🚀 go-pugleaf

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/history-intolerance-in-cosmology
A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology
by Dr. Jerry Bergman, January 21, 2009
"Big Bang cosmology is typically presented as established fact;
instead of the data and observations that do not fit serving to
motivate scientists to more carefully evaluate the Big Bang, the
observations are sometimes arbitrarily dismissed because true
believers conclude they must be wrong. This situation illustrates the
Kuhnian hypothesis: although the opinion of some astronomers is that
as evidence against the Big Bang accumulates, this evidence is often
explained away or dismissed, sometimes by ostracizing the astronomers
who are uncovering the evidence. Unfortunately, though, the tenacity
with which this worldview is held prevents an objective evaluation of
the evidence, both that in favor, and that against this belief
(Spetner 1997). Hoyle explained that, as a result of the concerns
reviewed above, the major "efforts of investigators have been in
papering over holes in the big-bang theory, to build up an idea that
has become ever more complex and cumbersome" (Hoyle 1984, p. 84). He
compares this to the idea of epicycles developed by Ptolemy in the
second century A.D. To account for the fact that the planets moved in
complicated paths across the sky with respect to the nearly fixed
background of stars, Ptolemy suggested that planets "revolved around
the earth in a sequence of embedded circles, epicycles, circles on top
of circles." This complex system eventually failed in spite of the
fact that Ptolemy's model was remarkably successful at predicting the
position of planets and was used for centuries. Unfortunately, "it may
well be that proponents of the big-bang are making a similar
misjudgment" (Hoyle 1984, p. 84). The fact is, A MODEL THAT IS
FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG CAN MAKE SUCCESSFUL PREDICTIONS, as was true of
Ptolemy's model, may prove to be true of the Big Bang model as well."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Initial hypotheses (axioms, postulates), according to Karl Popper,
should be "bold", which means that the prior probability that they are
false is relatively high. Then Popper seems to see no way of getting
rid of false hypotheses unless the theory as a whole is rejected,
because of conflict with the so-called basic statements "whose
acceptance or rejection, in its turn, depends upon our decisions".
Even in the presence of such a conflict however false hypotheses could
still be saved: Popper: "On the other hand, I also realized that we
must not exclude immunizations, not even all which introduce ad hoc
auxiliary hypothesis....All this shows not only that some degree of
dogmatism is fruitful, even in science, but also that logically
speaking falsifiability or testability cannot be regarded as a very
sharp criterion."

False initial hypotheses should be rejected at an early stage, e.g. by
using REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, before partisans have managed to convert
the theory into an ideology:

http://www.labnews.co.uk/laboratory_article.php/4514/2/attack-on-great-pillar-of-physics

The ideology is unfalsifiable - the white is called black, 2+2=4 is
replaced by 2+2=5 etc:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the antithesis of
Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light, and contradicted the thesis that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the light source (the future
light postulate). Now Einsteinians fiercely teach that the Michelson-
Morley experiment so unambiguously confirmed the thesis that the speed
of light is independent of the speed of the light source that Einstein
had no other choice but to advance his 1905 light postulate.

Neither the 1919 nor any other solar eclipse was able to supply
reliable data allowing one to discriminate between deflection
predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and deflection
predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory, no matter how modern
methods were used. Yet Einsteinians fiercely teach that in 1919 Arthur
Eddington gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor to
be 1+V/c^2, where V is the gravitational potential. Einsteinians
fiercely teach that this result was a glorious confirmation of Divine
Albert's Divine Theory but close inspection shows that in fact it
REFUTED Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

In 1924 Arthur Eddington forced Walter Adams to cheat: Adams published
the gravitational redshift suggested by Eddington and predicted by
Divine Albert's Divine Theory, not the gravitational redshift he had
really measured (the Sirius B fraud). Yet for 50 years this was
regarded as the most reliable confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine
Theory.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com