm somewhat cynical and most definitely a very skeptical person myself. But sometimes I do think the world would be a far sadder place were it not for those who see things not as they are but as they should be. I agree it takes strength of character to accept the realities of life and deal with them head on, but the flip side of that is there has to be some measure of strength in those who can see past it as well.
Basically I just think we all have a role to play and we each have to play to our personal strengths.
Fool's Gold
All that Glitters, is Not Gold.
Gold, is not God; Is not the Sun.?
(Nah...It's Just Shiny; Fool!)
All that Glitters, is Not Gold.
Gold, is not God; Is not the Sun.?
(Nah...It's Just Shiny; Fool!
)