A GRAPHICS REPRISE: Big Bang Cosmology dissidents

Big Bang cosmology, Big Bang dissidents, big bang cosmology dissidents, critics of Big Bang Cosmology, Hannes Alfven, Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Eric Lerner, Jayant Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, Margaret Burbidge

Big Bang cosmology, Big Bang dissidents, big bang cosmology dissidents, critics of Big Bang Cosmology, Hannes Alfven, Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Eric Lerner, Jayant Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, Margaret Burbidge


The above graphic shows some of the “classical” Big Bang dissidents. Please note these transitions:

HANNES ALFVEN (1908 – 1995)
FRED HOYLE (1915 – 2001)
HALTON ARP (1927 – 2013)
GEOFFREY BURBIDGE (1925 – 2010)

These scientists opposed Big Bang with a deep intellectual passion – each from his own scientific standpoint. But they were unable to counter the growing “political” power of the Big Bang cosmologists.

In the end they all got tripped up by the discovery of the relic blackbody spectrum by Penzias and Wilson in 1964. Alfven and Hoyle both tried to explain the backbody radiation in terms other than Big Bang. But nobody listened to them. The blackbody became Big Bang’s big cudgel with which to beat up on the dissidents.

There is indication that each of the above scientists ended his scientific life on a note of despair over the failure to stem the Big Bang tide. They died without knowing the truth – that they were right about Big Bang cosmology all along.

And this I find saddening. Even though these dissidents opposed Big Bang, they were gentlemen scientists who accepted in implicit trust that the Penzias-Wilson blackbody was legitimate. It was in fact a total scam. In the same way, the dissidents trusted the 1990 report of the discovery of the full-blown blackbody spectrum by John Mather. They despaired further. This report was in fact an outright fraud.

Science has been better for having these and other dissidents like them.

I studied the history of dissidence and made for myself the following mental notes on what was needed to stop the scourge:

1. Conventional scientific criticism has not worked. What was needed was an investigation in behalf of the society at large.

2. Waging the battle within the scientific establishment following their prescribed rules has not worked. What was needed was to wage the battle in the public arena in full view of everyone.

3. The language of polite academic discourse has not worked. What was needed was the language of everyman – even salty language when needed for emphasis.

4. The investigation should focus on the experimental evidence and completely avoid the theory.

5. The investigator needed to recognize at the very outset that he was going to burn all bridges behind him. He needed to be completely comfortable with this, and not pull any punches.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s