Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore

We used to think the Big Bang meant the universe began from a singularity. Nearly 100 years later, we’re not so sure.

Source: Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore

Well, well, well. How the turntables…

“Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we can no longer speak with any sort of knowledge or confidence as to how — or even whether — the universe itself began.”

People who write about science are just certain that they know everything except what they don’t know. What I mean is that they will say we “know” this and that, but we don’t “know” this other. Right? The problem is that “this other” isn’t really in a different league of uncertainty than “this” and “that.” I’ve watched very carefully for this in articles about science for 30 years.

The truth is that “science” has many, gaping holes in various theories about the nature of the universe, but few people acknowledge them. For instance, scientists conclude not only that “dark matter” — a substance which they cannot observe or measure — not only exists, but must make up 95% of the known universe to make their current models work mathematically. The whole concept is just a total “handwave,” and the “scientific community” just pretends that it’s not a problem.

In this article, the writer lays out everything we “know” about the early origins of the universe, and then concludes that we “know” nothing about how it started. Which, coincidentally, is something I’ve been pointing out for decades. The so-called Big Bang Theory actually does nothing to explain our existence here, and this article admits it.

Scientists are forced to conclude that conditions must have been exactly perfect for the expansion of the universe to have occurred in the way we now see it, and there’s no natural explanation for that to have been the case. Just like with evolution, everything supposedly lined up perfectly, but nothing that we can observe or experience about our physical laws tells us that this would happen. (In fact, quite the opposite.) In effect, this article, while purporting to explain in better detail the origins of the universe, argues for at least a guiding hand from a higher intelligence in establishing our reality.

New evidence shows that the key assumption made in the discovery of dark energy is in error

Taken at face values, the luminosity evolution of SN is significant enough to question the very existence of . When the luminosity evolution of SN is properly taken into account, the team found that the evidence for the existence of dark simply goes away (see Figure 1).

Source: New evidence shows that the key assumption made in the discovery of dark energy is in error

I don’t know what the graph is supposed to represent, but… no “dark energy.” You know, the bedrock idea that has undergirded all astronomical research for the past couple decades. You know, the thing that has never been observed or measured; only assumed, in order to make the math work. All just chucked out the window, based on some new observations.

Like whether eggs are good for you, or going to be the grisly death of you, depending on the year, maybe this will go back and forth for awhile.

Please don’t wonder why I have a hard time taking what’s reported in the news about biology (evolution), cosmology (Big Bang), or climate (death of the planet by “change”) to be gospel. Excuse me while I give such things a couple hundred years to be proven out.

My problem isn’t with the research, or the invalidation of previous results. My problem in all of this is there’s no objectivity in the papers or the reporting. So as we try to answer a fundamental question like: “Is the universe going to eventually collapse onto itself, and start the Big Bang all over again, or did it happen in a way that can never be repeated?” I wish, instead of stating, “Yes, and it will happen 13.72343 billion years from now,” papers would summarize their findings like, “We think so, and perhaps a dozen billion years from now, given these critical assumptions, and within this confidence interval.” Then I could start taking it all much more seriously.

Until then, all I can see in our current system are shocking headlines in a bid for page views, and preposterous statements in a grab for more grant money for the next study.