anotherneil
Well-Known Member
Scientists say that, eh?
Maybe some scientists say that (and others say "steady-state model" of the universe).
The guy who came up with the Big Bang Theory about a century ago (Georges Lemaître) was a scientist, but he was also a priest, which means there's possibly a bias towards the religious belief of a beginning.
I think this idea that the universe has a beginning is nonsense, at least in the sense of time as we know it in a scientific context (as one of the most fundamental dimensions in physics along with mass and length).
Two scientists (Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson) discovered cosmic microwave background radiation about half a century ago, and they were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for it; they also used their discovery to endorse the Big Bang Theory. However, there are at least two problems with this; the first is that people apparently associate the Nobel Prize that they were awarded with both the discovery and the endorsement (from what I understand, it was only for the discovery, not the endorsement) and use this perception to grant credibility to the Big Bang Theory; the second is that, in general, being awarded a prize (such as the Nobel Prize) is not science, just essentially something like a bribe.
To me, the reason the Big Bang Theory somewhat appears to be scientifically sound or reasonable is because there may be at least two possible explanations for cosmic microwave background radiation redshift; one of them can sort of be interpreted as a "big bang" & a beginning to the universe (which I think is wrong), and the other may involve redshift simply being the result of energy loss (of photons traveling their limits in distance through space across many galaxies); this paper seems to support the latter: Dispersive Extinction Theory of Redshift - Ling Jun Wang
Maybe some scientists say that (and others say "steady-state model" of the universe).
The guy who came up with the Big Bang Theory about a century ago (Georges Lemaître) was a scientist, but he was also a priest, which means there's possibly a bias towards the religious belief of a beginning.
I think this idea that the universe has a beginning is nonsense, at least in the sense of time as we know it in a scientific context (as one of the most fundamental dimensions in physics along with mass and length).
Two scientists (Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson) discovered cosmic microwave background radiation about half a century ago, and they were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for it; they also used their discovery to endorse the Big Bang Theory. However, there are at least two problems with this; the first is that people apparently associate the Nobel Prize that they were awarded with both the discovery and the endorsement (from what I understand, it was only for the discovery, not the endorsement) and use this perception to grant credibility to the Big Bang Theory; the second is that, in general, being awarded a prize (such as the Nobel Prize) is not science, just essentially something like a bribe.
To me, the reason the Big Bang Theory somewhat appears to be scientifically sound or reasonable is because there may be at least two possible explanations for cosmic microwave background radiation redshift; one of them can sort of be interpreted as a "big bang" & a beginning to the universe (which I think is wrong), and the other may involve redshift simply being the result of energy loss (of photons traveling their limits in distance through space across many galaxies); this paper seems to support the latter: Dispersive Extinction Theory of Redshift - Ling Jun Wang
