decay in the speed of light

[sylas]

I have just written a post in the Cosmogeny forum. After posting, I noticed my mistake, and deleted the post. But having made the effort to write it up, I may as well post it here where anyone is free to comment on the material.

I was responding to post #19 by scordova, in the thread "Let's move on!". There are others in that thread who are dealing well with the subject matter; the points I am making here could be a supplement.

The fact that Old Universe secular cosmologists like Barrow and Davies are interested in it got me excited at the possibility. If we assume old universe, and get high speed of light in the past, then we realize we might not need old universe assumptions at all. Decaying light speed will account for :

1. Red Shift

2. The supposed Lorentz Time Dilation in Supernova Decay or any such phenomenon (the slow motion is actually a result of light speed decay, not a real Lorentz Transformation )

3. Quantization in the Red Shift

Changes to the speed of light proposed by Barrow and Davies occur, if at all, many billions of years ago, when all kinds of other physical conditions were radically different as well. Their changes would be before the first galaxies or supernova, and so have no effect on the three phenomena you list; and of course they give no comfort to the notion of a time span for the universe in line with biblical literalism.

As for the three phenomena you mention...

• Slowing of light would give blue shift; not red shift. As light slows, wave fronts bunch would up, which reduces the wave length. This is a blue shift.
• Supernova decay sounds like a garbled reference to supernova light curves; an important line of evidence that refutes "tired light" models. Basically, the light from a supernova comes to a peak, and then dies away, over many days. More distant supernova appear to die away more slowly; and this is due to the effects of expansion. Changing speed of light cannot account for this phenomenon. Consider a photon leaving the supernova at the onset of the explosion, and another leaving one hundred days later. Without expansion of space, both photons travel the same distance, and arrive one hundred days apart, regardless of how their speed may have changed. Expansion of space, however, means the second photon travels further; and so arrives more than a hundred days later, thus stretching the light curve.
• The quantized red shift phenomenon has been disproved. It was an artefact of small sample sizes; and does not appear when using the large numbers of galaxies now available. This has been discussed here at TheologyWeb; see post #7 in the thread on "Center of the Universe, Socrates and Humphreys" from last year.

This kind of nonsense all sounds impressive; but it is still the same old content free codswallop.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Jake]

I have just written a post in the Cosmogeny forum. After posting, I noticed my mistake, and deleted the post. But having made the effort to write it up, I may as well post it here where anyone is free to comment on the material.

I was responding to post #19 by scordova, in the thread "Let's move on!". There are others in that thread who are dealing well with the subject matter; the points I am making here could be a supplement.



Changes to the speed of light proposed by Barrow and Davies occur, if at all, many billions of years ago, when all kinds of other physical conditions were radically different as well. Their changes would be before the first galaxies or supernova, and so have no effect on the three phenomena you list; and of course they give no comfort to the notion of a time span for the universe in line with biblical literalism.

As for the three phenomena you mention...

• Slowing of light would give blue shift; not red shift. As light slows, wave fronts bunch would up, which reduces the wave length. This is a blue shift.
• Supernova decay sounds like a garbled reference to supernova light curves; an important line of evidence that refutes "tired light" models. Basically, the light from a supernova comes to a peak, and then dies away, over many days. More distant supernova appear to die away more slowly; and this is due to the effects of expansion. Changing speed of light cannot account for this phenomenon. Consider a photon leaving the supernova at the onset of the explosion, and another leaving one hundred days later. Without expansion of space, both photons travel the same distance, and arrive one hundred days apart, regardless of how their speed may have changed. Expansion of space, however, means the second photon travels further; and so arrives more than a hundred days later, thus stretching the light curve.
• The quantized red shift phenomenon has been disproved. It was an artefact of small sample sizes; and does not appear when using the large numbers of galaxies now available. This has been discussed here at TheologyWeb; see post #7 in the thread on "Center of the Universe, Socrates and Humphreys" from last year.

This kind of nonsense all sounds impressive; but it is still the same old content free codswallop.

Cheers -- Sylas

Im no physicist, but wouldnt changing the constant in the energy-mass equation (E=MC^2) be kind of disastrous for anyone living during such a change?

[NeilUnreal]

I haven't really followed the YEC "C-Decay" thing very closely, but it always seemed to me that the original results were most likely an effect of the increasing resolution in our ability to measure the speed of light. An apparent decrease in speed is exactly what one would expect as the measurement resolution increased -- even if C were unchanging. As the measurement resolution asymptotically approached perfection, the apparent speed of C should asymptotically approach its actual speed from an initial appearance of being nearly infinite. In other words, there is no difference between what the early “C-Decay” researchers were reporting and what we would expect to observe if the speed of light were decreasing.*

I don’t know much about physics, but I know a good bit about scientific measurement and it seems pretty self-evident. Has anyone done an analysis of the reported “C-Decay” data accounting for the increase in measurement resolution? It seems to me that if the hypothesized decay slope mirrors the slope of increased measurement resolution then it's pretty much "case closed," without even looking further at the physics.

-Neil

*Dependent, of course, on whether on chooses to interpret the error bars, or merely report them.

[rogero]

...

I don’t know much about physics, but I know a good bit about scientific measurement and it seems pretty self-evident. Has anyone done an analysis of the reported “C-Decay” data accounting for the increase in measurement resolution? It seems to me that if the hypothesized decay slope mirrors the slope of increased measurement resolution then it's pretty much "case closed," without even looking further at the physics.

-Neil

*Dependent, of course, on whether on chooses to interpret the error bars, or merely report them.

This is a pretty decent statistical analysis the c-measurement data.

[NeilUnreal]

This is a pretty decent statistical analysis the c-measurement data.

Thanks, exactly what I was getting at.

-Neil

[sylas]

I haven't really followed the YEC "C-Decay" thing very closely, ...

Note that the decay in this instance is not based on the old long discredited argument from historical measurements. It is a vague appeal to realistic physical arguments for changes to the speed of light and the fine structure constant very early in the universe, made by conventional mainstream cosmologists.

The work is being taken, and without any rational basis it is proposed that there might some way to get to a young universe somehow by ways unexplained. The creationist in this instance is speculating that there may be a basis in these physical models for explaining such things as red shifts, and light curves, and red shift quantization, in terms of the new changing speed of light models; cosmological phenomena which only make sense in the light of an ancient universe.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Augustine2004]

Slowing of light would give blue shift; not red shift. As light slows, wave fronts bunch would up, which reduces the wave length. This is a blue shift.

My calculations show a red shift assuming
distance between receiver and source = 1e9 meters
frequency as measured at source and assumed constant = 1e9 Hertz
relative slowdown of lightspeed = 0.001

Possibly I made a mistake somewhere, but I've checked the result twice.

The formula that I derived is (absolute frequency shift)/frequency = (relative frequency shfit) = - k/(1+k) where k = distance * frequency * (1/c1 - 1/c0) where c1 = average light speed of second photon and c0 = average light speed of first photon.

[sylas]

My calculations show a red shift assuming
distance between receiver and source = 1e9 meters
frequency as measured at source and assumed constant = 1e9 Hertz
relative slowdown of lightspeed = 0.001

Possibly I made a mistake somewhere, but I've checked the result twice.

The formula that I derived is (absolute frequency shift)/frequency = (relative frequency shfit) = - k/(1+k) where k = distance * frequency * (1/c1 - 1/c0) where c1 = average light speed of second photon and c0 = average light speed of first photon.

I don't doubt the calculation; but I don't understand how you derive the formulae. You speak of two photons travelling the same distance; and hence presumably ariving at different times. I used that notion with the light curve stretching; but I don't see how you apply it for redshift. Genuine question... I need to you to explain it a bit more for me.

My argument on redshift, however, was wrong. I had assumed that photons in the spectral lines of galaxies at different distances were emitted at the same frequency. The speed is frequency times wavelength, and so a reduction in speed gives a smaller wavelength, and that is blueshift. But on reflection that argument was silly. I could equally assume emission at a given wavelength and get the reverse conclusion.

A more useful consideration may be that redshifted photons have lower energy. If fundamantal physical constants like the speed of light or the fine structure constant had varied over the lifetime of distant galaxies, then we should expect that the physics at the time of emission of high red shift photons was quite different. Lower energy for photons corresponding to spectral lines may be a plausible consequence (is it?); but how sensible is a lock step reduction of energy over the whole spectrum as seen in a redshifted spectrum? I don't know... do you have a thought on this?

Cheers -- Sylas

[scordova]

for the record, from:

Invited Research Report

NO. DATE OBSERVER METHOD VALUE OF C (Km/s) 
1 1740 Bradley Aberration 300,650 
2 1783 Lindenau Aberration 300,460 ±160 
3 1843 Struve Aberration 300,020 ±160 
4 1861 Glasenapp Jupiter Satellite 300,050 
5 1874.8 Cornu (Helmert) Toothed Wheel 299,990 ±200 
6 1874.8 Cornu (Dorsey) Toothed Wheel 299,900 ±200 
7 1876.5 Harvard Observat. Jupiter Satellite 299,921 ±13 
8 1879.5 Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,910 ±50 
9 1882.7 Newcomb Rotating Mirror 299,860 ±30 
10 1882.8 Michelson Rotating Mirror 299,853 ±60 
11 1883 Nyren Aberration 299,850 ±90 
12 1900.4 Perrotin Toothed Wheel 299,900 ±80 
13 1902.4 Perrotin Toothed Wheel 299,860 ±80 
14 1902.4 Perrotin/Prim Toothed Wheel 299,901 ±84 
15 1906.0 Rosa and Dorsey Electromag. Units 299,803 ±30 
16 1923 Mercier Waves on Wires 299,795 ±30 
17 1924.6 Michelson Polygonal Mirror 299,802 ±30 
18 1926.5 Michelson Polygonal Mirror 299,798 ±15 
19 1928.0 Mittelstaedt Kerr Cell 299,786 ±10 
20 1932.5 Pease/Pearson Polygonal Mirror 299,774 ±10 
21 1936.8 Anderson Kerr Cell 299,771 ±10 
22 1937.0 Huttel Kerr Cell 299,771 ±10 
23 1940.0 Anderson Kerr Cell 299,776 ±10 
24 1947 Essen,Gordon-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,798 ±3 
25 1947 Essen,Gordon-Smith Cavity Resonator 299,792 ±3 
26 1949 Aslakson Radar 299,792.4 ±2.4 
27 1949 Bergstrand Geodimeter 299,796 ±2 
28 1950 Essen Cavity Resonator 299,792.5 ±1 
29 1950 Hansen and Bol Cavity Resonator 299,794.3 ±1.2 
30 1950 Bergstrand Geodimeter 299,793.1 ±0.26 
31 1951 Bergstrand Geodimeter 299,793.1 ±0.4 
32 1951 Aslakson Radar 299,794.2 ±1.4 
33 1951 Froome Radio Interferom. 299,792.6 ±0.7 
34 1953 Bergstrand Geodimeter 299,792.85 ±0.16 
35 1954 Froome Radio Interferom. 299,792.75 ±0.3 
36 1954 Florman Radio Interferom. 299,795.1 ±3.1 
37 1955 Scholdstrom Geodimeter 299,792.4 ±0.4 
38 1955 Plyler et. al. Spectral Lines 299,792 ±6 
39 1956 Wadley Tellurometer 299,792.9 ±2.0 
40 1956 Wadley Tellurometer 299,792.7 ±2.0 
41 1956 Rank et. al. Spectral Lines 299,791.9 ±2 
42 1956 Edge Geodimeter 299,792.4 ±0.11 
43 1956 Edge Geodimeter 299,792.2 ±0.13 
44 1957 Wadley Tellurometer 299,792.6 ±1.2 
45 1958 Froome Radio Interferom. 299,792.5 ±0.1 
46 1960 Kolibayev Geodimeter 299,792.6 ±0.06 
47 1966 Karolus Modulated Light 299,792.44 ±0.2 
48 1967 Simkin et. al. Microwave Interf. 299,792.56 ±0.11 
49 1967 Grosse Geodimeter 299,792.50 ±0.05 
50 1972 Bay,Luther,White Laser 299,792.462 ±0.018 
51 1972 NBS (Boulder) Laser 299,792.460 ±0.006 
52 1973 Evenson et. al. Laser 299,792.4574 ±0.0011 
53 1973 NRC, NBS Laser 299,792.458 ±0.002 
54 1974 Blaney et. al. Laser 299,792.4590 ±0.0008 
55 1978 Woods et. al. Laser 299,792.4588 ±0.0002 
56 1979 Baird et. al. Laser 299,792.4581 ±0.0019 
57 1983 NBS (US) Laser 299,792.4586 ±0.0003

Some varition on the fundamental constants is indicated as well.
What would be important would be to duplicate James Bradley's measurements. That would be telling.

Walter Brown Reports www.creationscience.com:


M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, writing in the official French astronomical journal in 1927, was probably the first to propose a decreasing speed of light. He based his conclusion on measurements spanning 75 years. Later, he became more convinced and twice published his results in Nature, possibly the most prestigious scientific journal in the world. He emphasized, “If the velocity of light is constant, how is it that, invariably, new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained ... There are twenty-two coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light, while there is not a single one against it .”

setterfield reports:
Observational evidence supports the possibility that light speed c may not be a constant. Some 40 articles about the matter appeared in the scientific literature from 1926 to 1944 alone. Some interesting points emerge from this literature. Despite a strong preference for the constancy of atomic quantities, Dorsey was reluctantly forced to admit: “ As is well known to those acquainted with the several determinations of the velocity of light, the definitive values successively reported … have, in general, decreased monotonously from Cornu’s 300.4 megametres per second in 1874 to Anderson’s 299.776 in 1940… ” [45]. Even Dorsey’s own re-working of the data could not avoid that conclusion.

Quantum Red Shifts by Setterfield:

A new cosmological model is presented here which indicates that redshifts should be quantised in steps of 2.671 km/s as atomic orbit energies undergo isotropic quantum increases with time. These progressive redshift quantum changes are linked with a smoothly changing zero-point energy (ZPE) of the physical vacuum. When a full quantum of additional energy becomes available to atoms from the zero-point fields (ZPF), then atomic orbits isotropically assume a higher energy state. On this model, the redshift data indicate that the ZPE has progressively increased with time. This increase is traced to the behaviour of the vacuum at the Planck length level and is discussed in the final sections of this paper.

	
TABLE I: REDSHIFT QUANTISATIONS IN km/s [2]. 	 
Quantum	 n = 1 n = 3 n = 6 n = 9 n = 14 n = 27 n = 54
PREDICTED 2.671 8.013 16.02 24.04 37.39 72.12 144.2
OBSERVED 2.665 7.997 15.99 24.15 37.5* 72.46 144.9

On the new model,the redshift measurements imply that light-speed, c, is dropping exponentially. For each redshift quantum change, the speed of light has apparently changed by a significant amount. The precise quantity is dependent upon the value adopted for the Hubble constant which links a galaxy's redshift with its distance.

Further, things like the apparent "Lorentz Transformation" with time dilation which is consistent with Big Bang Cosmology and redshift, is also a consistent observation with speed of light decay!

I should note that when we went to atomic clocks and lasers it seemed that speed of light decay was put to rest, but there is an intersting twist which suggest adoption of atomic clocks cancelled out the opportunity to continue to detect the decay:

Walter Brown at www.creationscience.com:

Atomic vs. Orbital Time. Why would the speed of light decrease? T. C. Van Flandern, working at the U.S. Naval Observatory, showed that atomic clocks are probably slowing relative to orbital clocks. Orbital clocks are based on orbiting astronomical bodies, especially Earth’s one-year period about the Sun. Before 1967, one second of time was defined by international agreement as 1/31,556,925.9747 of the time it takes Earth to orbit the Sun. Atomic clocks are based on the vibrational period of the cesium-133 atom. In 1967, a second was redefined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the cesium-133 atom. Van Flandern showed that if atomic clocks are “correct,” the orbital speeds of Mercury, Venus, and Mars are increasing. Consequently, the gravitational “constant” should be changing. However, he noted that if orbital clocks are “correct,” then the gravitational constant is truly constant, but atomic vibrations and the speed of light are decreasing. The drift between the two types of clocks was only several parts per billion per year. But again, the precision of the measurements is so good that the discrepancy is probably real.

[scordova]

in the Setterfield Cosmology

hc = constant
that means Plank's constant had to vary inversely with c, in the Invited Research Report

For the record:

here is the historical data for h/e from which one can infer h.

A desirable trend is upward with respect to time. ;)

AUTHORITY DATE h/e x 10-17 erg-sec/ESU METHOD REF
1. Duane/Palmer/Yeh* 1921 1.37494 CX 288
2. Lawrence* 1926 1.3753 ±0.0027 CP 289
3. Lukirsky/Prilezaev# 1928 1.3715 PE 290
4. Feder* 1929 1.37588 CX 291
5. Olpin# 1930 1.372 PE 292
6. Van Atta# 1931 1.3753 ±0.0025 CP 293
7. Kirkpatrick/Ross* 1934 1.37541 ±0.0001 CX 294
8. Millikan# 1934 1.375 PE 235
9. Whiddington/Woodroofe# 1935 1.3737 ±0.0018 CP 295
10. Schaitberger* 1935 1.3775 ±0.0004 CX 296
11. DuMond/Bollman* 1936 1.37646 ±0.0003 CX 245
12. Dunnington 1938 1.3763 ±0.0003 XM 248
13. Wensel 1939 1.3772 ±0.0006 OP 297
14. Ohlin 1939 1.3787 CX 298
15. R.T. Birge 1940 1.37929 ±0.00040 IV 250
16. R.T. Birge 1941 1.37933 ±0.00023 IV 254
17. Schwarz/Bearden 1941 1.3775 CX 299
18. Panofsky et. al. 1942 1.3786 ±0.0002 CX 300
19. DuMond/Cohen 1947 1.3786 ±0.0004 CX 256
20. DuMond/Cohen 1947 1.37926 ±0.00009 AV 257
21. Bearden et. al. 1951 1 .37928 ±0.00004 XM 301
22. Bearden and Watts 1951 1.379300 ±0.000016 AV 258
23. DuMond/Cohen 1952 1.37943 ±0.00005 AV 259
24. Felt/Harris/DuMond 1953 1.37913 AV 302
25. Cohen et. al. 1955 1.37942 ±0.00002 AV 260
26. Cohen/DuMond 1965 1.379474 ±0.000013 AV 262
27. Taylor et. al. 1969 1.3795234 ±0.0000046 JE 263
28. Cohen and Taylor 1973 1.3795215 ±0.0000036 JE 264

CX = continuous X-ray: CP = critical potentials:
PE = photoelectric effect: XM = X-ray Mean:
OP = optical pyrometry: IV = indirect value:
AV = best adjusted value: JE = ac Josephson effect.


Notice again this peculiar comment by a peer-reviewer of the experiments as reported by Setterfield:

The argument goes that the increasing value of h is entirely attributable to better equipment. This ignores the fact that the CX method is only one of eight used to determine h/e. Furthermore, Sanders64 has pointed out that the increasing value of h can only partly be accounted for by the improvements in instrumental resolution and changes in the accepted values of other constants. Indeed, a reviewer who had a preference for the constancy of atomic quantities noted that instrumental resolution 'may in part explain the trend in the figures, but I admit that such an explanation does not appear to be quantitatively adequate .'

[Augustine2004]

The frequency but not the wavelength would be measured at the source. Since the speed of light varies, the wavelength would indeed vary, but the time relationship between any two different photons would not be different.

I assumed photon P0 leaves the source at time = t0. P1 leaves later at time = t1. The frequency is hence 1/(t1-t0) when both photons have the same phase in the cycle except for a difference of 2*pi. Both photons travel the same distance to the receiver, d.

The frequency as measured at the receiver is tr1 - tr0 where tr1 is the arrival time of P1 and tr0 that of P0.

tr1 = t1 + d/c1

tr0 = t0 + d/c0,

where c1 is the average speed of P1 and c0 that of P0.

The absolute frequency difference = 1/(tr1 - tr0) - f, where f = 1/(t1 - t0)

relative frequency shift = (absolute frequency difference)/f = 1/(f*(tr1-tr0)) -1

The rest is simple algebra, assuming I have made no mistake.


Let me note the fantastic sensitivity implied by the formula. At the edge of the observable universe, d roughly equals 1e26 m. Let's take f = 1e16 (ultraviolet or blue not sure which) Hz. I think we can measure relative frequency shift of 0.001 (I'm no spectrologist); if so, we can assume k roughly = -(that value). That implies a relative difference (delta c / c) of 3 e-37. Yes, boys & girls, minus 37!

[Augustine2004]

A more useful consideration may be that redshifted photons have lower energy. If fundamantal physical constants like the speed of light or the fine structure constant had varied over the lifetime of distant galaxies, then we should expect that the physics at the time of emission of high red shift photons was quite different. Lower energy for photons corresponding to spectral lines may be a plausible consequence (is it?); but how sensible is a lock step reduction of energy over the whole spectrum as seen in a redshifted spectrum? I don't know... do you have a thought on this?

Do we define photon energy as a multiple of h/f or h*lambda? The energy that went into the making of the photon does not decrease, so maybe we should use the frequency definition -- no, wavelength?? If GenRel is good enough for our purposes, well, I will have to think about this some more.

[sylas]

for the record, from:

Invited Research Report

Good grief. I take back my comment to Neil; this really is still using the old 1987 Setterfield analysis. Wonders never cease.

At this point, I am going to bow out for a bit; since I am out of my depth. George Murphy may be the best person to deal with the matter; and he is already present in the Cosmogeny thread. Rogero's reference to a statistical consideration (post #4) looks worth reading; but that will take me a bit of time. Thanks to Augustine2004 also for further comments.

I need to do more reading and less writing for the moment.

I would be able to introduce other lines of evidence that argue for constancy of the speed of light over the time scales used by Setterfield's data (a couple of hundred years) but I lack the expertise to comment directly on Setterfield's analysis. In my view, the arguments for constancy (such as measurements of eclisping binary stars over the last century) are more accurate and persuasive than Setterfield's historical trends in measurements; but that is a weak response, since it does not actually deal with Setterfield's data, so much as find a reason to ignore it; which is unsatisfactory in a discussion. Rogero's material is the more constructive.

So for now, I plan to lurk for a bit in this thread.

Thanks -- Sylas

[Roy]

for the record, from:

Invited Research Report

[list deleted]

Some varition on the fundamental constants is indicated as well.
What would be important would be to duplicate James Bradley's measurements. That would be telling.

What is even more important, and would be more telling, is the inclusion of those measurements which have been omitted from the above list. Where is Roemer's work, for instance? Where are the rest of Michelson's results? Why isn't the standard value adopted by the US in 1948 mentioned?

Could it be because all these are lower than the currently accepted value and refute the author's premise?

Roy

[scordova]

regarding Roemer's work:

Initially these results differed. Observations by Cassini14 (1693 and 1736) gave the orbit radius delay as 7 minutes 5 seconds. Roemer in 1675 gave it as 11 minutes from selected observations15. Halley16 in 1694 noted that Roemer's 1675 figure for the time delay was too large while Cassini's was too small. Newton17 listed the delay as 'seven or eight minutes' in 1704 and 1713. All but Roemer suggested a delay shorter than today's value, yet estimates of Roemer's c value range18 from 193,120 to 327,000 Km/s. Roemer's selective procedure and time for Io's period affects his c value.

193,120 to 327,000 Km/s????? No wonder Roemer's measurements were either thrown out or reworked. Again, read what Dorsey and Nature magazine and the more recent physicists had to write. That carry's weight. What if they said instead light was monontonically increasing in speed in their measurements? Did they say that? No, in fact 40 articles, including one published in Nature 1927 suggested decrease.

Setterfield keeps getting slammed for either exclusion or reworking of Roemer's measurements, but they were made under such horrid conditions that it's thoroughly reasonable to dispense with them. Same with a couple of other like Fizeu.

Also, at first I was reluctant to accept quantized red-shifts, but from one of my favorite physicists, John Cramer, wrote:

Quantized Red Shifts

Over the years, however, the red-shift data has improved to the point where the evidence that this is a real effect is now fairly convincing. So here it is, a persistent and puzzling astronomical observation that does not fit with our present understanding of the laws of physics and the universe and that has no accepted explanation.

It's amazing how much agreement there is between the predictions of the Setterfield cosmology and the measured quantized red shifts.

Further I not 3 professors at my university (George Mason University), including PhD in Physics from MIT, Menas Kafatos who heads the Center for Earth Observing and Space Research have signed Open Letter against the Big Bang

Here is the statement Professor Kafatos and 2 of his GMU colleagues signed up to this statement:

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors....

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements.

.......
The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
....
Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.