|
Hi Robert
I am not a fan of the big bang either.
The first observation of an expanding universe was drawn upon to propose that the observed expansion could be extrapolated back to a "point" or I expect the "cosmic egg" that the Church seemed to be considering borrowing from the various pagan and other cosmologies that presented such in their attempts to explain creation.
And yet the observed expansion never could be extrapolated to a point when you consider that much later the theory of inflation was "invented" to get the theory over an annoying hurdle that failure to jump would see its demise.
So it seems to me that the only observational evidence is the background radiation which is supportive however it is not evidence that the theory of inflation has any footing.
And I find it simply impossible to accept what it tells us...I can not believe that the universe went from the size of a basket ball (perhaps) to certainly the size of the observable universe or larger in a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second...that is an extrodinary claim and frankly I would expect that to buy the idea one could expect to require extrodinary evidence well past calculations that say that such was possible and in fact did occure.
Scientific theories require predictions to be validated.
As you observe this is not entirely the case...and I can add to that...the prediction of lighter elements falls down due to the observed absence of lithium. ..I have read a paper which basically sais...the litium was there but by such and such a process is now not there☺.
I sometimes wonder if the observed expansion tells the correct story...there was the tired light idea which suggets the expansion is not in fact occuring but that idea is seen as impossible...well if it turns out there is no expansion the cosmic egg idea must fail.
Personaly I dont like that the theory hints at creation whilst protesting that it does not deal with the creation of the universe but merely its evolution...original opponents to the big bang felt it was a mere religious ploy and given its creator U dont see such as unreasonable irrespective of being justified or not.
However steady staters have been sidelined ... I think the universe must be eternal simply because not to think such means one must take a point where there was nothing and things started from there...I cant believe that is possible and even the big bang theory, although hinting at such a situation, deals with something..a hot dense simething but a something nevertheless...so where did the hot dense something come from..if always there the universe can only be considered eternal.
Alex
|