Dienstag, 12. Januar 2016

The Big Sham (I)

There was a time in my high school years when I considered the idea of a dead and empty universe, sprung from a shady miracle called Big Bang, to be the most rational of stances.

But as I made clear in my last post I find the notion of a happenstance cosmos to be neither probable or logic anymore - a position I've reached through profound personal experience and years of research into the mystical aspects of this world.

However, a relationship with the inexplicable isn't necessary in order to question the world view which the scientific establishment is trying to sell us - Big Bang cosmologists and particle physicists in particular - common sense is sufficient.

In this article, part 1, I will take you on a journey that begins before the existence of the Universe, makes a stop at Big Bang and continues on to cosmic microwave background radiation and quasars.

In part 2 I will examine CERN's Large Hadron Collider and the sad state of affairs that particle physics has reached.

Together they make up the current, ruling theorem of the origin and function of the Universe - and as we shall see, a most doubtful attitude should be maintained towards these ideas.

Before the Beginning

When dealing with the most fundamental question of them all, the origin of the Universe, I believe you only have two options to consider: either something eternal existed before it, or nothing at all.

Rationally the former makes more sense, but for some reason the latter has become the prevalent assumption in the world of physics.

It is however, very difficult to explain how a universe can come into existence from nothing. The famous atheist and astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss tried to do it in his book A Universe from Nothing and failed miserably.

Two prominent theoretical physicists who also have tried are Stephen Hawking and Ulf Danielsson, Sweden's most famous theoretical physicist. Here's what they had to say:

"At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and so to have been infinitely hot. But as the universe expanded, the temperature of the radiation decreased. One second after the big bang, it would have fallen to about ten thousand million degrees." - Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988

"13.7 billion years ago, an expanding emptiness started to have some troubles. Nobody knows how big or old it was, perhaps it had existed for an eternity. It's also unclear whether it was the only one. [...] Anyway, it was completely empty except for dark energy boosting the expansion... Complete emptiness, dark energy ... and small vibrations. Nothing else existed." - Ulf Danielsson, talk at Gyldene Freden 2012
We can easily see how the two statements contradicts each other, one of them talking about no size whereas the other one talks about expansion.

But let's dissect both statements on their own. Stephen Crothers deals directly with the Hawking quote in this lecture, to paraphrase him: temperature is defined by how fast molecules are moving, the faster the hotter. Now, how can the molecules exist in something of zero size? How fast do they have to move in order to be infinitely hot? And exactly how many degrees is it between infinitely hot and ten thousand million?

Ulf Danielssons scenario is just as nonsensical: an expansion, vibrations and dark energy, i.e. two abstract nouns and a factor x. Couldn't one just as easily say: an amplification, beats and a blue force? Or a multiplication, throbbings and shimmering moxie?

Apparently a reputation and a nice degree are enough to keep one's drivel to remain unquestioned.

If it isn't clear yet let me remind you that we're not talking about science here, but rather purely theoretical fantasies, beyond any method of provability.

Seeing red

It has since long been established that the Universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. This conclusion has been reached through observing distant heavenly bodies. The oldest ones we've seen seem to have a redshift (wave length of emitted light) that indicates that they're situated almost 14 billion years away from us. As we haven't observed anything further away, they must stem from the beginning of time.

That's the logic.

There are problems with this method of dating the cosmos, first of all one has to assume that both the speed of light and time as we know it are constants, and has been so everywhere during the entire evolution of space, but even if they are, another bigger problem is already at hand.

In my very first post on this blog I dealt with this troublesome area, here's what I wrote:
The recently deceased astronomer Halton Arp was one of few in this field who maintained a critical stance against the Big Bang-theory. He based his critique on observations he'd made when gathering pictures of galaxies. Many [...] showed seemingly connecting "bridges" between them [galaxies] and nearby quasars. Considering that the most distant galaxies he detected were approximately 200-300 million years away, they couldn't have any connection with each other what so ever - at least according to the Big Bang-enthusiasts.

Arp suggested that quasars derive from galaxies, thus implying a vastly younger age for those objects, and more importantly, that the mechanisms causing redshift aren't fully understood.
Of course you could argue about this and that, but the pictures doesn't lie.

 The NGC 7603 galaxy clearly shows a bridge between itself and a quasar.

The NGC 7319 galaxy even has a quasar in front of it.

Wave Race

Moving on to the next problem, much of what we "know" about cosmos today is based on this map supposedly portraying the cosmic background radiation (CMB). Under it you'll find a brief explanation of what it is:
The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. (source)
It's easy too see how valuable this information is for astrophysicists who, since it's discovery in the 60's, have been using it as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory. Today even better measurements continue to feed fuel into the fire, so to speak.

The clincher is, the CMB data might very well turn out to be complete junk.

As the methods of obtaining this type of data are very complicated it's not easy for anyone except experts to interpret them. Therefore, when professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille questions the data it's impossible for myself to validate or discard what he has to say, but it's not hard to see where he's coming from.

What he is proposing is that earlier measurements, made by a satellite (COBE) orbiting close to earth, did not take into consideration the microwave radiation emitting from our own oceans. It had nothing to shield off this type of radiation and therefore obtained a map of Earth instead of the Universe.

Looking familiar?

Later experiments with new satellites have been profoundly lacking due to using the previously obtained data as a basis for their own mapping.

In the latest case (called Planck/WMAP) the satellite was unable to distinguish any appropriate signals from background noise (from our own galaxy), which apparently was 1000 times stronger than what they wanted to measure.

Not only did they re-use the questionable COBE data, but they also claim to have removed the contamination signal (red color) even though it's ~1000 stronger than the signal underneath - without having an a priori knowledge or control over the unwanted signal.

I've been trying to find any serious critique against his bold yet reasonable claims, but unfortunately it's mostly the typical skepticist agenda being played out, like "he's a crank", "he doesn't know what he's talking about", "this has been established innumerable times already", "he has other crank ideas, (therefore all his ideas must be wrong)" etc.., instead of any substantial rebuttals.

Which of course gives us all the more reason to believe that he's on to something.


Man's appetite for knowledge easily leads him astray. We fear the (intellectual) unknowing so much, that we've actually managed to figure out the entire evolution of the Universe - even without being close to understand the nature of the tool we've used to reach those conclusions with, namely consciousness.

Talk about hubris.

In part 2 we'll have a look at the other ingredients that have contributed to the decline of science: fame and fortune.

Stay put for a visit to CERN and their multi billion dollar search for horsefeathers.


Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen