According to researchers at King’s College in London, the latest model scientists hold about the Big Bang may in fact be false.
A March 2014 experiment known as “Bicep2″ supposedly found evidence in favor of the Big Bang model of the universe. The Big Bang model, the belief that the universe originated from being less than an inch across, is the belief that most scientists hold about the origin of the universe today. Proponents of Bicep2 believe that the universe expanded rapidly after the moment of the Big Bang.
However, now the researchers at King’s College have come to the conclusion that the universe could not have remained intact if Bicep2 was the case. Instead, there would have been a “Big Crunch” of the universe. The leader of the study, a PhD student at King’s College in London, commented about this as follows:
This is an unacceptable prediction of the theory because if this had happened, we wouldn’t be around to discuss it.
Answers in Genesis scientist Danny Faulkner commented about the Big Bang model:
But over the past decades, the big bang theory has proven to be quite pliable.
When it was first introduced, the “big bang” was sometimes an object of ridicule. But over the past decades, it has proven to be quite pliable, morphing to adapt to each new problem. Are these changes true improvements, or just rescuing devices?
Is the Big Bang an example of a model where most people just believe the model because scientists say so, and not because of rational proof? Is it the best model we have for the universe, despite its many historical flaws? What do you think about the Big Bang?
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom