Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[value]

A recent article on iai.tv claims that recent revelations by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) imply that the Big Bang is scientifically refuted.

The Big Bang didn't happen
The Big Bang hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data of JWST is causing theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215

In a 2013 article titled Getting Einstein to Say "I Was Wrong" on PhysicsBuzz it was argued that the origin of the Big Bang theory is controversial.

Mysteriously lost papers by Albert Einstein that he submitted to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin were found in Jerusalem in 2013. Those papers show that Albert Einstein actively attempted to restore his theory for an infinite Universe in the years after the discoveries made by Edwin Hubble and in those papers he appeared to deliberately misspell the name of Edwin Hubble, calling him "Hubbel" repeatedly.

It seems to be impossible that the misspelling was an accident.

At the time of the paper it was two years after Hubble's discoveries and the evidence shows that there had been a publicity force at play in which it was said that Hubble's discovery had changed Albert Einstein's mind.

"headlines across the country [USA] lit up, claiming that Einstein had been converted to a believer in an expanding universe."

Besides this information, it is seen that Albert Einstein had been a persistent opponent of the expanding Universe theory in the years after the media hype about his conversion into a believer.

"Two years after Hubble's discovery - [Albert Einstein] highlighted a major shortcoming of the expanding universe theory.... This was a major sticking point for Einstein. The idea of an expanding universe had been kicking around for several years at that point, but each time a physicist approached Einstein about it, he would dismiss the theory."

A year after the mysteriously lost paper Albert Einstein would join a priest on a tour across the USA to promote the Big Bang theory. The public announcement about his conversion into 'a believer' mentions specifically that he was convinced after 'listening' to a beautiful creation story.

"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," Einstein said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career."

At the time of Albert Einstein's lost paper, the Tired Light Theory was an alternative theory for redshift that according to some scientists today, is the most plausible theory.

Tired Light Denies the Big Bang
More and more problems related to Big Bang have been appeared in recent years. All the problems are due to the Doppler interpretation of redshift.
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/64538

Tired Light refutes the big bang theory
https://tiredlight.net/

New Tired Light Theory
http://tiredlight.org/

New Tired-Light Theory Explains Redshift and CMB in an Infinite Universe
http://www.noeticadvancedstudies.us/Ashmore.pdf

--

The article on iai.tv is authored by Eric J. Lerner. The article is based on a paper that starts with "Panick! (in cosmology)"

He writes: It has become almost impossible to publish papers critical of the Big Bang in any astronomical journals.

I have been banned on Space.com myself for questioning the Big Bang theory. In June 2021, a decent written post about the fact that the Big Bang theory is considered to be a religion by an increasing amount of scientists that received several serious replies, was deleted for questionable motives.

Topics are normally ‘closed’ and remain readable but the moderator deleted the topic.

"This thread has runs its course. Thank you to those who contributed. Closing now."

Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics, said the following:

You will find the three main problems of the Big Bang theory religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.

One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?

I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.

There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.

--

What is your opinion about the Big Bang theory and the way that it is dogmatically enforced in academic research?

[LuckyR]

I'm not a cosmologist or even a physicist, but I will say this: no field involving humans is immune to the influence of human psychology, thus it is naive to suppose otherwise. And thus this reality is ultimately unsurprising.

[value]

The Big Bang theory underlays the cultural belief in materialism in my opinion and that belief might be the reason that humanity never tested whether Earth life can remain alive at a further distance than the Moon before investing trillions of USD to prepare for sending humans to Mars.

Philosopher Dr. Bernardo Kastrup on iai.tv: Materialism will be mocked.

Despite decades of space exploration, it has never been tested whether Earth life, including microbes, plants, and animals, can remain alive at distances beyond the Moon. That simple fact raises a question: why has that remained unexplored?

The answer seems to be found in a cultural belief in materialism, combined with the assumption that life is independent of the Solar system because humans have been culturally ingrained through films such as Star Trek to believe that they will travel through the cosmos as independent biochemical bundles of matter.

Perplexity.AI concluded that "there is currently no evidence to suggest that life can remain alive independent of a fundamental energy source in the solar system. Currently, there are no known factors in the solar system or the universe aside from neutrinos that could potentially provide the fundamental energy required for life to be possible." This fact highlights the importance of energy to make life possible and the specificity of the energy required for life's specific directional energetic organizing behavior.

Despite this fact, humans are confidently being sent to Mars without ever having tested whether Earth life, including microbes, plants, and animals, can remain alive at a further distance than the Moon. This concerns fundamental negligence when humanity is already investing trillions of USD to prepare for sending humans to Mars.

Furthermore, there is a risk that Earth life forms may not survive on Mars through neutrino energy (a directional type of mass-influence based energy through mass-change potential that is contained within the neutrino) due to the difference in distance between Mars and the Sun compared to the distance between Earth and the Sun. Neutrinos are very weakly interacting particles, and their interactions with matter are largely dependent on distance. As the distance between the source of neutrinos (in this case, the Sun) and the recipient (Earth or Mars) changes, the number of neutrinos that interact with matter changes as well.

If Earth life is indeed bound to a region around the Sun, that could have profound implications for the understanding of life, consciousness, and the ambitions to explore the cosmos.

Materialism seems to be grounded in the Big Bang theory - the exploding of a primordial atom by which 'the material world' came into existence of which consciousness and life are a mere part.

An example of a materialist on this forum:

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

The status quo idea that the mind is a product of an intrinsic existing cosmos a.k.a. 'materialism' seems to originate from the Big Bang theory.

[value]

I'm not a cosmologist or even a physicist, but I will say this: no field involving humans is immune to the influence of human psychology, thus it is naive to suppose otherwise. And thus this reality is ultimately unsurprising.

Can you provide an example?

In my opinion a potential fundamental dogmatic mistake such as the Big Bang theory and correlated materialism might show that the potential of AI to take humanity 'further' stands on meager ground.

[LuckyR]

I'm not a cosmologist or even a physicist, but I will say this: no field involving humans is immune to the influence of human psychology, thus it is naive to suppose otherwise. And thus this reality is ultimately unsurprising.

Can you provide an example?

In my opinion a potential fundamental dogmatic mistake such as the Big Bang theory and correlated materialism might show that the potential of AI to take humanity 'further' stands on meager ground.

I wasn't addressing this nor that scientific theory (such as the Big Bang), I was instead talking about the behavior of human scientists towards new, potentially disruptive information. All groups of humans (even scientists) are influenced by psychological factors separate from any particular objective information they receive.

[value]

So you specifically commented on the notion “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” ?

Doesn't any 'field' involve humans? What would you suggest that it implies more specifically?

[AgentSmith]

The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model that has been corroborated quite well for lay folk like me. However, I can imagine whispers of discontentment with the idea in the halls of science. It's quite unfortunate that Einstein didn't live past 1955, but that may be only half of our problems.

Let's hope, are we allowed to do that?, that we can penetrate the veil of ignorance that enshrounds us.

Wir müssen wissen. Wir werden wissen.

[value]

Perhaps this topic is of interest for Astro Cat. She dedicated a topic in defense of the Big Bang theory.

I’ll be on my PC this week to refute tired light and defend inflationary cosmology using slides from talks I’ve given on baryon acoustic oscillations and constraining the dark energy with high redshift supernovae.

(2022) In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology by Astro Cat
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18052

I wonder what she believes that should be concluded with regard the implications of the recent JWST imagery.

There were some critical comments in her topic that predicted that JWST imagery would confirm that Inflationary theory is invalid.

What I do know about QFT and inflation is that gravity is basically the counterbalance to the inflaton field energy, and I can tell you that there are serious people out there that propose gravity has an entropic nature. That's about all I'm willing to say though without a deeper understanding of QFT. I expect to acquire this over the next year as I graduate with my MS and start my PhD.

Well I'm highly skeptical of this early inflationary epoch anyway, I think JWST will confirm that it never happened. I think space itself can't expand either.
Instead, I think we may have ran into the same problem as with the Information paradox: we assumed too much or too little about the nature of quantum fluctuations. For example in the early homogeneous universe, why would they be as common and as violent, as they are today here on Earth?

[LuckyR]

So you specifically commented on the notion “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” ?

Doesn't any 'field' involve humans? What would you suggest that it implies more specifically?

Specifically implicit biases.

[Sculptor1]

Alison Kirkpatrick[/url], an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.[/color]”[/i] ?

Doesn't any 'field' involve humans? What would you suggest that it implies more specifically?

Specifically implicit biases.

I do not think we ought to look on the idea of having a bias as necessarily problematic, else how would any of us hold an opinion and defend it.
Such biases have led to discussion, and re-discovery. The debates between Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo,Tycho Brahe, and Newton eventually led to a more coherent workable cosmology of the solar system. None of these man alone were completely right, and the process of understanding in astronomy goes on. All held biases according to their particular understanding of physics and how they could match their observations to fit the causes.
Were it not for bias we would not now have the heliocentric system based on ellipses.
The trick is to avoid dogmatic adherence to those biases and be able to accommodate new information into your way of seeing.

I've no idea who Kirkpatrick is, but it seems to me that her statement demonstrates the finest qualities of scientific enquiry - the ability to know how and when your opinion breaks down according the facts of new data.

[LuckyR]

Alison Kirkpatrick[/url], an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.[/color]”[/i] ?

Doesn't any 'field' involve humans? What would you suggest that it implies more specifically?

Specifically implicit biases.

I do not think we ought to look on the idea of having a bias as necessarily problematic, else how would any of us hold an opinion and defend it.
Such biases have led to discussion, and re-discovery. The debates between Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo,Tycho Brahe, and Newton eventually led to a more coherent workable cosmology of the solar system. None of these man alone were completely right, and the process of understanding in astronomy goes on. All held biases according to their particular understanding of physics and how they could match their observations to fit the causes.
Were it not for bias we would not now have the heliocentric system based on ellipses.
The trick is to avoid dogmatic adherence to those biases and be able to accommodate new information into your way of seeing.

I've no idea who Kirkpatrick is, but it seems to me that her statement demonstrates the finest qualities of scientific enquiry - the ability to know how and when your opinion breaks down according the facts of new data.

Oh I wasn't trying to imply that biases are "problematic", rather that they are ubiquitous and therefore evidence of them is not suprising.

[value]

“Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” ?

I do not think we ought to look on the idea of having a bias as necessarily problematic, else how would any of us hold an opinion and defend it.
Such biases have led to discussion, and re-discovery. The debates between Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo,Tycho Brahe, and Newton eventually led to a more coherent workable cosmology of the solar system. None of these man alone were completely right, and the process of understanding in astronomy goes on. All held biases according to their particular understanding of physics and how they could match their observations to fit the causes.
Were it not for bias we would not now have the heliocentric system based on ellipses.
The trick is to avoid dogmatic adherence to those biases and be able to accommodate new information into your way of seeing.

I've no idea who Kirkpatrick is, but it seems to me that her statement demonstrates the finest qualities of scientific enquiry - the ability to know how and when your opinion breaks down according the facts of new data.

It is the principled enforced negligence to allow recognition of bias (dogma) that might be considered a problem. Bertrand Russells teapot might be applicable here:

"[dogma]... If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

It can be seen in the concept 'anti-science' by which people who dare to question the status quo of science are prosecuted as heretics of science. More subtly academics are barred from pursuing certain studies and ...

Eric J. Lerner writes: It has become almost impossible to publish papers critical of the Big Bang in any astronomical journals.

What is shocking is not a bias that was allowed but a bias that wasn't.

[Sculptor1]

**lmost impossible[/u] to publish papers critical of the Big Bang in any astronomical journals.[/i][/b]

Thankfully adherence to the BB is not religious and with the advent of the James Webb telescope and the new data coming in, the BB hypothesis is not being challenged.

What is shocking is not a bias that was allowed but a bias that wasn't.

[value]

“Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” ?

I've no idea who Kirkpatrick is, but it seems to me that her statement demonstrates the finest qualities of scientific enquiry - the ability to know how and when your opinion breaks down according the facts of new data.

It is the principled enforced negligence to allow recognition of bias (dogma) that might be considered a problem.

Eric J. Lerner writes: It has become almost impossible to publish papers critical of the Big Bang in any astronomical journals.

What is shocking is not a bias that was allowed but a bias that wasn't.

A new video on IAI.tv that questions the Big Bang theory:

Beyond the big bang
Could the entire scientific paradigm turn out to be wrong? Might cosmology have gone seriously astray? Philosopher of science Bjørn Ekeberg argues this radical case from a philosophical and historical perspective.
https://iai.tv/video/beyond-the-big-bang-bjorn-ekeberg

Bjørn Ekeberg is a celebrated philosopher of science from Oslo, Norway whose interests lie in the limits of scientific knowledge.

https://www.drbjorn.com/

[value]

(2023) 6 major cracks have appeared in the standard model of cosmology. Is it wrong?
It may be time for a cosmological paradigm shift.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/6-cracks-stan ... ogy-wrong/

It might be nice when philosophy would facilitate such a paradigm shift by itself. The idea of a Big Bang and a finite universe is at first glance obviously illogical because it erroneously excludes the observer from consideration.

One is fundamentally obligated to explain the potential of a begin.

Sculptor1 once mentioned the following:

There are 4 possible states of the universe.

1) A universe with no beginning and no end. (eternal)
2) A universe with no beginning but with and end
3) A universe with a beginning and no end.
4) A universe with a beginning and an end.

Terrapin Station had a similar view but according to him there are just 2 options to explain the universe:

1) the universe either magically sprung into existence
2) the universe magically always existed

He reasoned the following:

For any given initial existent, either it "spontaneously appeared" or it always existed. Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

The mentioned options are all based on the assumption that the concept 'begin' is applicable to the universe on a fundamental level and that causality is required to explain the origin of the Universe.

At question would be how a philosophical 'option' (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice.

It all comes down to the concept begin: an exploding primordial atom or ...?