Why Abandon the Big Bang Theory — Science and Theology in Astronomical Cosmology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Big Bang said the universe was created from ONE atom explosion. An atom exploding out of the sun, the galaxy, the universe, etc., cannot be science. Its roots in theology. 97 years has passed since priest and physicist Lemaître started his Big Bang. Since then, many offsprings of it has come out, like dark energy, dark matter …… Huge amount of resource was invested into them, yet none is successful. And no hope of success within the context of the Big Bang theory. This makes me doubt about the Big Bang and the astronomy cosmology within recent 97 years. I came up with the idea of abandoning the Big Bang theory. In the April 2024 meeting of the American Physical Society, I proposed this idea of abandoning the Big Bang Theory for people’s comments, and the responses were positive. (Figure 1) Here we described why we need abandon the Big Bang theology, how to abandon it, pros and cons of abandon it, and the way to solve most important problem related to abandon it. We first try to understand the difference between theology and science.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".