Cart

Crisis in Cosmology 2 (CCC2)

[challenges to conventional cosmology and

the quest for a new picture of the universe]

A Meta Research Press Release

Overview

• Is the universe really expanding, or is the light from galaxies simply losing energy on its way to us?
• Did the universe really begin 14 billion years ago, or has it existed forever?
• Is the microwave radiation from the sky really the remnant of a “Big Bang” fireball, or is it just the temperature of space?
• Do exotic things such as “black holes”, “dark matter” and “dark energy” really exist, or are they mathematical inventions needed to save a bad theory?

         About 50 astronomers from all over the world specializing in cosmology, the study of the universe, will gather in Port Angeles, WA from Sept. 8-11 to address mounting problems with the conventional picture called the “Big Bang” theory.

Movement began with “open letter” in 2004

         In May 2004, New Scientist magazine published an “open letter” signed by 34 scientists critical not just of the currently accepted Big Bang theory, but of the unscientific way it was being exclusively funded and supported even when observations challenged it. That struck a resonant chord with other astronomers and scientists, and the number of signatures today has risen to over 500. This “revolt within the ranks” meshed well with an informal 1998 survey of members of the public having some expressed interest in cosmology, who felt almost unanimously that present-day cosmology was unlikely to survive in anything like its present form to the end of this 21^st century.

Big Bang wrong, no agreement on alternative

         The widespread interest in the open letter led to a meeting of some of the critical scientists in Portugal in 2005. The meeting soon made it clear that the breadth and depth of evidence against the Big Bang theory was more than anyone had realized. But while most agreed the Big Bang was fatally flawed, no consensus emerged about what should replace it. Indeed, there proved to be an embarrassment of riches in that regard. Many scientists in and out of the field, and even many laypersons, had their own ideas about cosmology, but few agreed with any of the others.

New conference has new goals

         Four scientific groups with an interest in cosmology joined together to find a way to make further progress. They scheduled this new CCC2 conference and set two new goals for it: publicizing the extent of the Big Bang failures, and setting criteria for any valid replacement cosmological theory. Both goals involve close adherence to observational constraints without invoking elaborate inventions. The Big Bang closely matches most (but not all) observations, but only with the aid of invisible, undetectable mathematical devices such as “black holes”, “dark matter, “dark energy”, “inflation”, “acoustic ringing”, and other inventions. Most papers on new theories were not accepted for this conference except for those dealing with the four alternative cosmologies that could already show some credible amount of observational and scientific community support.

Why NASA isn’t supporting this effort

         A significant amount of the new observational evidence comes to us via NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope, although many other ground and space-based observatories have contributed too. When budgets became tight, NASA “adopted” certain theories as essentially established, and stopped funding research into alternatives. These financially favored theories include the Big Bang, “black holes”, “dark matter”, and “dark energy”. It has taken many dozens of findings opposing the Big Bang and a revolt by non-NASA-funded scientists to bring the problems to scientific and public attention. The CCC2 conference will emphasize the observational facts and our underlying goal of gaining a deeper understanding of the universe we live in. No funding considerations color those conclusions for CCC2 participants. Some of those observational facts indicate that NASA needs to change course. We hope their response will be based on the merits of the evidence, even though major changes of direction by very large organizations are notoriously difficult to bring about. But doing so would be very much to NASA’s credit, and perhaps even of historic importance.

For more information

         The conference is jointly sponsored by the Alternative Cosmology Group, The International Academy for Cosmological Studies, The Virtual Institute for Rational Astrophysics, and Meta Research.

CCC2 conference web site: http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/

Contact: Tom Van Flandern <tomvf@metaresearch.org>, Meta Research, 360-504-1169 (9-6 PT)