Can the dust be from within the solar system? Grand Cosmological Claim Crumbles? But even many months after they reported the correction, only 51 of their readers similarly promoted the correction.
More significantly, the gravity wave hysteria also illustrates the lack of predictive value of what is essentially a speculation on top of a speculation, that is, the inflation period of the big bang. Also exposed was the extreme viewpoint bias and gullibility of the scientific community, of the secular media, and of the old earth progressive creationists like at Reasons to Believe, where they are yet to add a caution on what they claim is proof of the non-existent inflationary period.
Worse though than all that gullibility, is the infinite malleability of amorphous theories like biological evolution and like inflation and cosmological evolution. Paul Steinhard wrote in June in another scathing article in Nature.
The professor of physics at Princeton concluded: The common view is that it is a highly predictive theory. If that was the case and detection of gravitational waves was the 'smoking gun' proof of inflation, one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails.
Yet some proponents of inflation How is this possible? No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable. Neil Turok, who once bet Stephen Hawking that gravitational waves would never be detected, also says: Inflation was assumed to address the BB's starlight travel time problem.
Like the starlight and time challenge put to biblical creationists, the big bang has the same problem, known as its horizon problem. Even a billion year old universe is nowhere near old enough to enable the temperature of the background radiation to even out so perfectly. So, just as dark matter was not a prediction of the BB, in , not as a prediction of the big bang, but in an ad hoc, adjusting to the data, dramatic secondary assumption, Alan Guth imagined an inflation period in which space expanded at speeds far greater than the speed of light, to solve the problem of a big bang universe being far too homogenous even temperature to be explained by the most fundamental of the laws of thermodynamics.
So, in addition to inflation gravity wave fiasco as explained just above , the proposed wildly rapid and astoundingly brief expansion of space has no known mechanism that would power and suddenly start the expansion. Also unsolved is the "graceful exit" problem of an equally sudden stop. Yet while this inflation was proposed to account for the smoothness of the universe, apparently, it resulted in a far too smooth universe to enable the formation of stars and galaxies!
Thus, as a dramatic offsetting counter assumption, cosmologists have begun proposing dark matter bubbles to get densities of matter in the midst of all that inflated homogeneity. That is, while inflation was imagined to address the problem of the universe being too homogenous, to solve the exact opposite problem, dark matter bubbles have now been imagined because the extreme evenness of background radiation indicates that the universe was not lumpy enough to naturally form stars.
An expanding universe exacerbates the problem that the laws of physics do not enable the natural formation of stars from gas clouds. So BB cosmologists call again upon the super malleable great-in-a-pinch dark matter to rescue their theory.
It is now claimed that trillions upon trillions of dark matter bubbles DMBs allegedly formed in a just-so arrangement by way of the big bang so that each one would gravitationally attract gas to form the trillions of alleged Population III protostars.
Imagined inflation and DMBs are such dramatic attempts to explain observations which otherwise bluntly falsify the standard model, that one can see that the big bang theory is as pliable as any science fiction holodeck could be.
While most cosmologists reject that God could have created the universe in six literal days, they themselves believe that within 20 minutes of the big bang, all of its matter had been created, via big bang nucleosynthesis BBN. The Planck cosmological parameters paper admits: Observations [sic] of light elements abundances created during big bang nucleosynthesis BBN provided one of the earliest precision tests of cosmology and were critical in establishing the existence of a hot big bang.
Aside from the misuse of the term "observations" to refer to a belief of what happened in the past, note the helpful admission that the alleged elements confirmation was "critical" to acceptance of big bang theory. Before the era of "precision cosmology", long ago in history back to the year , a handful of scientists were determined to state for the record that the big bang theory had not predicted the relative abundances of hydrogen, helium, and lithium.
Rather, they argued, big bang proponents were adjusting the theory's parameters to match already existing observations: But a particular value for the baryon-to-photon ratio needs to be assumed ad hoc to obtain the required abundances.
Also, there are at least hundreds of relevantly degreed scientists who agree and have gone on record stating that the big bang's predictions are instead retrodictions, made by adjusting the theory's parameters to make it agree with observations, regardless of how those observations may change. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters May 22, , New Scientist This observation applies to various predictions of the big bang see above and below.
Initial Lithium Abundances Still a Mess: In , in A Universe from Nothing, Lawrence Krauss references big bang "calculations that so beautifully explain the observed abundance of the light elements hydrogen, helium, and lithium ", yet in two papers, in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society and in Physical Review Letters, report two extreme problems with the lithium prediction, with the lithium-6 prediction off by a thousand fold see below and all lithium isotopes showing a "discrepancy" from "BBN calculations" indicating that "the Li problem seems to be an universal problem, regardless of the parent galaxy" see below.
This is also called the missing baryonic matter problem. Yet the initial density of protons and neutrons in the universe arising out of the Big Bang Where are those particles? It's ironic therefore to hear the repeated claim that the big bang "beautifully" explains the initial abundances, except of course that half of even the predicted normal baryonic matter is missing.
As NASA describes it, "when astronomers use a variety of independent observational techniques to measure what the density of our universe is, the numbers seem to come up short by a factor between two and five. And this is in addition to the dark matter that we haven't been able to find. That is, compared to all the known mass of all the observable gas and stars in all the galaxies, there is that much mass, yet again, that is missing.
Big bang proponents believe that all that matter is lurking out there somewhere. Even in the age of "precision cosmology", the baryon-to-photon ratio is still an estimate based upon cosmological assumptions. To take that Krauss quote above even further, he writes that, "the initial density of protons and neutrons in the universe arising out of the Big Bang [were] determined by fitting to the observed abundance of hydrogen, helium, and lithium" A Universe from Nothing, p. As explained by Dr.
Note that Krauss said the initial baryonic density of the universe has been determined by fitting to the observed abundances of the light elements. What does this mean? Again, the theory itself does not actually specify [predict] the value of nB.
Instead, nB may be chosen so that the abundances of hydrogen and helium that would have been produced in the Big Bang match those actually observed in nature—about 75 percent hydrogen and nearly 25 percent helium These theoretical abundances match the observed abundances fairly well if one chooses nB so that there are roughly two billion photons per baryon in the universe.
This assessment, written in , describes the same circular confirmation as published in Nature in and in the Cosmology Statement in There are an estimated photons per cubic centimeter in the universe.
The baryon-to-photon ratio, previously thought to be about a billion to one, is now believed, in to be about 2 billion photons for each baryon, inferred from something called the angular power spectrum of the CMB.
This is said to be in good agreement with the standard model. As an additional historical example of the big bang theory's pliability, consider hydrogen and helium and notice how parameters have been adjusted historically to keep the theory matching the latest data. The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB universe have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as observed in the real universe.
The estimated ratio is dependent on a ratio of baryons to photons the baryon number that has also been arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently established helium to hydrogen ratio. Let's get a few more historical examples though of how the process has worked, for the pattern continues to this day. Regarding beryllium and boron, after those first 20 minutes of alleged BBN, then allegedly about million years pass until the first stars begin to form.
Twenty years later, reports were still coming in of abundances far out of the predicted ranges. Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers have detected a far greater abundance [by three orders of magnitude] of beryllium atoms than the standard Big Bang model predicts. Five years later another Science News report illustrated the way that the big bang's chemical evolution story is not so much predictive as it is malleable and adjusts to the current data as Walter ReMine said of neo-Darwinism , "Evolutionary theory adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape".
This excerpt, from , is again from Cowen, but the square brackets provide our RSR observations. For decades, big bang theory offered: That finding is at odds with the notion that boron arose from the collision of high-speed protons with heavier elements.
Yes, of course it does. Magnetic monopoles are particles that can be created in the lab that have either a "north" or a "south" but not both. Unlike God's actual creation , the big bang theory claims the temperature was a trillion degrees C in the first second, cooling to a billion degrees after twenty minutes.
If this were true, the initial high temperatures should have created a significant density of monopoles throughout the universe. Yet decades of searching the heavens and the Earth have proved fruitless. With knowledge of the above colossal predictive failures of the big bang and its inflationary theory, the following Wikipedia quote on monopoles approaches the event horizon Cosmological models of the events following the big bang make predictions about what the horizon volume was, which lead to predictions about present-day monopole density.
Early models predicted an enormous density of monopoles, in clear contradiction to the experimental evidence. This was called the "monopole problem". Its widely accepted resolution was not a change in the particle-physics prediction of monopoles, but rather in the cosmological models used to infer their present-day density. Specifically, more recent theories of cosmic inflation drastically reduce the predicted number of magnetic monopoles, to a density small enough to make it unsurprising that humans have never seen one.
This resolution of the "monopole problem" was regarded as a success of cosmic inflation theory. The introduction to Wikipedia's Physical cosmology article states regarding the "standard model of cosmology" that "This model requires the universe to contain large amounts of dark matter and dark energy whose nature is currently not well understood, but the model gives detailed predictions which are in excellent agreement with many diverse observations.
Should this phrase be removed: Secondly, because dark matter and dark entities are hypothetical entities introduced specifically to explain such observations, of course they will agree with those observations.
Thus, just as Wikipedia is designed to prevent circularity in its own editing i. Physics World editor, Hamish Johnston answers: The BBN model predicts that lithium-6 should account for about two out of every , lithium nuclei in "metal-poor" stars, which are believed to be among the first stars to have formed and so should reflect the composition of the early universe.
This lithium-6 problem adds yet another piece of rsr. That's backwards of course. If the big bang theory were true and stars were billions of years old, then there should be four times as much 7Li to start with, plus billions of years of additional 7Li made by stellar nucleosynthesis. In , after 30 years of wrestling with this problem, as phys. Mystery over apparent dearth of lithium 7 in universe deepens: And now, new research has deepened the mystery further by finding that the amount of lithium 7 in the path between us and a very young star aligns with would have been expected shortly after the Big Bang, but doesn't take into account the creation of new amounts since that time.
The traditional cosmological lithium problem is that, regardless of isotopes, the amount of observed lithium where theory attributes it to the big bang itself is inconsistent with big bang nucleosynthesis BBN. Earlier, a secondary assumption was that the inconsistency was possibly a "local problem", perhaps only manifesting itself in our own or similar galaxies.
So the authors asked: The analysis of the RGB stars in M54 confirms the findings in?