Help !! Doubts about Big Bang

[pgrimes15]

I have been reading some of the material about alternative (non-religious) theories of the cosmos and it's left me with doubts regarding the truth of the Big Bang or Standard Cosmological Model. Not being a scientist myself I cannot give an in depth critique of them, but the gist of it is :-

1) Big Bang requires 3 hypothetical entities, cosmic inflation, dark matter, and dark energy, to make it match observations.

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.

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. 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

[popeyespappy]

The reason most but not all scientists like the Big Bang (as modified by inflation and dark matter/energy) model better than the alternatives is it fits the observations better, is used to make more accurate predictions, and raises fewer unanswered questions.

[Reforged]

Its the most plausible theory from the information we have right now and it has its flaws.
There can be no certainty in regards to how the universe came to be with what we've currently got.
For now its just the theory with the most behind it, it is to be tested and observed but not taken as a certainty.

Infact its a huge mistake to put 100% certainty on anything as its always possible new evidence could come to light.

[pgrimes15]

The reason most but not all scientists like the Big Bang (as modified by inflation and dark matter/energy) model better than the alternatives is it fits the observations better, is used to make more accurate predictions, and raises fewer unanswered questions.

Yes but doubters would say it only fits observations because inflation, dark matter/energy have been invented with all the right parameters to make it fit. Dark energy violates one of the best-tested laws of physics the conservation of energy and matter, since it produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothing - that's quite an unanswered question.

Regards

Grimesy

---

In fact its a huge mistake to put 100% certainty on anything as its always possible new evidence could come to light.

Yes I totally agree, but the Standard Model does seem to be at about 99%.

Regards

Grimesy

[popeyespappy]

Yes but things like Plasma theory, VSL and variable gravity are inconsistent with general relativity and other observational evidence. More so than the Big Bang Model.

[pgrimes15]

I completely accept that it fits observations and makes successful predictions, more so than the alternatives so far, but it does seem to enjoy a similar status to the theory of evolution.
Whilst am happy to see evolution get 99% certainty of truth since all the evidence seems to support it and it does not have any equivalent to the inflation/dark matter/energy work arounds, the Big Bang does not feel as though it should to be given anywhere near the same accolade.

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.)

Regards

Grimesy

[Cyberman]

Yes but doubters would say it only fits observations because inflation, dark matter/energy have been invented with all the right parameters to make it fit. Dark energy violates one of the best-tested laws of physics the conservation of energy and matter, since it produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothing - that's quite an unanswered question.

I too used to be of the opinion that dark matter/dark energy seemed to be too much of a convenient prop for the theory; it struck me as too much like the ad hoc 'epicycles' explanation for the discrepancies in the outer planets' orbits. However it appears that evidence for dark matter/energy has been observed - in the case of dark energy, directly:

http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observi...found.aspx

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news...background

http://www.space.com/17133-dark-matter-a...-rays.html

http://www.space.com/14176-dark-matter-b...eiled.html

[Polaris]

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.

[Anomalocaris]

1) Big Bang requires 3 hypothetical entities, cosmic inflation, dark matter, and dark energy, to make it match observations.

No, big bang does not require any of those three things. Big bang simply need the universe to be seen expanding, that's it. If the universe so happen to not have symptomes of inflation, dark matter, and dark energy, it would still have more than enough to support the big bang.

It's like the hypothesis of "you have driven a car" does not require the additional hypothesis "your car had alloy wheels, convertible tops, and a Ford badge" to be true. The latter are refinement of the base hypothesis. But there is enough support for the base hypothesis to be taken to fundamentally true even if the refinement turnout to be flawed.

---

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.

Please shut up. It is tiring to see you make a fool of yourself time and time again.

[Cyberman]

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.