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
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
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Edward Gibbon
