Big Bang regressives and reformists compete for cosmogonical superiority in Nature and New Scientist

PSI Blog 20190925 Big Bang regressives and reformists compete for cosmogonical superiority in Nature and New Scientist

I guess “Nature” was trying to outdo “New Scientist” in pandering to the latest cosmological nonsense on August 14.

Here is the latest regression from Nature:

"The quest to unlock the secrets of the baby Universe

Radioastronomers look to hydrogen for insights into the Universe’s first billion years."

Here is the latest reform attempt from New Scientist:

"What if there was no big bang and we live in an ever-cycling universe?

There is no good evidence that our universe even had a beginning, a startling proposition that means the cosmos could collapse in about 100 billion years"

You can read these or not, depending on how confused you wish to be. They are instructive as comparisons of the regressive approach and the reformist approach.

We define regressives as those who have fallen for relativity and the Big Bang Theory hook, line, and sinker. The Nature article does that by pursuing Kuhn’s “ordinary science” as if the regressive paradigm had no flaws whatsoever. And who knows? They might find something useful, just like the Microwave Background and dark matter that must be taken into account in Infinite Universe Theory as well. It makes sense to start with hydrogen, which is small enough and ubiquitous enough. Maybe they will even survive the shock of their eventual discovery that hydrogen is being produced as this is written.

We define reformists as critical thinkers who accept part of the mainstream paradigm but not other parts. The New Scientist article rejects the assumption that the universe had an origin. Strictly speaking then, the proposal brought forth is not a cosmogony. But like the mainstream regressives and the Steady State Theorists, it accepts the universal expansion hypothesis. The author obviously has no qualms about Einstein’s eight ad hocs that kept the particle theory of light and the expansion ideas from their deserved demise. Of course, the cycling idea, like the oxymoronic multiverse ideas both depend on magical causation just like the Big Bang Theory itself.