Cosmology heretics - Lots of 'em!

[mtburr]

Greetings:

I ran across this today. Sorry if it's a duplicative post, but I thought it was appropriate in the wake of John Dobson's recent visit.

Apparently last spring a group of physicists and researchers sent a letter to the editors of Nature Magazine (which refused to publish it), identifying the same kinds of "fudge" in the Big Bang theory that John discusses. (In fact they actually use the word "fudge." ) Later the letter was published in New Scientist. I've pasted the text below, but you can find it on the web here:

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Here's a thought-provoking sentence from the letter, that I'm quite sure would make Dobson smile:
"The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles."

If John Dobson's ideas are quackery, then it appears that a significant number of physicists are beginning to waddle along with him.

Regards,
MTB
----------------------------------------
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Signed:
(Institutions for identification only)
Highlighted names are linked to related web pages

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA) ................................................. 10
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France) ........................ 20
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA) .................................................................... 30
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

New signers of the Open letter since publication

Scientists and Engineers

Garth A Barber, independent researcher, UK
Martin John Baker, Loretto School Musselburgh, UK
Peter J Carroll, Psychonaut Institute, UK
Roger Y. Gouin, Ecole Superieure d'Electricite, France
John Murray, Sunyata Composite Ltd, UK
Jonathan Chambers, University of Sheffield, UK ................................................................. 40
Michel A. Duguay, Laval University, Canada
Qi Pan, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK
Fred Rost, University of NSW (Emeritus), Australia
Louis Hissink, Consulting Geologist, Australia
Hetu Sheth, Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
Lassi Hyvärinen, IBM(Ret), France
Max Whisson, University of Melbourne, Australia
R.S.Griffiths, CADAS, UK
Adolf Muenker, Brane Industries, USA
Emre Isik Akdeniz University Turkey .................................. 50
Felipe de Oliveira Alves, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud, Service d'Astrophysique, CEA, France
Kim George, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research, USA
Doneley Watson, IBM (ret.), USA
Fred Alan Wolf, Have Brains / Will Travel, USA
Robert Wood, IEEE, Canada
D. W. Harris, L-3 Communications, USA
Eugene Sittampalam, Engineering consultant, Sri Lanka
Joseph.B. Krieger, Brooklyn College, CUNY, USA ............................................................ 60
Pablo Vasquez, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
Peter F. Richiuso, NASA, KSC, USA
Roger A. Rydin, University of Virginia (Emeritus), USA
Stefan Rydstrom, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Sylvan J. Hotch, The MITRE Corporation (Retired), USA
Thomas R. Love, CSU Dominguez Hills, USA
Andrew Coles, Embedded Systems, USA
Eit Gaastra, infinite universe researcher, The Netherlands
Franco Selleri, Università di Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica, Italy
Gerald Pease, The Aerospace Corporation, USA .............................................................. 70
S.N. Arteha, Space Research Institute, Russia
Miroslaw Kozlowski, Warsaw University (emeritus), Poland
John Hartnett, School of Physics, University of Western Australia, Australia
Robert Zubrin, Pioneer Astronautics, USA
Tibor Gasparik, SUNY at Stony Brook, USA
Alexandre Losev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
Henry Hall, University of Manchester, UK
José da Silva, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Markus Rohner, Griesser AG, Switzerland
William C. Mitchell, Institute for Advanced Cosmological Studies, USA ............................. 80
Aurea Garcia-Rissmann, UFSC, Brazil
Cristian R. Ghezzi, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil
Daniel Nicolato Epitácio Pereira, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Gregory M. Salyards, US Naval Sea Systems Command (ret.), USA
Joseph A. Rybczyk, Independent Researcher, USA
Luiz Carlos Jafelice, Federal University of the Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
Michael Sosteric, Athabasca University, Canada
Steven Langley Guy, University of Elizabeth (Physics Department), Australia
Robert Fritzius, Shade Tree Physics, USA
Irineu Gomes Varella, Escola Municipal de Astrofísica, Brazil ............................................... 90
Luiz Carlos Barbosa, Unicamp, Brazil
Mauro Cosentino, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Moacir Lacerda, Univeersidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
Roberto Assumpcao, PUC Minas, Brazil
Roberto Lopes Parra, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Ronaldo Junio Camppos Batista, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Ermenegildo Caccese, University of Basilicata, Italy
Felipe Sofia Zanuzzo, Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil
Edival de Morais, Sociedade Brasileira de Física, Brazil
Graham Coupe, KAZ Technology Services, Australia ....................................................... 100
Richard Wayte, independent researcher, UK
Tom Walther, Southern Cross University Australia , Australia
Antonio Cleiton, Laboratório de Sistemas Complexos - UFPI, Brazil
Sergey Karpov, L.V.Kirensky Institute of Physics Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Wagner Patrick Junqueira de Souza Coelho Nicácio, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Sokolov Vladimir, Special Astrophysical Observatory of RAS, Russia
Edwin G. Schasteen, TAP-TEN Research Foundation International, USA
Gerry Zeitlin, openseti.org, USA
Henry H. Bauer, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, USA
Yasha Fard,H.R. Cosmology Institute, Canada .................................................................. 110
Gordon Petrie, High Altitude Observatory, NCAR, USA,
Jose B. Almeida, University of Minho, Portugal,
G.Srinivasan, Independent_Researcher, India,
David Blackford, Independent_Researcher, UK
Henry Reynolds, UC Santa Cruz, USA,
Alberto Bolognesi, Independent Researcher, Italy
Paramahamsa Tewari, Nuclear Power Corporation (ret.),India
Jouko Seppänen, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland,
Dr. Robert Bennett, Kolbe Center, USA,
Hilton Ratcliffe, Astronomical Society of South Africa, South Africa ....................................... 120
Roberto Caimmi, Astronomy Department, Padua University, Italy
Tobias Keller, ETH (SFIT) Zurich, Earth Sciences, Switzerland,
Deborah Foch, Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence, USA,
Cristiane Ribeiro Bernardes, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Eric Blievernicht. TRW, USA
Arkadiusz Jadczyk, International Institute of Mathematical Physics, Lithuania
DEAN L MAMAS, Independent Researcher, USA
Jean de Pontcharra, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, France
Gerardus D. Bouw, Baldwin-Wallace College, USA
Harold E. Puthoff, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, USA. .......................................... 130
Nainan. K. Varghese, Independent Researcher, India,
Andrew Kulikovsky, Independent Researcher, Australia
Alan Rees, Independent Researcher, Sweden
Wieslaw Sztumski, Silesian University, Poland
Lars Wåhlin,Colutron Research Corporation,USA
Udayan Chakravarty, Independent Researcher, India
Georg Gane, Independent Researcher, Germany
Robin Whittle, Independent Researcher, Australi,
Riccardo Scarpa, European Southern Observatory, Italy,
Olivier Marco, European Southern Observatory, France .................................................. 140
Joseph Garcia, International Radiation Protection, Germany,
Josef Lutz, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany,
Nigel Edwards, Independent Researcher, Australia
Hermann Dürkop, Nabla Systemberatung, Germany,
Klaus Fischer, Universität Trier, Germany,
Dieter Schumacher, Independent Researcher, Germany
Rudolf Kiesslinger, Independent Researcher, Germany
Werner Holzmüller, University Leipzig, Germany
Gerd Schulte, Independent Researcher, Germany
Stuart Eves, Independent Researcher, UK .................................................................... 150
Sol Aisenberg, International Technology Group, USA
Hartmut Warm, Independent Researcher, Germany
Richard Gancarczyk, University of Nottingham, UK
Steve Humphry, Murdoch University, Australia
Alberto Bolognesi, Università di Perugia, Italy
Aaron Hill, Independent Researcher, USA,
Daniele Carosati, Armenzano Observatory, Italy
Brendan Dean, H.R. Cosmology Institute, Canada
W. Jim Jastrzebski, Warsaw University, Poland
Hans-Dieter Radecke, Independent Researcher, Germany .............................................. 160
Gero Rupprecht, European Southern Observatory, Germany
Rainer Herrmann TEWS-Elektronik Germany
Mawell P Davis Independent Researcher New Zealand
Felix Pharand University of Montreal Canada
Gordon E. Mackay Independent Researcher USA
Jerry Bergman Northwest State University USA
Tibor Gasparik SUNY at Stony Brook USA
Rei Gunn University of Nantucket USA
Jan Mugele Independent Researcher Germany
Jorge Ales Corona Independent Researcher Spain ....................................................... 170
Dave Sagar Independent Researcher USA
Benjamin I. Iglesias Independent Researcher Spain
Alper Kozan Independent Researcher Turkey
Sinan Alis Eyuboglu Twin Observatories Turkey
Esat Rennan Pekünlü University of EGE Turkey
Andrew Rigg Independent Researcher Australia
Anne M. Hofmeister Washington U. USA
Thomas Riedel Independent researcher Denmark
Quentin Foreman IEEE New Zealand
Robert Martinek McMaster University Canada ............................................................... 180
Marc Berndl University of Toronto Canada
Y. P. Varshni University of Ottawa Canada
Helen Workman Independent researcher Canada
Bob Criss Washington University USA
Richard Tobey Independent researcher USA
Steve McMahon Independent researcher USA
Eugene Savov, Independent researcher, Bulgaria
Sol Aisenberg, International Technology Group, USA
Morris Anderson, Independent researcher, USA
Paul LaViolette, The Starburst Foundation, U.S.A. ............................................................ 190
Lars Woldseth, Independent researcher, Norway
Robert L. Brueck, Independent researcher, USA
Seetesh Pandé, Universite Claude Bernard, Lyon France
TAHIR MAQSOOD, PSA, PAKISTAN
Mario Cosentino, Independent researcher, France
Paul Richard Price, Independent researcher, United States
José M?df; Cat Casanovas, Independent researcher, Spain
Hartmut Traunmüller, University of Stockholm, Sweden
Ott Köstner, Independent researcher, Estonia
Ethan Skyler, Independent researcher, USA ................................................................ 200
Bozidar Kornic, Independent researcher, USA
William F. Hamilton, Independent researcher, U.S.A.
Joel Morrison, Independent researcher, USA
Nico F. Benschop, Amspade Research, Netherlands
Aaron Blake, USAF, USA
Charles Sven, Independent Researcher, USA
Frederico V. F., Lima Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil
Gabriele Manzotti, Independent Researcher, Italy
Robert O. Myers, ROM Technologies, USA
James R. Frass, Independent Researcher, Canada ................................................................ 210
Philip Lilien, Independent Researcher, USA
M. Ross Fergus, University of Memphis, USA
Arnold Wittkamp, Independent Researcher, Netherlands
Sonu Bhaskar, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India ....................................... 214

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Signers

Charles Weber,USA
David Gershon ,USA
Peter G Smith ,USA
Richard J. Lawrence ,USA
Naszvadi László, Hungary
Roger W. Browne, USA
Bart Clauwens, Netherlands
Noah Feiler-Poethke, USA
Jonathan Hardy, UK
John S. Kundrat, USA ........................................................................... 10
Vincent Sauve, USA
Chris Somers, Australia
Jagroop Sahota, USA
Edgar Raab, Germany
Gordon Hogenson, USA
Burebista Dacia, Romania
Christel Hahn, Germany
Burebista Dacia, Romania
Christel Hahn, Germany
Robert Angstrom, USA .............................................................................. 20
Norman Chadwick, USA
Harley Orr, USA
Clive Martin-Ross, UK
Alasdair Martin, UK
Marcus Ellspermann, Germany
Bruce Richardson, USA
John Dill, USA
Judith Woollard Australia
Michael Cyrek USA
Randall Meyers ITALY ............................................................................................... 30
Craig Arend USA
Onur Cantimur Turkey
Roland Scheel France
Murat Isik Turkey
Markus Hellebrandt Germany
Mehmet Kara Turkey
Abhishek Dey Das India
D. N. Vazquez USA
Suzan R. Rodenburg USA
Shuming Zhang China ................................................................................................. 40
Codie Vickers USA
Richard Tobey USA
Elfriede Steiner-Grillmair, Canada
Gabriele Manzotti, Italy
Michael Wember, USA
Fuksz Levente, Romania
Seppo Tuominen, Finland
Marvin C. Katz, USA
Laura Fridley, USA
Michael Christian, U.S.A ........................................................................................... 50
Edgar S. Hill USA
Q. John T. Malone USA
Michael Bruttel Switzerland
Eric W. LaFlamme USA ............................................... 54

[lolife]

This is very interesting. It seems to me somewhat similar to the creation vs. evolution debate in that the complaint of these people seems to be that most scientists agree with the big bang theory. The accusation is that science is biased towards some theory even though that theory is not complete.

I don't doubt for a second that there can be "bandwagon" tendencies even among scientists. I fully support the idea that alternate theories should be investigated. But there is no conspiracy here. The fact is that people that are experts at this stuff tend to agree on the "lambda cold dark matter" theory of cosmology. They might be wrong, who knows, but their advocacy of the big bang theory is far from arbitrary.

As a side note, dark matter is a theory based on direct observation. The math of orbits is super easy and all galaxies have orbital velocities that indicate much, much more mass than is explainable by the mass we can see. Calling it "dark matter" is just a way of saying that we don't know what it is yet. But it is something, either actual mass or something we haven't thought of yet. But the effect is absolutely real.

[mtburr]

This is very interesting. It seems to me somewhat similar to the creation vs. evolution debate in that the complaint of these people seems to be that most scientists agree with the big bang theory. The accusation is that science is biased towards some theory even though that theory is not complete.

Respectfully I don't agree that's what they are saying. It seems to me the complaint is the same one that Dobson has: that Big Bang theorists are so wedded to the theory that they won't contemplate the possibility that it could be wrong -- and consequently they are no longer applying a rigorous scientific approach to cosmology.

Dark energy might be an example of science being distorted to fit the theory, rather than the theory evolving to fit the science. Quoting from S&T, March 2005, p. 34:

"Could there be some form of perfectly smooth energy that doesn't concentrate into dense regions? Such smoothly distributed energy wouln't measurably affect how matter moves within individual galaxies or clusters, but it would still affect the overall expansion of the universe."

In other words, theorists don't know why a Big-Bang universe would accelerate, so they invented a new type of energy that isn't itself affected by gravitation, but that pushes matter away, to explain how it would.

I'm no physicist and don't pretend to know something the dark-energy theorists do. But dark energy seems an awful lot like Einstein's "cosmological constant" -- an invented convenience that made the numbers match the presumed cosmological "truth." Einstein eventually acknowledged it was his "biggest blunder." I wonder what he'd say about dark energy.

Regards,
MTB

[Jon Hickman]

Matt:

Beyond everyone disliking the Big Bang Theory, I'm afraid I fail to see any commonality in the above document and Mr. Dobson's comments of 2 weeks past. Any novice scientist can easily pick holes in the Big Bang Theory as it is very strong on the theory part and very weak on the science part of a Scientific Theory.

[lolife]

Hey, Michael, disagreement is fun!

Yes, perhaps people are wedded to the theory but my argument is that it is for scientific reasons. Read Ryden's <i>Introduction to Cosmology</i> and then talk to me about the lack of science in the big bang theory. There is no lack of science, it's real, observational and mathematical. Yes, it could be wrong, but it is not dumb dogmatic belief that has propelled the theory to the forefront, it is good science that has done so.

In my astrophysics class last year we learned what should be obvious -- a universe with matter in it cannot be static. Gravity will eventually cause it to collapse. That's why Einstein put in the cosmological constant -- because he thought the universe was static and he needed it to keep gravity from collapsing the universe.

Right now the facts point to an expanding universe and we have put a name to this yet-unexplained factor in the equation. The name is lambda (i.e. dark energy) and it exactly is Einstein's comological constant. Einstein's biggest blunder may have been calling that his biggest blunder!

There is much work to be done and like I said, we should investigate all theories. But I do not agree with those that act like the Big Bang theory is metaphysics 'cause it ain't, it's very good science.

[Dick Jacobson]

I can't resist jumping into the fray.

After reading some of the articles on Dobson's Web site, his ideas seem like a lot of B.S. What is the physical meaning of "frustration" or "mistakes"? He does a lot of hand-waving that is so vague that there is no way you could do an experiment or observation to verify or disprove anything he says. Has he developed a mathematical theory behind his ideas?

He seems to favor a steady-state model, but recent observations show that the universe is not in a steady state but was very different 5 or 10 billion years ago. The Hubble Deep Field shows galaxies that are weird and misshapen, very different from what they look like today. There are no nearby quasars; there was an epoch of quasar formation many billions of years ago but they have all gone out. The rate of star formation was much higher long ago.

The Big Bang theory is certainly incomplete at this point. We don't understand "dark energy" or even if it exists. According to an article I just saw today (see http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-05n.html), dark energy may be unnecessary; our entire observable universe may be located within a low-density "ripple" of space-time that causes an accelerated expansion.

Although the Big Bang may have problems, it has scored impressive points by explaining the microwave background and successfully predicting the abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium and lithium. I haven't heard of any alternative theories that are nearly as successful.

Cosmology is in its infancy as a science. We need to keep our minds open and not get dogmatic, but at this point anyone who calls him/herself a "cosmologist" is obligated to make specific, numerical predictions that can be checked by observations.

I have great respect for John Dobson as a human being. I think he's done more for amateur astronomy than anyone else I can think of. But from what I've seen, I think he's way out of his league when he gets into physics.

[mtburr]

I can't resist jumping into the fray.

After reading some of the articles on Dobson's Web site, his ideas seem like a lot of B.S. What is the physical meaning of "frustration" or "mistakes"? He does a lot of hand-waving that is so vague

You are right about that. I was disappointed to hear him say "that's your problem" when asked to explain some fundamentally counterintuitive points. And saying that we observe the universe the way we do because "we like it here" is a non-answer -- metaphysically thought-provoking as it might be.

My main point in starting this thread was to point out that Dobson is not the only one who sees a lot of "fudge" in the Big Bang. I never said the Big Bang is metaphysics, and I am not saying that I endorse Dobson's alternative theories. But he and the "open letter/cosmology statement" group have in common the notion that the Big Bang has become dogma, and all other models are considered quackery merely because they dare to question the accepted "truth" of the Big Bang.

This might sound like the same argument as Darwin vs creationism, but it's not because creationism asks no questions. It simply cheats by saying "God did it. End of discussion." That's _not_ the objective of Dobson and the cosmologystatement.org clan.

MTB

[lolife]

I think that your summary is fair, Michael. I don't think the Big Bang theory is dogmatic. That does not mean it is correct, necessarily, only that it seems to be the best theory going right now. We should continue to explore alternate theories, which seems to be the bitch of the open letter folks, so in that sense I agree with them.

I wish I would have caught Dobson. I met a fellow today at this astronomy meeting who recently saw Dobson as well and thought his cosmology was completely nuts. He's a cosmologist, so not entirely ignorant on the matter.

Cheers,
Michael

[Dick Jacobson]

Regardless of what I think of Dobson's cosmology, I'm very glad that we arranged his visit. He's a very interesting speaker, an inspiring person, and meeting him in person is something I'll always remember. A great big THANK YOU to you, Michael Burr, and everyone else involved in this project!

Dick Jacobson

[rbubany]

"When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with such applause in the lecture room, how soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick; Till rising and gliding out, I wandered off by myself, in the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time, looked up in perfect silence at the stars."

Walt Whitman

[Jon Hickman]

Regardless of what I think of Dobson's cosmology, I'm very glad that we arranged his visit. He's a very interesting speaker, an inspiring person, and meeting him in person is something I'll always remember. A great big THANK YOU to you, Michael Burr, and everyone else involved in this project!

Dick Jacobson

Ditto that! It was a very informative, fun evening, and it is not often one can meet a living legend Kudos to all involved in having him come.

[mtburr]

A great big THANK YOU to you, Michael Burr, and everyone else involved in this project!

You are welcome.

Credit where it's due: Dobon's visit wouldn't have happened without the help and support of the MAS Board (current and previous). John Marchetti and his wife played host and chauffeur for Dobson most of the time he was here. J. Newlin at the Science Museum arranged logistics for that event. Ben Mullin arranged the details for Dobson's appearance at the Eisenhower Community Center, with the help of Ron Schmit and Bob Shaw. Patti Neavin, MAS Treasurer, took care of the incoming and outgoing money.

Speaking of money, the costs (modest though they were) were covered by MAS Patron members and other individual donors, whose extra commitment to the club allows the MAS to pursue special projects like this one. Thank you MAS Patrons and contributors!

Clear Skies,
MTB

[mtburr]

Greetings:

By way of an update, ... New Scientist magazine published a cover story for its July 2-8 edition titled "The End of the Beginning." Marcus Chown, author of the book "The Universe Next Door," reported on the Big Bang heresies identified in last year's open letter, which is included in the original post of this thread.

It's a pretty good story, quoting some of the more notable people from the open letter. It discusses some of the more difficult questions that skeptics are asking. Also it provides some detail on how the latest measurements suggest an "alignment" in the microwave background radiation that shouldn't exist according to Big Bang theory. NASA has funded a 5-year examination of signals from the WMAP spacecraft to figure out whether the alignment is an anomaly. If it's not, "It could be telling us something fundamental about our universe, maybe even that the simplest big bang model is wrong," said Joao Magueijo of Imperial College London.

Apparently Big Bang skeptics convened a conference last month in Portugal where they addressed the "Cosmology Crisis" issue. I wonder if the other astro/science mags will pick it up.

Regards,
MTB

[mlfj4901]

Greetings,

Nothing shows how far science has come than it's willingness to kill a theory that has been held true for more than a generation.

I'm not saying the Big Bang theory is false, only it's great to see legitimate scientists disagreeing. For if the Big Bang theory is true, then it's detractors will only uncover more evidence of it's truth. If the Big Bang theory is untrue, then science will still advance.

How far we've come since burning people at the stake for heresy. Hopefully the scientific community will continue to remember what certain "religous" leaders did to people who disagreed with their long held beliefs, and continue to let advance by continuing to encourage debate, disagreement, and new ways of thinking.

-matt

[Buzzygirl]

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." - George Bernard Shaw

[lolife]

I am reading The Fabric of the Cosmos and the remarkable success of inflation is pretty convincing. Yes, it is most certaintly wrong in ways but it is a fantastically successful theory.

The best part of science is when we disagree. That's when the real work gets done.

Michael

[Buzzygirl]

The best part of science is when we disagree. That's when the real work gets done.

Well said, and I agree 100%!

[SEmert]

The best part of science is when we disagree. That's when the real work gets done.

Well said, and I agree 100%!

Well, that's not very productive!

[Buzzygirl]

The best part of science is when we disagree. That's when the real work gets done.

Well said, and I agree 100%!

Well, that's not very productive!

Nah, but I like to argue now and then.