Big Bang Theory gets a 1.3-Billion Year Facelift

PSI Blog 20190522 Big Bang Theory gets a 1.3-Billion Year Facelift

Thanks to George Coyne, Director of the Vancouver Office, for this heads up:


From the article below:

"The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought. Scientists are scrambling to figure out why."

“New research suggests that the Big Bang that birthed the cosmos occurred 12.5 billion years ago.”

This is a loss of 1.3 billion years from the previous reports of 13.8 billion which were considered unassailable. If supporting the absurd Big Bang Theory requires an age for the Universe of 6,000 to 10,000 years, its proponents will have no problem generating such an estimate.[1] This would delight the Christian young Earth creationists who claim this is when God created the Universe. I would not be surprised to see this happen within another few decades.

[GB: This article shows the paradoxical mess cosmogonists have gotten themselves into. Readers familiar with "Infinite Universe Theory" will have little trouble (other than nausea) in spotting the contradictions. Here is only one of them, which has become a standard shibboleth among regressives:

“The current discrepancy traces its origin way back to 1929, when astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies are fleeing from Earth in all directions.”

Of course, Hubble discovered no such thing. The only thing he discovered was that, like everything else, light lost energy as it traveled great distances. Again, Hubble did not discover the universe was expanding. He always denied that. Universal expansion was an interpretation by a priest in 1950.[2] That was in accord with Einstein and extent religious beliefs that the universe had a beginning that required a creator. The only thing different today is that cosmogonists have replaced the creator with the equally supernatural "dark energy."]

[1] Coyne, George, 2019, Notfinity process, 2nd ed. (in press).
[2] Lemaitre, Georges, 1950, The primeval atom: An essay on cosmogony: New York, D. Van Nostrand, 186 p.

No comments: