Thursday, December 07, 2006

[OBRL-News-Bulletin] Open Letter to Scientific Community on the Big Bang

Open Letter to Scientific Community on the Big Bang

An interesting approach.  If the same thing was done with respect to orgonomy and Wilhelm Reich, I wonder if it would get so much attention?  J.D.

++++++++

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

An Open Letter to the Scientific  Community
 cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical  entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are  the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between  the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no  other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be  accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the  least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

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

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

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

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

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories  do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their  development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such  questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open  exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could  say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent  are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something  negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that  saying so will cost them their funding.

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

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

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

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

If you want to sign this  statement , please go here:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

__._,_.___
**********

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL:
http://www.orgonelab.org/donation
Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore:
http://www.naturalenergyworks.net
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
Yahoo! Avatars

Face the World

Show your style &

mood in Messenger.

New web site?

Drive traffic now.

Get your business

on Yahoo! search.

Yahoo! Mail

Drag & drop

With the all-new

Yahoo! Mail Beta

.

__,_._,___

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home



-----------------------------------------------------
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

If you find this material of value, please donate to OBRL: http://www.orgonelab.org/donation

Or, purchase books on related subjects from our on-line bookstore: http://www.naturalenergyworks.net

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?