Is the Universe expanding? It would appear not. What do we see? We do not see, let alone measure, large objects systematically moving away from all other large objects. On the contrary, it would seem to be quite the opposite, at least in the case of colliding spiral galaxies. Every observable large scale system is to all intents and purposes in a state of equilibrium, even if it might be expressed dynamically as a cycle. Is the Universe in any sense, on any axis, finite? It might be, in theory at least, but where is the evidence? Of course, we cannot observe anything infinite; but then again, neither do we detect even the faintest sign that the Universe reaches finality. We do not come across any kind of absolute boundary condition.
Astronomy ought to be an observational science. It really should. It used to be, after all, a hundred years ago or so. Ideally, astronomers would point their instruments at the heavens, find astounding new things, and publish them where we could all share in the joy of discovery. I wish it were so. The appalling truth is that we are permitted to see only what a faceless, nameless group called “the moderators” deems fit for our eyes. Thought Police are alive and well in the world of space science, and who knows, some of them might even be friends of ours. Alas, so great is their commitment to anonymity that we would simply never know.
In acknowledging my sources in The Static Universe, I paid tribute to the publicly-funded online science repository arXiv. The following paragraph was written before I was (quite rudely, I thought) blacklisted by arXiv. After a deal of sombre thought, I decided to leave it there, unchanged:
“It is about time that someone gave credit to the most-used reference set in the history of science: The well-worn Cornell University online library arXiv. Pronounced archive from the Greek letter Chi, arXiv currently stores about 500,000 scientific publications, with about 4,000 being added every month. Access is free and open, and it is the preferred point of reference for scientists seeking to refer to the work of others. What an outstanding service! Thank you so much, Cornell for administering it, and Paul Ginsparg for inventing it.”
That was said in all sincerity. I’m sure you will understand that I am somewhat more cynical about arXiv these days. It presents an imbalance—the absence of even a few of those who argue against the motion means that arXiv becomes the expression of a particular opinion, rather than a place where scientific results can be compared without let or hindrance.
HEADLINE: AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENT WITHDRAWS FUNDING FOR THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER.
HEADLINE: AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENT REINSTATES FUNDING FOR LHC.
From: Stephen J Crothers, Associate Editor, Progress in Physics.
Dear Concerned Scientists and Thinkers,
The Austrian Bundeskanzler (Federal Chancellor), Werner Faymann, has reversed the decision of Austria’s Minister for Science, Johannes Hahn, and committed Austria to further funding of the LHC at CERN. Austria was threatened by CERN that if it withdrew funding it would have to pay 100 million Euros, allegedly because Austria signed a contract to fund for 54 years and so far has funded for 50 years; the said 100 million is a penalty charge. Thus, notwithstanding the demonstrable falsehood of the alleged ‘scientific’ objectives of the LHC, and based upon a set of claims that completely ignores all the facts that invalidate those claims, the ‘scientists’ at the LHC will continue to fleece the public purse to the tune of many more millions of Euros, lining their pockets with gold, producing nothing of scientific worth for the expense, plunging science ever deeper into the abyss of intellectual decrepitude in which in now languishes.
From chapter 3 of the third edition of The Virtue of Heresy:
The tidal wave caused jointly by Max Planck’s 1900 quantum hypothesis and Einstein’s relativity swept the scientific world, and by 1930, physics was standing on its head. As professor of mathematics at the University of Leningrad, Alexander Friedmann enthusiastically promoted these ideas, and his students took them and ran.
One young man in particular would go on to become world-renowned on the stages of mathematics, nuclear physics, genetics, and cosmology, and without him this story could not be told.
Georgy Antonovich Gamov was born in Odessa, Ukraine, in 1904. He showed an exceptional gift for mathematics and science, and in due course found himself in the mathematics classes of Alexander Friedmann, who was then at the height of his fame. Before the adventurous Friedmann’s premature death of typhus fever in 1925, he spent long hours discussing his ideas of the cosmos with Gamov, and these naturally included the notion of an expanding Universe. Gamov, strangely enough, was not convinced. Not yet!
The late Tom Van Flandern once said, “If you want to find evidence refuting Big Bang Theory, just point a telescope at the sky!”
Two observational stanchions support contemporary cosmology: Hubble redshift and microwave background radiation. The first is used to describe the systematic expansion of the Universe, and the second is put forward as a radiation image of the Universe as it was very soon after Big Bang. Because redshift and radio noise are things that are seen to exist, much of the discussion on cosmology centres on one or both of them.
More esoteric aspects of Big Bang Theory, like multi-speed inflation, and very technical, complex issues, for example nucleosynthesis and the evolutionary development of matter and structure as we see it today, are left to the devices of specialists. Observational astronomers and astrophysicists using empiricism to derive their explanations of the cosmos would tend to concentrate on the first two tenets of cosmology, and in discussing the subject would lean towards redshift because the microwave background requires horrendous mathematical manipulation before it makes sense in the BBT context.
What is this blog about? Let me state some assumptions that I make, and you are welcome to comment.
1. The Universe is infinite in both space and time.
2. Space is 3D Euclidean. No other space exists besides that.
3. A vacuum does not exist.
4. The Universe is the product of pre-emptive design.
5. The speed of light, though constant in any medium, is not absolute.
6. Rotation of astrophysical objects, and therefore the structure of systems, is somehow linked to electro-magnetic polarity.
7. In terms of physics and chemistry, Big Bang Theory fails in every key respect.
8. The Standard Solar Model and the standard model for the Solar System are defective in some important areas.
9. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth.
10. The Hubble Law is without basis in fact.
11. Systematic universal expansion is unfounded.
12. Empiricism rules!
I am writing two books simultaneously, much to the chagrin of my collaborators and publishers. Book two, “The Static Universe – A Challenge to Scientific Prejudice”, a fairly technical, scholarly work with Sir Patrick Moore, is nearly complete, and I intend taking the manuscript and a bottle of tranquilisers to Sir Patrick’s home in Selsey, England, in the New Year. The third of my tomes,“Unseemly Haste – The Catastrophe of Modern Science” hovers at around 200 pages, and changes colour like a chameleon.
One of the issues that raised the blood pressure of a few – very few – Virtue of Heresy readers concerns the question of evolution. The evolutionary scheme espoused by Big Bang Theory just doesn’t work, and I say so. Chapter 5 in Heresy lays out my arguments quite clearly, and is purely secular. It has nothing at all to do with religion. So relax, please, those at left and right extremes of the creation divide. Just use your common sense. That should be sufficient to clarify the need for BB theorists to go back to the drawing board and rework the way they suggest the Universe grew to what it appears to be today.
Here is a paragraph from book three for you to mull over while you save up to buy a gilt-edged, leather-bound hardback of the first edition:
“If we look at two parameters of biological organisms – diversity and complexity – and suggest, according to a purely evolutionary theory, that both conditions came about fortuitously because of interaction events over long periods of time, then we should expect that the phenomena of diversity and complexity should be scale invariant. Tiny things and gigantic things on the universal scale should also be diverse and complex.”
Hello and welcome to my cosmology and astroscience blog.
Is Cosmology fact or fiction, science or fairy tale? Do we need it? Is it good for us? Does it have any useful purpose? Should we be confined to a Standard Model?
Civil, rational comments are welcome, rudeness and manic euphoria are discouraged. Let me know what you think of my website and the articles on it.