Astronomers See Evidence of Something Unexpected in the Universe

I think it would have been more accurate if you had chosen a phrasing that expressed a more personal sentiment. The less mysterious your comments become, the more obvious it is that we are looking at your own personal position rather than some weakness in the science. If you had made similar comments about biology rather than physics, I suspect more folks would think you sound like a creationist. I've reached that point already.Red shifted light and CMB are not separate lines of evidence? Sounds to me like a personal choice of what to understand rather than a serious questioning of the science.

There is also the fact that it is coming from everywhere in the universe and that it has the predicted power spectrum.

Then I would be curious as to what you think a scientific theory is. In my view and the view of the vast majority of scientists, a scientific theory is a set of tested and supported hypotheses. The redshift of galaxies, the CMB, and the ratio of light elements tested those hypotheses and they were supported. Therefore, scientists call it the Big Bang theory.

Then it just comes down to how stubbornly you will hold onto a position.

A standard of measurement is not a theory.Also, the BB theory predicts that redshift will correlate with distance. For most of us, when predictions made by a hypothesis match observations we call that a supported hypothesis. A theory is a group of supported hypotheses and is also a framework or model for making further hypotheses. That's the standard in science.

quote:

---

The term nucleosynthesis refers to the formation of heavier elements, atomic nuclei with many protons and neutrons, from the fusion of lighter elements. The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place. One second after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was roughly 10 billion degrees and was filled with a sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons and neutrinos. As the universe cooled, the neutrons either decayed into protons and electrons or combined with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). During the first three minutes of the universe, most of the deuterium combined to make helium. Trace amounts of lithium were also produced at this time. This process of light element formation in the early universe is called Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN).

​

The predicted abundance of deuterium, helium and lithium depends on the density of ordinary matter in the early universe, as shown in the figure at left. These results indicate that the yield of helium is relatively insensitive to the abundance of ordinary matter, above a certain threshold. We generically expect about 24% of the ordinary matter in the universe to be helium produced in the Big Bang. This is in very good agreement with observations and is another major triumph for the Big Bang theory.
WMAP Big Bang Elements Test

---

I am not trying to convince other people to agree with me. I am only explaining why I remain unconvinced. No. Because "science" does not name any entity that is capable of being convinced.

Personally, I don't consider that to be satisfactory.

That's fine. Begin any time. Someone recently said, "I don't need to play word games." They seem good words to live by.--Percy

Clearly wrong. I am not holding onto a position. I am patiently waiting to see what other evidence shows up.

Until you explain why at least 3 independent lines of evidence are not enough it looks a lot like stubbornness.

It's a word. If you want to coin a new word which refers to whatever you are thinking of as something that 'establish{es} standards for research' you are welcome to (it sounds like a 'protocol' to me, but I expect there are more notions you are thinking of that you haven't described here). But the word 'theory' has been used in this way for longer than either of us have been alive - I'm at a loss as to how a word can be satisfactory or otherwise, but it doesn't seem an important point either way.