Cosmology: Inflation theory under attack part 1 (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 17, 2017, 19:32 (2381 days ago) @ John Kalber

Reblak’s three posts constitute a detailed account of the argument against red shift and hence the theory of the Big Bang and the expanding universe. He also recounts the sordid history of how the scientific establishment has vilified its opponents, and has attempted to cover up or distort the evidence against its own theories. This is a very important contribution to our discussions. Having been a long-standing member of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (though I resigned some time ago for reasons I shan’t go into here), I am familiar with much of the material but as a non-scientist am in no position to pass judgement on the science itself. I can only say that the arguments are sufficiently persuasive to bolster my philosophical doubts about the Big Bang and expansion. In this post I shall therefore only discuss the non-specialist points Reblak makes at the beginning. I would like however, to express my gratitude for this most informative account.

DAVID's comment: Inflation explains much of why the universe looks as it does, but not without problems. A cyclic universe gets rid of the origin problem but keeps the Big Bang. It also gets rid of the multiverse. A cyclic universe doesn't get rid of a first cause.

dhw: Reblak has mentioned the redshift problem too, and perhaps he will explain this in more detail.
On this forum, we have repeatedly discussed the unanswerable question of what preceded the Big Bang if the Big Bang ever happened. The concept of eternal energy and matter as first cause would allow for any number of universes before this one, or for this one itself being eternal and constantly changing.

reblak: A cyclic Universe may well be a good suggestion and reflects somewhat my own view. How this cycle works is totally unknown. Proponents of other multiple universe ideas totally fail to accept that as Matter is unconscious it must work in accord with existing intrinsic universal physical law.
What is knowable is that there is no ‘first cause’. Eternity doesn’t include first causes! Everything has always existed, on and off, at different times and circumstances. In our perfect Universe, conditions at any point denote outcomes. Its inherent capacity allows any and every possible variation over time.

I regard ‘first cause’ as a philosophical con trick. The philosopher thinks of a logically convincing term and then develops it to fit his theories, so when someone opposes the theories, he can accuse them of defying the logic of the term. ‘Intelligent design’ is another such device. Your own theory is simply a different ‘first cause’ from Aquinas’s God - namely, an eternal (= always existed), ever changing “everything”/universe/combination of energy and matter, as I indicated above in the comment you quoted.

reblak: What it may include is an ongoing process of collapse and regeneration. That behaviour may possibly occur as a result of widespread supernovas. We may never know the definite truth. Such regeneration may entail a ‘rolling’ effect that is always afoot from place to place throughout the Universe. However, there can be no change in the actual makeup. The ‘laws’ have no capacity for change. An automatic process cannot change – it is immutable!

This is a problem for me. What laws, what “automatic process”, can account for the appearance of living cells capable of evolving from bacteria into the complexities of conscious human beings? I raised this question before, and drew your attention to a certain form of panpsychism that tied in with some of your ideas, but you never responded. Evolvable life and consciousness (in all its manifestations) for me are two major stumbling blocks to acceptance of atheistic materialism. (NB non-acceptance is not the same as rejection, which applies equally to my views on theism).

reblak: This process thereby totally precludes any pre-existing form of Universe. Such a view is a grossly misguided failure to understand that we have already a perfect Universe. Were it imperfect it would never have existed.

See below for a pre-existing form. I find your belief in an eternal universe very acceptable, but “we may never know the definite truth” applies to most aspects of our discussions! I am bewildered by your reference to “perfection”. I have asked you about this before, but you never answered. There are no criteria for you to judge by. What, for instance, would you regard as perfect about a comet smashing into Planet Earth and destroying every living thing? The universe is what it is and does what it does, and that’s all we know. Why muddy the waters with indefinable "perfection"?

reblak: This factor removes any possibility of any Big Bang or its attendant Black Holes and invisible Dark Fairies. Any re-formation absolutely must occur only within pre-exist [now also current] universal physical laws.

But an ongoing process of collapse and regeneration ties in with a cyclic universe, which you say somewhat reflects your own view. How does this remove the possibility of a “pre-existing form of Universe” or even a Big Bang? Doesn’t it simply mean that instead of new universes starting from scratch, you have one universe changing itself into another, as I suggested before?

Once again, I must stress that I greatly appreciate the rest of your post, and the above relates only to those aspects that I feel able to discuss and would like to see clarified.