This clip, the little gem above, is very old, although I don't exactly know which year saw it's creation or the context for which it was made. Its specific purpose is a bit mysterious. It's general purpose is fortunately self evident.
It seeks to portray Big Bang Cosmology as dogmatic, hastily concluded and flimsy. I would add tribal (Ive discovered that when trying to raise the issue for discussion people are divided along polar lines of one team vs another. Such division is a lot like faith based religion or cultural practices.) This portrayal is justified. The standard model needs a purposeful suspension of disbelief. It appears more and more like a political conviction. Perhaps so, but the tribal aspect seems to have its origin in a social/psychological cause.
Our personal sense of identity is increasingly based on some of these cultural norms. It follows logically that we would increasingly risk a self-image crises (or worse) accordingly. Linking our sense of who we are to any ideology or school of thought is the fastest way to lose clarity on an issue. Our psychological need to avoid a crises of identity will involve defending whatever issue is at hand as if it were our own personal standing.
Lately, in the age of politicised science surrounding climate and vaccines, if we fundamentally do not attribute the implications of the ossification of various standard models to their own conduct then we are inviting trouble. By placing standard models beyond reproach we make a defacto declaration that we have stopped doing science, at least at institutional level.
This ossification includes a monopoly on the public funding allocated to a rotten academic establishment. This in turn partly explains why the scientific method was abandoned for "consensus science". The other part is ostensibly also related to special interests financially, but outside the scientific establishment itself, but with a tangible need for the experts to lend legitimacy to whatever they have cooked up. Within the consensus science establishment they always place their vote with themselves to positions of influence, this is human nature. Such positions invariably are the same ones that receive R&D or grant funding. It goes without saying that they design their own course material for academic curriculums as well as public understanding of science.
"Public understanding of science" is an insidiously poised collection of academics or cultural influencers who the public respond well to, and usually this involves a high level of trust and credibility. This is no accident. When you effectively steal taxes you require a PR arm to create justifications for plundering societies to fund dead-end research.
Don't lose sight of the framing of this critical issue raised by the satirical old clip I embedded at the start. Then keep in mind that it is the insiders overseeing their own funding, and the big bang has held that monopoly for years, how interesting to see such old satire lamenting this!
Of course this site, the one you are currently reading, is loaded with gripes in that regard, and competing cosmolgies are as recurring theme here.
I had imagined that no true resistance of any substance was really in the public consciousness before around, let's say the 1980's. That's a long time after the Big Bang itself started becoming more widely accepted perhaps in the 20s or 30s. What do I know apparently? There must have been alot more resistance and a lot earlier than I had imagined. I am aware of the resistance of Fred Hoyle, Hannes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland, Immanuel Velikovsky, Halton Arp, Wallace Thornhill and Many Others right up to Eric Lerner (who has been in the news often recently in the fall out following the James Webb Space Telescope's failure to uncover the anticipated data predicted by the ^CDM establishment). Regarding the JWST, they had had to be creative to salvage the Big Bangs purely gravity centered dark universe from the widening crises in cosmology. This crises is as ominous as the aforementioned identity crises. It is poised to tear the establishment apart the way I remember "the nothing" tearing Fantasia apart in "The Never Ending Story" when watching it as a child in the 80's.
How apt for a model which was itself 96% dark, this being the most dramatic and spectacular failure of predictive success since the predictive success of cosmology was put forward by many of those voices of descent at 4.6%. A predictive success rate of 4.6% cannot be seriously propsed to a public as a legitimate science that is in their interests to have the national budget in any nation provide for its tax support in R&D. That 4.6% is the paltry proportion of the universe that can be accounted for when the Friedman Equations are applied through layers of contrivance (like cosmic inflation). The equations require a variety of fudge factors such as dark matter and dark energy, and a "big bang" start. The very critical start date yielded by such equations 13.8 billion years ago. In their rampant unchecked hubris these cosmologists have resorted to describing the first nanosecond of creation while other lines of evidence are off by orders of magnitude. S staggering state of affairs.
The supposed precisely calculated reverse engineered concoction they have utilised skirts around such contradictions by periodically making small adjustments or selecting which lines of evidence are most useful in preserving the entrenched narrative. Descent is treated in the way one would usually reserve for treason or heresy and the price paid by such traitors is suitably dire, ensuring theirs is the ONLY set of variables anyone can ever use. This applies unless they prefer being fired and chased from their career by village mobs brandishing flaming pitchforks.
Those variables were only ever calculated by processing the dynamics through a single force, an unbalanced force of attraction that presented a problem. In absence of all other forces the problem was obvious. It required a balancing force to explain why gravity didn't collapse the universe. In this case after misunderstanding evidence such as redshift and the CMB, an explosion type outward force to exist throughout time and exist in precisely the fine balance needed to balance out the model. Contrived much?
There has never been a better example of pure fudge factor parading as evidence. Every line of evidence, every single one has been evidence against a big bang. An unbalanced dark universe where every new observation disproves the previous one unless new physics is invented with every new telescope.
Those who did not blow a trillion dollars of our money and who account for 100% of the observable universe, who have never has a single need for any of the 65 new physics inventions of theoretical physics (this goes far further than dark matter multiple dimensions of space or curved spacetime or the new matter required to hold together the preposterous, borderline supernatural spectacles these clowns have filled our skies with just to avoid using proven physics been put forward used by competing models to explain the universe with the same physics we use on earth to replicate in labs every single one of the observations we invented hypothetical physics for to keep Lambda CDM on life support. That's right. Models exist that account for 100% of the universe purely based on observable matter. In these models we never needed a single new theoretical physics principle to explain a single observation in 50 years. They pretty much got every prediction to match observation and only learned what was not predicted in observation. Rather than predicting something wrong keeping and "tweaking" the model dozens of times, we should have taken another look at models that predicted all the emerging anomalies. They behaved just like it was a climate model (ie just for show and to secure funding, doomed for perpetual overhaul) and that is telling.
If you didn't know there were models around for decades that performed so excellently, you are not alone. They will be around always, basically correct and unchanged as usual, you dont change a model with predictive success, you plump them out, with funding.
But thats not going to happen. I've done a rough calculation, in around 20 years the current model will be the same as the models that worked all along, whose discoverers lost their jobs, were ridiculed and insulted by those whose junk model is slowly being tweaked to match the models they mock. With each new tweak they copy one more principle from the people whose potential jobs they unjustly occupy. In about 2 decades nobody will remember the mistakes, or who had a solution a century before that was (at the time) 180° opposed to theirs in this imagined future where I put forward it will end up as identical. This happens slowly at the pace of new technology arriving and verifying findings. There are bookies that will offer odds on the cheats. If you want a good hint for the age of the universe by the time a new telescope is launched, increase 13.8 billion years to 26 Billion years. If you want good odds for 20 years in the future, I might suggest that new future telescope will offer data to concede that the age and size of the universe are not currently knowable, and every one of the goons in observatories today will claim they knew all along: "Nobody really believed dark matter existed" or that they never seriously considered "the accelerating expansion rate of the universe.
So why even bother to discover new science from such a protected position?
Where else have we seen disaster emerge out of lack of accountability? How about our politicians and diplomats?
Having useless wars is a great way to secure taxpayer cash, especially for military contractors or those invested in their stocks. In fact we could further by pointing out that decisively winning wars is less profitable that dragging them out for decades. Logic dictates that this would replace victory as the primary incentive for those who stand to profit.
Having a model that is useless is a great way to blow cash if results are not your only motive. The sooner you get results the sooner your need to have your research funded arrives. Besides, we don't need the money apparently. Our infrastructure is in too good a condition, right? Families eat too much, blow far too much on luxuries like insulin and surgery, and in any case, why build roads and keep educating kids to high standards when we could keep blowing trillions on pointless wars and totally monopolize the arms dealing industry to support our western core of diplomats. How did that work out? We ended up with diplomats who are actually not working for taxpayers but instead as "market development specialists" for the MIC. They develop a global marketplace to create new business for our arms dealers at the MIC, ie conflict zones. Even a gun given to a child soldiers must be secured with access to your hard work and tax. You will be plundered to keep building new NASA projects that never learn anthing and hogg the world's best engineers frm JPL. Why not just keep blowing all the time and money, it's how you keep rivals from getting it who will learn from it. That way nobody can expose how bad the current "expert's" are until after they kick the bucket.
That is unavoidable and the space sciences scientific establishment already has a predictive success in line with the record Western diplomats have in avoiding wars.
The solution seems clear to me: We fund them. We can cut them off.
All that's missing is the public appetite for oversight. Going forward all funding should be commensurate with performance, this goes without saying. I guess what is revealed is the inherent lack of respect public servants have for our money and together with all the special interests they have a sense of entitlement to a free lunch on you and I.
