22 maggio 2010


OK, so by now we all know how extrapolation works. You take a limited amount of data and assume what will happen if the trend continues the exact same way in perpetuity. I mean, really, the “science” doesn’t even need to be accurate, just show a perceived trend (see: global warming). But I digress….

One of the themes that is pervasive through all the shows I’ve been watching (see below) is the Big Bang. Now, I understand that I’m a bit of a heretic when it comes to this theory – not that I do not buy it, I just have too many questions to swallow it with my eyes closed.
For instance, as I was growing up I recall hearing about one of the possible ends to the universe – the Big Crunch. That was the accepted consensus – that after all that expansion, gravity would pull it all back together into a crunch. Now the consensus is that because the universe is constantly expanding, what is likely to happen after trillions of years...is that we will all be torn apart - all the way to the atomic level.
And you should all know how I feel about consensus.

I get that science moves on, discovers new things and evolves, but this is the complete opposite of what was firmly accepted not that long ago (I would have said within my lifetime, but I’m old now and it doesn’t sound as impressive). The thing that bothers me is that scientists (heretofore referred to as ‘they’) come up with new and exciting theories to justify the Big Bang.
Have you heard of the VSL? Neither had Einstein.
How ‘bout Hyper-expansion of space? No?
Dark matter? And to offset that, Dark energy?
Question: if the Big Bang is so right, why does it need so many theories and unprovable hypotheses in order to make it work?

I saw and heard one physicist say that if you don’t buy the Big Bang theory, then you are considered a ‘kook’ by the scientific community.
Like Copernicus, Keppler and Galileo?
Yeah, I’ve been called worse and associated with worse.

Nessun commento: