20210510

Which came first, inflation or Big Bang?

PSI Blog 20210510 Which came first, inflation or Big Bang?

 

Question from George Coyne:

 

“Hi Glenn,

 

I found it shocking that those who believe in the Big Bang/inflation model do not agree on which came first, the Big Bang or inflation. I have read scientific articles that take completely different positions.  A question about this is posed at The Physics Stack exchange:

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132794/is-the-big-bang-defined-as-before-or-after-inflation

 

How can a model be taken seriously when there is no agreement on whether inflation came before or after the Big bang?”

 

[GB: George, as you know, the Big Bang Theory is taken very seriously by regressive physicists and cosmogonists. I normally don’t concern myself with such problems. It is their theory, not mine. I considered it nonsensical. Just think about how the explosion of everything out of nothing could have happened? Totally nuts.

 

Remember that the inflation idea also is totally nuts. It came about because the z values (redshifts) of distant galaxies eventually got so great that they implied galaxies were receding from us at greater than the speed of light! Of course, this was verboten by Einstein’s claim that nothing could travel faster than c. No cosmogonist or regressive physicist could contradict Einstein, so an ad hoc had to be prepared to save the BBT and relativity. “Inflation” was the answer, and the guys who promoted that (Guth and his pals)[1] are awaiting the Nobel prize to be bestowed by their fiduciary friends. The hesitancy by the Committee is a good sign—just like their reluctance to give such to Einstein for his bogus relativity theory.

 

Obviously, the choice between what came first, inflation or Big Bang is a non sequitur. I suppose it is no more idiotic than the perfectly empty space the whole thing is based on.[2]

 

That assumption led to Einstein’s ridiculous particle theory of light in which a massless photon containing nothing whatsoever travels perpetually through perfectly empty space containing nothing whatsoever, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The resulting misinterpretation of the cosmological redshift is what led to the expanding universe theory. To come up with that, cosmogonists had to violate known laws of physics. Individual particles do not display doppler effects. That is a property only given to media, which, in this case, is the aether that regressives have dismissed out of hand since Michelson and Morley’s misguided experiment.[3] There are many mechanisms that can produce a red shift, which simply is the lengthening of waves as they travel through particulate media. Longer waves have less energy than shorter ones. Only the most naïve idealist could believe waves could travel the immense distances so far observed without losing energy. In other words, cosmogonists are expecting us to believe each wave will achieve perfection in producing the next. This perfection is supposed to show no diminishment for 13.8 billion light years. Wow, another ramification of Einstein’s Untired Light Theory!

 

The failure of the doppler effect explanation for recessional velocities greater than light c led to an even more ridiculous excuse for the cosmological redshift: the assumed expansion of perfectly empty space. You read that right. The magical “expansion” of space itself, containing nothing at all, is now the ad hoc used to explain “inflation.” The Big Bang Theory has been given yet another reprieve!]



[1] Guth, A.H., 1998, The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins, Basic Books, 384 p.

Guth, A.H., and Steinhardt, P.J., 1984, The inflationary universe: Scientific American, v. 250, no. 5, p. 116-128, 154.


[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]

 

[3] They failed to realize that aether was entrained, just like our atmosphere. There was no way they could have measured Earth’s 30 km/s velocity around the Sun at Cleveland’s low elevation. That would have been like measuring the velocity of the jet stream in your backyard at sea level. 

7 comments:

George Coyne said...

Thanks for your great reply Glenn. It is quite amusing but true. I am presently using the two books by Lewis Carroll "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland," and "Through the Looking Glass" to help a student with reading skills. For another grade 12 student I am discussing the ideas that you and I write about. The student reading the Carroll books is reading about impossible events encountered by Alice that are less absurd than the claims of BBT proponents, and the other student will see that it is necessary to be skeptical of the BBT model based on the 63 invalidations of it that I have uncovered.

George Coyne said...

Thanks for your great reply Glenn. It is quite amusing but true. I am presently using the two books by Lewis Carroll "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland," and "Through the Looking Glass" to help a student with reading skills. For another grade 12 student I am discussing the ideas that you and I write about. The student reading the Carroll books is reading about impossible events encountered by Alice that are less absurd than the claims of BBT proponents, and the other student will see that it is necessary to be skeptical of the BBT model based on the 63 invalidations of it that I have uncovered.

George Coyne said...

Thanks for your great reply Glenn. It is quite amusing but true. I am presently using the two books by Lewis Carroll "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland," and "Through the Looking Glass" to help a student with reading skills. For another grade 12 student I am discussing the ideas that you and I write about. The student reading the Carroll books is reading about impossible events encountered by Alice that are less absurd than the claims of BBT proponents, and the other student will see that it is necessary to be skeptical of the BBT model based on the 63 invalidations of it that I have uncovered.

George Coyne said...

Thanks for your great reply Glenn. It is quite amusing but true. I am presently using the two books by Lewis Carroll "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland," and "Through the Looking Glass" to help a student with reading skills. For another grade 12 student I am discussing the ideas that you and I write about. The student reading the Carroll books is reading about impossible events encountered by Alice that are less absurd than the claims of BBT proponents, and the other student will see that it is necessary to be skeptical of the BBT model based on the 63 invalidations of it that I have uncovered.

George Coyne said...

Thanks for your great reply Glenn. It is quite amusing but true. I am presently using the two books by Lewis Carroll "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland," and "Through the Looking Glass" to help a student with reading skills. For another grade 12 student I am discussing the ideas that you and I write about. The student reading the Carroll books is reading about impossible events encountered by Alice that are less absurd than the claims of BBT proponents, and the other student will see that it is necessary to be skeptical of the BBT model based on the 63 invalidations of it that I have uncovered.

George Coyne said...

Thanks for your great reply Glenn. It is quite amusing but true. I am presently using the two books by Lewis Carroll "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland," and "Through the Looking Glass" to help a student with reading skills. For another grade 12 student I am discussing the ideas that you and I write about. The student reading the Carroll books is reading about impossible events encountered by Alice that are less absurd than the claims of BBT proponents, and the other student will see that it is necessary to be skeptical of the BBT model based on the 63 invalidations of it that I have uncovered.

Glenn Borchardt said...

And thank you George for the wonderful question. Hope you enjoy your book prize.