8Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksINEU Theory The realistic alternative to the Big Bang Theory By Geoffrey Wynne-Jones
Another theory which debunks the Big Bang fairytale.
January 21st, 2013, 10:22 PM
INEU Theory The realistic alternative to the Big Bang Theory By Geoffrey Wynne-Jones
Another theory which debunks the Big Bang fairytale.
Do we have to have a new thread every time you read something on the internet that you like? Are you going to link to every crank's website?
The first line of that one:
The Big Bang Theory is based on the creation of "all things visible and invisible" and depends on a supernatural beginning.
How can a load of ignorant tosh "debunk" a scientific theory. To falsify a theory requires data and mathematics. I'm sorry, but you are making yourself look very foolish. How can anyone with a basic level of education read more than a couple of paragraphs of this crap you keep posting?Originally Posted by nsbm ranger
He then goes on to say: "it may be loved by creationists."
You would think a theory that could be interpreted as involving a "creation event" would appeal to the religiously minded but the weird thing is, it doesn't. They hate it. I have never really understood why. (Not that I want to know.)
On the other hand, other anti-science crackpots have argued that the theory is part of a religious conspiracy. You can't win.
Last edited by Strange; January 22nd, 2013 at 04:24 AM. Reason: grammar
In pre-internet days the author of this theory would have been forced to stand somewhere such as Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park to 'share' their speculation with the general public. Now they can expose it on a website, blog or forum. In the harsh winter we are currently enduring this would have exposed the author to a severe health risk, with chances of developing hypothermia, breaking bones by falling on ice, or succumbing to viral infections due to a weakened physical condition. We should therefore applaud all those involved in the internet revolution for this significant contribution to the Health and Safety of the intellectually impaired.
Having looked a little further into the linked website in the OP I found several features that cause one to doubt the credentials of the author, but this one in particular I found especially disappointing/unattractive/incompetent.
The author in his references gives this for the original work by Lemaitre that proposed expansion and a 'primeval atom'.
Lemaitre, Georges, Obscure Journal 1927
Obscure journal! His scholarly abilities are such a that a) he thinks such a pathatic reference is acceptable and b) he insults his audience by offering it in this form, and c) he is incapable of locating the reference.
For the record it took me less than 30 seconds to find this publication of the English Translation.
Abbe G. LemaitreA Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulae Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1931 Vol. 91, p.483-490
I needed, horror of horrors, a full two minutes to locate with certainty the original.
Georges Lemaitre, "Un univers de masse constante et de rayon croissant, rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nebuleuses extra-galactiques",Annales de la Societe Scientifique de Bruxelles, 47A, 1927, p49-59
With sloppy scholarship like that I am strongly disinclined to give any consideration to anything the author says.
Any source that uses the terminology "degrees K" deserves suspicion.
You seem to be attacking the author, and that he has made a few spelling mistakes or done his references wrong. He is not a scientist and he admits it, he is not claiming to be. You are actually unable to refute any of his arguments:
INEU Theory
"So everything started with a Big Bang. If there was nothing there, what actually Banged? Do you expect me to believe that?"
"If the edge of the Big Bang horizon is now known to be 13.7 light years away, to the north, the south, the east, the west, up and down then doesn't it mean our Earth is at the centre? Doesn't this takes us back to the geocentric days and a flat earth?"
"If, after the Big Bang, everything was travelling at accelerating speeds away from everything else all on a course away from the origin, then how do you explain galaxies bumping into each other?"
"If the cosmic microwave background radiation is a relic of the Big Bang, why is it still hanging around? It should have spread away from the centre and be way out at the boundary."
While he doesn't claim to be a scientist he IS claiming that he is correct and that actual scientists are all wrong.
How does that work?
"I'm not a scientist so that qualifies my work to be preferred over that of all the people who've spent decades working on the topic"
Presumably you also get your car fixed by the local chiropractor? Or maybe the accountant?
Argument from incredulity. That's guaranteed to workYou are actually unable to refute any of his arguments:
"So everything started with a Big Bang. If there was nothing there, what actually Banged? Do you expect me to believe that?"
What he's failing to ackowledge (or maybe failing to understand) is those figures are for the observable universe. And that that value is true for wherever you stand."If the edge of the Big Bang horizon is now known to be 13.7 light years away, to the north, the south, the east, the west, up and down then doesn't it mean our Earth is at the centre? Doesn't this takes us back to the geocentric days and a flat earth?"
Google, and science, is your friend: mutual gravity can draw galaxies together into a cluster that is several millions of light years across."If, after the Big Bang, everything was travelling at accelerating speeds away from everything else all on a course away from the origin, then how do you explain galaxies bumping into each other?"
Huh? I don't understand the question? We (the material making up the Sun etc) are a relic - why are we still hanging around?"If the cosmic microwave background radiation is a relic of the Big Bang, why is it still hanging around? It should have spread away from the centre and be way out at the boundary."
Let's look at some other "arguments" of his:
Aw, he caught us out. "Still only a theory" - I mean, that worked so well at destroying that stupid "evolution" theory, didn't it? Or maybe he should learn what "theory" really means.The cosmology of the 20th century has become the cosmology of the Big Bang and it is still only a theory.
Utterly false.other possible interpretations of red shifting from distant galaxies have been dismissed peremptorily.
Another outright lie. CMB was predicted (in 1948 with precursors back to at least '41) and discovered 16 years later (Penzias and Wilson - ever heard of them?).The cosmic microwave radiation (CMB) was assumed to be a relic of the Big Bang, then used to prove it, clearly a circular argument.
If the guy wants to be taken seriously as a critic of existing science and have his "scientific" work taken work seriously it really does mean that he should at least know something about the subject.
But, then again, as every crank knows, it's not so much what you know as who you can get to believe your irrational rubbish.
I think D-san has said everything I was going to say.
If you had read a little real science, you should have been able to refute these ignorant and/or strawman arguments yourself. Note that that does not require you to accept the big bang theory as correct but simply to know what the theory actually says. The counter-arguments to this drivel are equally valid even if the big bang theory turns out to be wrong.
But on this one, just in case you are misled or confused by it, it may be worth considering the "surface of last screaming" analogy:
Inflation and the CMB - C.H. Lineweaver
The author of INEU states in his theory that:
But that doesn't explain how the spectrum of the CMB is the most perfect blackbody we have detected in nature. A blackbody spectrum is caused by light that was emitted from a perfect absorber - so cold matter and stars cannot produce a blackbody spectrum.The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is radiation of cold matter and the temperature of starlight at 3 degrees K.
The CMB having a blackbody spectrum is, however, entirely consistent with the Big-Bang model. The CMB was released when the universe first became transparent, around 370,000 years after the Big-Bang. The CMB is the first light that could move freely throughout the universe. Before that time, the universe was a perfect absorber of light.
This is just one of many problems with the authors "theory".
No, not at all. Our observable horizon is only that distance away because that is how long light has had to travel. The whole universe is thought to be many magnitudes larger than our observable volume, but any observer anywhere would measure the distance to the edge of their observable universe to equal the age of the universe, in terms of light travel time.
The expansion was decelerating for the first 7-8 billion years, rather than accelerating. And the rate of expansion is proportional to distance, so whilst objects thousands of light years away might be receding too fast for your local gravity to grab them, the same is not true of the stuff closer to you.
No, because for one thing it was not released until 370,000 years after the Big-Bang, by which time the universe was already pretty large. And for another thing, it was released in all directions. Even as distances increase across the universe, the CMB still comes from all directions towards any observer.
The surface of last screaming is helpful, but I will admit to still getting confused by this stuff. In the analogy, you are standing in an infinite field of screamers, but the universe isn't infinite, right? I know it doesn't have an edge. Should the analogy be that you are standing on a spherical surface covered by screamers?
The field could just be very, very large. And maybe all the people should be running away as well.
It is an analogy. You can extend/modify it to include different details but there is (as always) a limit to how far you can take it.
The two most important things it shows (I think) are why you continue to receive screams (background radiation) and that they come from further and further away (and so, in an expanding universe, will be correspondingly red-shifted). And that that is true for any position in the universe. And ...
Correct. That is exactly what I am doing. Is that fair? This has nothing to do with being fair, this is about probabilities of viable hypotheses.
From experience I have noted, over decades and in several different fields, a close correlation between the validity of a hypothesis and the clarity with which it is communicated. To expand on this particular example, an author who is so sloppy that they cannot take five minutes to locate proper references is likely to be just as sloppy in their interpretation of those references.
But more than that, I sense potential intellectual dishonesty in this matter. If I cite a reference then at the very least I have read the abstract, introduction and conclusions of that paper, and the portion relevant to my argument. If I were to cite references I was unfamiliar with I would essentially be lying to my readers about the depth of my study. If the author of this piece holds to the same standards can you explain to me why they do not have the proper citation? If they are not holding to the same standards would you agree that there is some intellectual dishonesty?
Maybe the author has heard of LeMaitre but never bothered to read his paper or know where it was published. After all, why bother reading it if you have already made you mind up.can you explain to me why they do not have the proper citation?
Exactly, and that would be intellectually dishonest. And I have this strange personality flaw: I don't trust what dishonest people say.
| « GRAVITATION AND ELECTROMAGNETISM | My Big Bang Theory » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
