OpenChess

Last night my son and I watched the documentary "Hubble's final frontier". Part of the documentary the subject that Hubble proved the Universe expanding rate is accelerating. That's of course the opposite of what the BB teaches, an explosion after its initial violence only slows down. And so science introduced "dark energy" an unknown new force they know nothing about to explain the inconsistency with the the Big Bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Are scientist suffering from a tunnel-vision to keep the BB theory alive?

Ed

Rebel wrote:Last night my son and I watched the documentary "Hubble's final frontier". Part of the documentary the subject that Hubble proved the Universe expanding rate is accelerating. That's of course the opposite of what the BB teaches, an explosion after its initial violence only slows down. And so science introduced "dark energy" an unknown new force they know nothing about to explain the inconsistency with the the Big Bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Are scientist suffering from a tunnel-vision to keep the BB theory alive?

Ed

The BB is still true, it's just that the accelerant has not finished "burning", as it were -- perhaps from a dimension we cannot yet perceive.

Interesting new study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 212708.htm

Are scientist suffering from a tunnel-vision to keep the BB theory alive?

I think I quoted something from a paper of Salpeter once when debating some point with turbojuice1122 on the RF (he is a physicist). It seems that back in the 40s/50s there was a large chasm between theists and atheists regarding the BB (the atheists didn't like it, as the fact that the universe had to be created caused a worry). The most notable to take up "Einstein's static universe" was Ezra Segal with his cosmic chronology, and he became quite a thorn for the "mainstream" astronomers --- see the paper "Fallacies in astronomy and medicine" http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/68/12/R02 (the main quotation is at the top of page 2750, and Section 3 has more): "This scientific controversy had an unusually strong religious undercurrent, with many agnostic scientists being repelled by the ‘creationism’ of the big bang (even though a few thousand years was replaced by about 10 billion)." One of Segal's favourite rhetorical devices was to belittle the terminology Hubble "constant" (which kinda assumes the BB) as opposed to Hubble "parameter". I don't claim to be sufficiently knowledgeable in the field to say more than this. I was a co-author on a paper once where one of my colleagues wanted to claim that a phenomenon we were observing was "something like physicist's dark matter" [that is, we "know" some object X is present, but we can't really explain it] --- I insisted that we not treat "dark matter" as an established fact, but also cite some work which took up the mantle of promoting an alternative.

<BB (not our forum member) ??>

Do you know by sure? i believe he is the same man!

(if i'm right, hi, BB!)

BB (our forum member) is not Bing Bang.

Ovyron wrote:BB (our forum member) is not Bing Bang.

Oh, I thought we where talking about the Big Bang, not what is going to happen when Microsoft realizes that they can't beat Google.

Peter