Nereid wrote:What Georges Lemaître did was to propose what we'd today call a scientific model
The "big bang" myth is not a scientific model. The scientific method requires several things, one of which is experimental verification. Experimental verification of "big bang" lies outside the realm of the possible, therefore "big bang" is not science.
The "big bang" myth is essentially identical (if you overlook the century of wishful thinking confabulation/elaboration of the idea) to the genesis myth from the bible without mentioning god.
That is incorrect; as science, cosmological models based on GR+electroweak+a theory of the strong interaction do not, and cannot, imply t=0; there is a very hard limit to how far back the extrapolation can be done (the Planck scale).
The "planck scale" was arbitrarily chosen based on current technological limits. Regardless, you can't escape the fact that "winding back the clock" to "big bang" entails the assumption that, if you can peer back far enough, t=0. All the attempts to "wind back the clock" in this fashion require t approaching 0, with "0 = big bang event" (creation myth). That this "planck scale" was arbitrarily chosen to be the limit of our capabilities is irrelevant, the implication is that we can "wind the clock back" to t=0 (or very very close to it).
That description bears no resemblance to the work (science) that earned Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979; how did you come to that conclusion?
Your appeal to this notion that winning a prize means you're doing good science is unwarranted. That said, here's a quote from one of your heroes there, Mr. Salam:He once wrote: "The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart."
It's no surprise this deluded religionist believes in the "big bang" creation myth.
Here's a quote from Mr. Glashow:The wild ideas of yesterday quickly become today's dogma. This year I have been honored to participate in the inauguration of the Harvard Core Curriculum Program. My students are not, and will never be, scientists.
Interesting to note: "today's dogma" and "my students...will never be...scientists"
And here's the main point to drive home about their Nobel prize winning efforts:This unified theory was governed by the exchange of four particles: the photon for electromagnetic interactions, a neutral Z particle and two charged W particles for weak interaction.
This is pretty typical of "big bang" believers, theoretical physicists, astronogers everywhere. Are you stuck because your model makes no sense? Just invent new "particles" or "forces" that take up the slack between your speculations and the observations. It's Ptolemy's epicycles all over again. This is already getting tedious and it seems I've just started here.