RE: Help !! Doubts about Big Bang
October 6, 2012 at 2:05 pm
(This post was last modified: October 6, 2012 at 2:30 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(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.
