Cosmology in Crisis—A Conference Report

Perspectives Cosmology in people added their names to the list.4 conferences!’ They also said: He mentions the important work crisis—a conference ‘[Q]uestions and alternatives can- of Glenn Starkman on the Wilkinson not even now be freely discussed Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) report and examined. An open exchange data: of ideas is lacking in most main- ‘Dr. Starkman has discovered John Hartnett stream conferences.’ some unexpected (for Big Bang- ers) characteristics (he describes n May 2004, a group of about CCC-1: Cosmological them as “bizarre”) in the data that ‘I30 concerned scientists pub- Conundrums have serious consequences for the Standard Model. Far from having lished an open letter to the global As a result, they organized the smooth, Gaussian distribu- scientific community in New Sci- their own conference. Ratcliffe1 tion predicted by Big Bang, the entist in which they protested the summarized the main papers offered microwave picture has distinct stranglehold of Big Bang theory and the comments on the discussions. anisotropies, and what’s more says on cosmological research and fund- Here are a few highlights. Starkman, they are clearly aligned ing.’ Riccardo Scarpa is reported to with local astrophysical structures, This was the opening sentence have said: particularly the ecliptic of the Solar in a paper presented to Progress in ‘Dark Matter is the craziest idea System. Once the dipole harmonic Physics in October this year by Hilton we’ve ever had in astronomy. It can is stripped to remove the effect of Ratcliffe. It was entitled The First appear when you need it, it can do the motion of the Solar System, Crisis in Cosmology Conference (CCC- what you like, be distributed in any the other harmonics, quadrupole, 1) and reported on a conference held in way you like. It is the fairy tale of octopole, and so on reveal a distinct Monção, Portugal, between 23 and 25 astronomy.’ 1 alignment with local objects, and June 2005. Such is the problem—because show also a preferred direction This sentence referred to ‘An Open they have accepted the fact of the big 2 towards the Virgo supercluster.’ Letter to the Scientific Community’, bang, many crazy ideas are needed Starkman outlined the which had to be a paid advertisement to support it. Dark matter really is 3 implications: in New Scientist, because that was a massive fudge, because they don’t ‘This suggests that the reported the only way it would be published. It have the physics right (with correct microwave background fluctua- reflected the growing disregard of the physics, there is no need for it5). Tom tions on large angular scales are big bang even in the secular science Van Flandern said: not in fact cosmic, with important community. It began with: ‘It should be evident to objective consequences.’ ‘The big bang today relies on a minds that nothing about the Uni- growing number of hypothetical verse interpreted with the Big Bang entities—things that we have never theory is necessarily right, not even observed. Inflation, dark matter the most basic idea in it that the and dark energy are the most promi- Universe is expanding.’ Photo by European Southern Observatory nent examples. Without them, Yurij Baryshev presented a there would be a fatal contradiction paper of the conceptual problems with between the observations made by the big bang: astronomers and the predictions of ‘He pointed out that if one re- the big bang theory. In no other versed the flow and shrunk the field of physics would this con- radius, eventually the point would tinual recourse to new hypothetical be reached where the energy den- objects be accepted as a way of sity of the Universe would exceed bridging the gap between theory the rest mass, and that is logically and observation. It would, at the impossible.’ least, raise serious questions about Logically impossible indeed! the validity of the underlying [big NGC122 with companions as taken by The universe comprises a lot of matter, the ESO VLT. This is one example of a bang] theory [emphasis added]. but if the matter is compressed passed galaxy with companion galaxies (note the ‘But the big bang theory can’t sur- a certain density it would have a higher small galaxy in upper centre and the not- vive without these fudge factors.’ energy density than its constituent so-small galaxy in bottom left) which have They outlined a few basic matter. This is obviously an absurdity. been used by Halton Arp as evidence of problems that they agreed upon, which Ratcliffe continues with a joke from the ejection of galaxies from the centres of parent galaxies. This idea challenges one are devastating to the standard big bang Richard Feynman to his wife (upon of principle assumptions of the big bang, model. Their advert was also published returning from a conference), ‘Remind that all matter was created at the initial on the web and, as a result, many more me not to attend any more gravity instant of time. JOURNAL OF CREATION 20(1) 2006 11 Perspectives The evidence strongly supports the Sun beneath the photosphere on feet of clay.’ the idea that the sea of microwave is predominantly iron! Manuel’s There is the reference to radiation, which has been claimed as thesis has passed peer review in dogma. Most of those at the conference the one true prediction of the big bang several mainstream journals, in- would obviously believe that we model, is not cosmological in origin cluding Nature, Science and the can find truth without resorting to but arises from the vicinity of the solar Journal of Nuclear Fusion. He presuppositions, especially without system. Therefore, if we are to agree derives a completely revolutionary bringing the first book of the Bible into that this is a true prediction then it Solar Model, one which spells big it. By undermining the big bang with falsifies the big bang model.6 trouble for BBN [big bang nucleo- its beginning, they also believe they On the final day they discussed synthesis]. do mankind a service by eliminating viable alternative cosmologies. ‘He makes the following claims: religious notions, considering that the Ratcliffe personally preferred the 1. The chemical composition Pope has accepted the big bang origin Plasma Cosmology of Eric Lerner: of the Sun is predominantly of the universe for Catholicism anyway. ‘Lerner summarised the basic iron. If they win the case against the big premises: most of the Universe is 2. The energy of the Sun is not bang on scientific grounds, the many plasma, so the effect of electro- derived from nuclear fusion, but compromising Christian apologists who magnetic force on a cosmic scale rather from neutron repulsion. invoke the big bang will have no case.7 is at least comparable to gravita- 3. The Sun has a solid, electrically But regardless of the biases of the big tion. Plasma cosmology assumes conducting ferrite surface bang’s critics, as Ratcliffe aptly puts no origin in time for the Universe, beneath the photosphere, it: and can therefore accommodate and rotates uniformly at all ‘Nonetheless, that there is a crisis the conservation of energy/matter. latitudes. in the world of science is now Since we see evidence of evolu- 4. The solar system originated confirmed. Papers presented at the tion all around us, we can assume from a supernova about 5 conference by some of the world’s evolution in the Universe, though billion years ago, and the Sun leading scientists showed beyond not at the pace or on the scale of formed from the neutron star doubt that the weight of scientific the Big Bang.’ that remained.’ evidence clearly indicates that the Clearly these big bang A note of caution must be added. dominant theory on the origin and dissidents are evolutionists, and have I am not personally endorsing the destiny of the Universe is deeply other biases to deal with. Also they views held by Manuel, whose ideas flawed.’ reject the notion of an origin, which they about the Sun are viewed with great see as religious dogma. The Plasma scepticism by mainstream scientists, References Cosmology has no such constraint. and maybe not without reason. Nor do I endorse Lerner’s plasma universe 1. Ratcliffe, H., The First Crisis in Cosmology Ratcliffe believes they are only using Conference, Progress in Physics 3:19–24, empirical science in their alternative which has problems of its own. Van 2005. <www.americanantigravity.com/docu- approach, but falls into the same trap Flandern also has some unusual views ments/Crisis-in-Cosmology-2005-Ratcliffe. as the big bangers, and the steady of the nature of the universe. The main pdf>, 17 January 2006. statesmen before him. This trap is to point is that there are alternative voices 2. <home.pacbell.net/skeptica/an_open_let- believe that natural science, which that should be heard. Science should ter_to_the_scientific_community.html>, 17 January 2006. excludes God, is all there is and that be open to new ideas—regardless of they can find ultimate truth without God the researcher’s bias he should get 3. Lerner, E. et al., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448):20, 2004. or reference to His special revelation. an opportunity to air his case. This However the biggest surprise at the so often is not what happens in the 4. <www.cosmologystatement.org/> with 219 mainstream journals. And it should be scientists and engineers signed as of 18 Janu- CCC-1 was the paper by Oliver Manuel. ary 2006. He is not an astronomer but a nuclear added that Alain Blanchard of the La- 5. Hartnett, J.G., Carmeli’s accelerating universe chemist.

Load more