Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Michael J. Disney
Michael J. Disney is emeritus professor in the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University. He has done research on stars, pulsars and quasars, but his main interest has always lain in galaxies and in designing novel instruments to observe them at many wavelengths. He has worked on the development of Hubble Space Telescope instruments since 1976. Address: School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, 5 The Parade, Cardiff, Wales, CF24 3AA, U.K. Internet: mjd@astro.cf.ac.uk
It is true that the modern study of cosmology has taken a turn for the better, if only because astronomers can now build relevant instruments rather than waiting for serendipitous evidence to turn up. On the other hand, to explain some surprising observations, theoreticians have had to create heroic and yet insubstantial notions such as "dark matter" and "dark energy," which supposedly overwhelm, by a hundred to one, the stuff of the universe we can directly detect. Outsiders are bound to ask whether they should be more impressed by the new observations or more dismayed by the theoretical jinnis that have been conjured up to account for them.
My limited aim here is to discuss this dilemma by looking at the development of cosmology over the past century and to compare the growing number of independent relevant observations with the number of (also growing) separate hypotheses or "free parameters" that have had to be introduced to explain them. Without having to understand the complex astrophysics, one can still ask, at an epistemological level, whether the number of relevant independent measurements has overtaken and comfortably surpassed the number of free parameters needed to fit them—as one would expect of a maturing science. This approach should be appealing to nonspecialists, who otherwise would have little option but to believe experts who may be far too committed to supply objective advice. What one finds, in my view, is that modern cosmology has at best very flimsy observational support.
[SIZE=-1]A witch! A witch! A witch! WITCH[/SIZE]Where Do We Stand Today?
Big Bang cosmology is not a single theory; rather, it is five separate theories constructed on top of one another. The ground floor is a theory, historically but not fundamentally rooted in general relativity, to explain the redshifts—this is Expansion, which happily also accounts for the cosmic background radiation. The second floor is Inflation—needed to solve the horizon and "flatness" problems of the Big Bang. The third floor is the Dark Matter hypothesis required to explain the existence of contemporary visible structures, such as galaxies and clusters, which otherwise would never condense within the expanding fireball. The fourth floor is some kind of description for the "seeds" from which such structure is to grow. And the fifth and topmost floor is the mysterious Dark Energy, needed to allow for the recent acceleration of cosmic expansion indicated by the supernova observations. Thus Dark Energy could crumble, leaving the rest of the building intact. But if the Expansion floor collapsed, the entire edifice above it would come crashing down. Expansion is a moderately well-supported hypothesis, consistent with the cosmic background radiation, with the helium abundance and with the ages inferred for the oldest stars and star clusters in our neighborhood. However, finding more direct evidence for Expansion must be of paramount importance.
In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift—indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn't see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it (as seen in the first image in this piece). Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift.
In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.
The historian of science Daniel Boorstin once remarked: "The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses." Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come.
... doesn't it go back to the essential point of whether conventional science or the Bible is the ultimate frame of reference? One must make an assumption to begin any origins analysis. You assume that observation is reliable. We assume that an inerrant witness is reliable.
When your back is against the wall, deny the eyes God gave you. Otherwise, appeal to science whenever else possible. A common anti-evolutionary creationist mindset...
Where Do We Stand Today?
Big Bang cosmology is not a single theory; rather, it is five separate theories constructed on top of one another. The ground floor is a theory, historically but not fundamentally rooted in general relativity, to explain the redshifts—this is Expansion, which happily also accounts for the cosmic background radiation. The second floor is Inflation—needed to solve the horizon and "flatness" problems of the Big Bang. The third floor is the Dark Matter hypothesis required to explain the existence of contemporary visible structures, such as galaxies and clusters, which otherwise would never condense within the expanding fireball. The fourth floor is some kind of description for the "seeds" from which such structure is to grow. And the fifth and topmost floor is the mysterious Dark Energy, needed to allow for the recent acceleration of cosmic expansion indicated by the supernova observations. Thus Dark Energy could crumble, leaving the rest of the building intact. But if the Expansion floor collapsed, the entire edifice above it would come crashing down. Expansion is a moderately well-supported hypothesis, consistent with the cosmic background radiation, with the helium abundance and with the ages inferred for the oldest stars and star clusters in our neighborhood. However, finding more direct evidence for Expansion must be of paramount importance.
In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift—indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn't see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it (as seen in the first image in this piece). Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift.
In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.
Firstly, it is important to hold in context statements that busterdog has made elsewhere. Yesterday he said:
Yet here he is, quite willing to accept the testimony of someone who starts by assuming that observation is reliable, nowhere assumes an inerrant witness, and ends with the idea that observation must always trump theory. Quite a turnaround. As described later in the same thread:
Hold that in the balance.
Also note how he has not been able or willing to link to the full article. It can be found here: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55839 . Read through it.
Busterdog paints a picture of cosmology in complete collapse by selective quoting. If he had looked elsewhere, he may have found a more nuanced and representative quote for the author's views:
(emphases added) Now, let me first say that this is by no means an uncommon sentiment among cosmologists. Some of the world's best astronomers are at ANU and have given public lectures which I have attended (giving a perfect opportunity for name-dropping). But when a key discoverer of dark energy expansion acceleration admits that he has no idea what dark energy actually might be, and a key discoverer of dark matter considers aloud the possible merits of Modified Newtonian Dynamics instead of gravitational dark matter ... I think it's safe to say that cosmologists nowadays don't take their theories for granted. Which, really, is what science is all about.
Because science is all about theories that explain data. And Disney gives complete credit where due to the many data points that conventional cosmology does explain: redshift, CMB, nucleosynthesis. Crucially, these are observations that no creationist theory as yet has explained. Busterdog tries to paint the following picture: the Big Bang does not explain all the data, and an arbitrary six-day creation model does not explain all the data, so choosing between them is really a matter of taste, like choosing what tie to wear to work. (I'll pick a page from Busterdog's book here and nitpick on word choice.) Otherwise, why would he carefully say "six days of creation is NOT more crazy than 15 billion years", instead of going all out and saying that six days is in fact LESS? Because in his picture the choice between six days and 15 billion years is not scientific. (And yet he tries to cite a scientific source to come to that conclusion; can you see the duplicity?)
One might as well say that because a flat Earth theory doesn't explain all the data, and a round Earth theory doesn't explain all the data, it is equally acceptable to believe in a flat Earth as it is to believe in a round Earth. The point should be obvious: a theory may explain some of the evidence, but not all, and still be more right than a theory that explains (or attempts to, even) explain less of the evidence. The theory that explains more is then scientifically preferable; the theory that explains less might be chosen, but not for any scientific reason. And the Big Bang theory does explain more than any creationist has so far; it might not explain everything, but it suffices to explain more. Therefore the Big Bang is still more scientific, even if it is not as scientific as we would like it to be - and cosmologists admit that dissatisfaction themselves openly.
(And note that I have not had to say a single bad thing about Disney to disembowel Busterdog's attempts at logic. Clearly, someone here is indeed acting like a fanatical witch-hunting Inquisitor. But I'm pretty sure it isn't me.)
Firstly, it is important to hold in context statements that busterdog has made elsewhere. Yesterday he said:
busterdog said:... doesn't it go back to the essential point of whether conventional science or the Bible is the ultimate frame of reference? One must make an assumption to begin any origins analysis. You assume that observation is reliable. We assume that an inerrant witness is reliable.
Not to mention that it is a false dichotomy in the first place. The ultimate frame of reference is neither conventional science nor the Bible, but what God actually created.
And most of science is too weak to admit it. That's the point.
I always thought the Big Bang was one of the best arguments for a Creator, because it implies a cause that is outside time and space.
Except for the fact that they do admit it. They are saying, these are current hypotheses, but they are not well-supported by evidence.
That is exactly why these are current areas of research and why Disney and others speak as they do about needing more solid evidentiary support.
Sounds like science to me!
Except it isn't science when Halton Arp, Barry Setterfield, Busterdog or Genesis says it.
Shernren likes to argue disparate threads and points out of context when a scientist says something he doesn't like.
He particularly likes to reinvent his adversary to suit his attacks.
Its like a divorce when you want to talk about paying the mortgage and the other side wants to blame you for not cutting the grass five years ago.
SO, Disney is right. Big Bang is a crock, or at least unproven. And most of science is too weak to admit it. That's the point.
Shernren likes to argue disparate threads and points out of context when a scientist says something he doesn't like.
He particularly likes to reinvent his adversary to suit his attacks.
Its like a divorce when you want to talk about paying the mortgage and the other side wants to blame you for not cutting the grass five years ago.
SO, Disney is right. Big Bang is a crock, or at least unproven. And most of science is too weak to admit it. That's the point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?