(October 6, 2012 at 1:49 pm)Polaris Wrote: Big Bang Theory requires acceptance of super-inflation, which breaks the Theory of Relativity in that the universe expanded significantly faster than the speed of light.

No.

Relativity applies to motion of objects within spacetime, not expansion of spacetime.

(October 5, 2012 at 4:14 pm)pgrimes15 Wrote: My problem is that, whilst I have generally been happy to defer to the scientific experts in areas like evolution or geology, the notion that the "community" of scientific cosmologists is behave like a priesthood is in my brain and I can't shift it. It has got to the point where I cannot even read articles in, say, Scientific American that begin with an assumption that the Big Bang is cut and dried, signed sealed and delivered as the truth. In particular, the criticism of inflation, dark matter and dark energy as being ad-hoc work-arounds has struck home with me.

Pleae help !! I feel like a god-botherer who is having faith issues !!

Regards

Grimesy

Sorry I can't help you here because I feel similarly. In addition to what you point out there has seemed to be a kind of perverse glee in making statements about the limits of space and the origins of time which strike me as overly sensational. It sometimes seems to me that certain people glom onto these bits with the same enthusiasm that leads conspiracy theorists to prefer the outlandish scenario.

(October 5, 2012 at 4:14 pm)pgrimes15 Wrote: 2) The whole theory has evolved as the result of an interpretation of cosmic red shift as being caused by the doppler effect, when this has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, and there are other mechanisms that could explain it like the Compton effect.

Compton effect might explain increasing redshift with increasing appearent distance. but it can not explain the difference in observed metallicity of the source stars with increasing redshift, which could only be explained by big bang nuclear synthesis.

---

(October 5, 2012 at 4:14 pm)pgrimes15 Wrote: 3) There are alternatives which explain observations to some degree, like Modified Newtonian Dynamics or the plasma universe model which are not getting the attention they deserve because of the scientific hierarchy which discourages non-mainstream studies. (the mainstream being Big Bang)

These are not my views but the consensus of (non-religious) Big Bang doubters as far as I have been able to assess them.

My problem is that, whilst I have generally been happy to defer to the scientific experts in areas like evolution or geology, the notion that the "community" of scientific cosmologists is behave like a priesthood is in my brain and I can't shift it. energy as being ad-hoc work-arounds has struck home with me.



Regards

Grimesy

Why are you more qualified to judge than the scientific community that these theory are deserving of attention?

Why is it contingent upon the scientific community to dumb down science to suit your understanding and not the other way around?

---

(October 5, 2012 at 5:04 pm)pgrimes15 Wrote: Apart from anything else, a different model of the universe may put a stop to those tiresome Cosmological Arguments for the existence of god. (Everything that starts to exist has a cause etc.)

Whether it is "putting a stop to tiresome cosmological argument for god" is not a criteria for assessing the merit of any model of the universe.

Support for/against "god" is an interpretation for the output, not a criteria for judging the input or the structure of a scientific theory. Theory stands and falls on the quality of input and the soundness of the structure, not what is done with the output.

(October 6, 2012 at 2:05 pm)Chuck Wrote: Why are you more qualified to judge than the scientific community that these theory are deserving of attention?

I'm not, as I made clear in my posts.

(October 6, 2012 at 2:05 pm)Chuck Wrote: Why is it contingent upon the scientific community to dumb down science to suit your understanding and not the other way around?

Don't think I said or implied anything of the sort.

Well as the old creed of the Hashashyun went; "nothing is true, everything is permitted."

Certainty is never certain.

(October 6, 2012 at 2:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: There is no "super-inflation"; there is only inflation. The actual Big Bang part is fairly well established; the CMB is direct evidence. That Special or General (I forget which) Relativity breaks down under such conditions is not only to be expected, it is even predicted by the Theory itself.

It's general relativity.
Special relativity only handles the part where mass depends on the speed of the object.... and also gave us E=mc^2, where this m= m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and m0 is the mass at rest, v is the mass' velocity, c is the sped of light.
The general relativity is the one that shows space-time bending due to the gravitational field.

(October 6, 2012 at 1:49 pm)Polaris Wrote: Big Bang Theory requires acceptance of super-inflation, which breaks the Theory of Relativity in that the universe expanded significantly faster than the speed of light.

which theory of relativity?

(October 6, 2012 at 4:59 pm)pocaracas Wrote: It's general relativity.
Special relativity only handles the part where mass depends on the speed of the object.... and also gave us E=mc^2, where this m= m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and m0 is the mass at rest, v is the mass' velocity, c is the sped of light.
The general relativity is the one that shows space-time bending due to the gravitational field.

Cheers; I always get those two mixed up. Relatively speaking, that is.

(October 6, 2012 at 5:15 pm)5thHorseman Wrote:

(October 6, 2012 at 1:49 pm)Polaris Wrote: Big Bang Theory requires acceptance of super-inflation, which breaks the Theory of Relativity in that the universe expanded significantly faster than the speed of light.

which theory of relativity?

Indeed - there's the famous two of Einstein's, Special and General, and then there's Galileo's Principle of Relativity, from which Einstein's Special Theory was devised. Galileo's Principle - also known as Galilean Invariance - states, basically, that to an observer inside a sealed vessel (ship. aircraft, spacecraft etc) with no windows or some other way of seeing outside, there is no way of knowing whether the vessel is moving or at rest, relative to its surroundings.

There is actually a fine example of Galileo's Principle in, of all things, the James Bond film The Man With The Golden Gun. The Bond girl du jour, Mary Goodnight (Britt Ekland) is locked in the boot - trunk if you like - of the villainous assassin Scaramanga's (Christopher Lee) car, which at some point in the obligatory car chase enters a hangar and comes out fitted with wings and then takes off like an aeroplane. Goodnight is in radio contact with Bond throughout and once the car has taken flight, she radioes back that she thinks they've stopped and decides to open the lid to climb out - whereupon she realises just where she is. In other words, she has up to that point had no way of determining whether the car is moving or not; since the car is no longer in contact with the road and there are no bumps being transmitted through the suspension, all is as smooth as it would be if the car was parked.

This may be an outsider's perspective, so take it with as many grains of salt as necessary. I think it's something of a dirty secret, and in some quarters even denied, that engaging in science requires making judgements that aren't fully rooted in observation and model. But this is not the judgement of two yokels arguing in a bar about a Supreme Court decision, it's more like the judgement of your auto mechanic, who, after years of experience and training, is able to make (educated) guesses as to what is wrong with your car. His guesses may not always be right, and some may disagree with him, but you have to make some guess in order to proceed with further diagnosis and eventual repair. So what I'd suggest is, that the general consensus on the big bang model reflects everyone with the expertise to do so, making their own "guesses" and out of that, a consensus emerges simply because of the number of scientists who endorse the guess marked "the big bang theory." Other scientists may guess differently. That's a good thing about science, you can have a plurality of views without anyone being burned at the stake. Just because that is the consensus doesn't mean it's right, but for those who have some confidence in those guesses (not necessarily belief or certainty, just confidence), it makes sense to say, "Let's start with this as a given, and see what tests and observations we need to flesh out our understanding." If you're lost in the desert, you have to pick a direction to go, and just start walking. This is a necessity if you want to get back to civilization. The scientist's guess about which way to go may indeed be wrong, but we have to pick a direction and go. Otherwise we'll die in the desert. That doesn't make those scientists going in a direction a bad thing. Perhaps the only problem here is to simplify things, and pretend that science doesn't involve judgement and uncertainty. There is a tendency to make science "appear" more certain than it is, among professionals, media, populizers, and even the public; it's a part of the political nature of the human endeavor called science, perhaps. I know that happens, though I doubt it's intentional. It just happens.

For what it's worth in today's free market economy. Void where prohibited by law.

(October 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm)apophenia Wrote: a consensus emerges simply because of the number of scientists who endorse the guess marked "the big bang theory.

Are you suggesting that is what is happening now?