Inconsistencies with the Big Bang theory are now observations that support it?

I have a Physics degree, but no special understanding of cosmology. I hope this isn't an anti-science thread. What makes you think that these were "once thought to be inconsistent with the Big Bang Theory". According to whom?

In science when you get new data that contradicts an existing theory, you go back to work... sometimes the new data suggests a minor change to the theory, occasionally it means the theory needs to be completely reworked. That is one of the unique strengths of the hard sciences... it is all about evidence. You go with the evidence whether it supports your ideas or not.

Homework sucks, eh? Especially if you haven't been taking notes in class and haven't read the text.

I like Max’s answer to your question. Go with that.

You have to consider that science is broken. Dark matter and expanding universe are the foundations of everything we think we know about the universe, and they are fudge factors. Dark matter was invented in 1932 by Ian Oort to fudge his data to agree with his theory. Look it up at wikipedia.

Edwin Hubble noted that light from some galaxies seemed to be red shifted. The rest of the astronomers made a series of bonkers assumptions and concluded that the universe is expanding and we can measure the approximate distances to all those galaxies just by the color of their light.

Pointing these mistakes out always draws personal insults instead of scientific refutation. Science is so broken that a fact is anything commanded by "consensus", not something based on observation and confirmed according to the scientific method you learned in school.

You are wrong about science being "broken". You are also wrong in you narrative about how science is done and about why consensus among researchers is so important.

I am willing to try and have a civil discussion about why you are wrong if this is possible. There are two things though that are important in any such discussion.

1. Science is a highly specialized field that is done by experts. You can't really understand science without having gone through the process of study and practice. This is a strength of science.

2. One you go through the process of learning the math and studying past work, everything in science is testable and repeatable.

There are right and wrong answers in science.

I agree. The problem is science proposes matter can just pop into existence at the high energy, conditions of the early universe soon after the Big Bang. The problem is it takes matter interacting with the space time continuum (higgs field) for a gravitational field to exist and, there was no matter before the Big Bang. So, how did gravity drive the Big Bang and matter.



The Big Bang is not testable. We understand the past by looking at the information that has been stored in matter and the structures of the universe since the ancient past and then try to model how it changes overtime.

We have come up with mathematical models but few physical models. Mathematical models don't predict anything if you can't physically picture or model how the mathematical model works. For their mathematical models of inflation to have any credence they must be able to explain why we have gravity. Unless, you can provide some evidence saying otherwise, I don't think that has been done yet.

Science is not broken but, I was watching a video by Sean Caroll and in the video he stated it is impossible to get a paper accepted on quantum gravity accepted. Quantum gravity (which will provide an underlying structure to the higgs field and matter) will give us a physical model we picture explaining how gravity works.

Science is never broken but scientists can be very close minded at times and really slow up progress.

Why don't they want to even discuss and look for this underlying order by considering quantum gravity?

There you see the demonstration of my statement: I get insults saying I am too stupid to understand science. I quote Albert Einstein:

"If you can't explain what you know so a barmaid understands it, you don't know it."

1) Can you send me to a link to that quote? I don't believe that is an Einstein quote (and there are certainly things that Einstein knew that would be impossible to explain to someone who wasn't well educated). Even if this is from Einsten, it is a pretty stupid quote.

2) There is a difference between being "stupid" and being "ignorant". I have never suggested you are stupid. I am suggesting that you are ignorant.

"Stupid" means you wouldn't understand it even if you did the work. Learning physics is hard and takes years of very hard work. It means studying mathematics (through vector calculus and linear algebra), doing problem sets, working with professors and peers, writing papers, doing labs and taking exams. If you do this, and still don't get it.... it is fair to say that you don't have the intelligence to do this level of science.

"Ignorant" means you haven't done the work to learn. We can't tell if you have the intellectual ability or patience to finish a Physics degree. Many people drop out.

But we can say that if you done the years of hard work to learn Physics, you don't know Physics. I know this is insulting to people, but it is the truth. You don't learn science by reading the internet.