PSI Blog
20170727 Playing the Big Bang Theory game
All games
have rules. If you don’t play by the rules, you might get sent home forthwith.
The more I study it, the more I get the feeling that the Big Bang Theory is
just a game. No real scientist could be serious about such a fabrication.
Nonetheless, here we are, enduring the last days of the last cosmogony.
Those playing
the game seem to know the rules well (e.g., the universe had an origin; Einstein
is always right; mathematics determines what is possible, etc.). The winners
maybe don’t get $200 million dollar contracts, but there are awards and
prestigious academic positions aplenty. Folks standing on the ground outside
the paradigm, like myself, just don’t get it. The logic escapes us.
Now, in
preparing his forthcoming book “Notfinity Process,” PSI member George Coyne already
has come up with 61 problems with the Big Bang Theory. Generally, it only takes
a few such falsifications to disprove a theory, but like relativity itself,
this is a tough nut to crack because of its association with religion. At the
moment, the Big Bang Theory seems as everlasting as the universe. I am sure
that George will come up with ever more problems before the theory meets its
eventual demise. I hope he keeps his list up-to-date on a
special webpage. It should be a great resource for future historians of
science.
Typical of
one of the problems that go to the heart of the matter is the one about the
“universe from nothing,” which we already lambasted in a Blog by PSI member
Rick Dutkiewicz.[1]
Like Krauss’s “Universe from Nothing,”[2]
there have been numerous defenses of the Big Bang Theory. One of the most
famous was the ad hoc proposed by Alan Guth, an MIT professor, who wrote “The Inflationary Universe” back
in 1984.[3]
The math had not been working out well, so Guth simply jiggered it enough to
keep the theory going.
Guth is
famous for saying "The universe could have evolved from absolutely nothing
in a manner consistent with all known conservation laws."[4]
Like the rest of us of a practical nature, George wonders about “the
mathematical or cosmological difference between ‘nothing’ and ‘absolute
nothing.’ If there is a difference then it must be possible to compare various
amounts of "nothing" from a small amount to a very large amount.”
Of course,
all that Guth stuff is nonsense, but George persists in asking “What
conservation law is Guth referring to that supports his claim?”
According to
George’s excavation, Guth assumes that “gravitational energy is negative, and
because it is in balance with the positive energy of matter, he concludes it is
possible that the Universe evolved from ‘absolutely nothing’ without violating
any known conservation laws.”
As George
says, “To argue that the BBT agrees with all conservation laws depends on
accepting that energy exists as a positive substance in matter and a “negative”
one in the form of gravitation. However, even if one were to accept that
premise, it still does not account for how matter emerges from nothing.”
This is an
excellent example of how regressive physics has gone wrong. Energy is not a
substance, it is a calculation. Even NASA promotes the idea that the universe
consists of energy as well as matter. But according to progressive physics, the
universe only consists of matter in motion. There is no energy “substance,” so
repeating that old shibboleth will not help the universe to pop out of nothing.
We are stuck with the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation
(Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Physicists should pay more attention to thermodynamics and give
up trying to objectify energy. Looks like the whole theory is a game about nothing.
[1]
Dutkiewicz, Rick, 2012, Dutkiewicz Blasts Krauss Interview on “A Universe From
Nothing”: The Scientific Worldview: Blog 20120620: Berkeley, CA, Progressive
Science Institute [http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/06/dutkiewicz-blasts-krauss-interview-on.html].
[2]
Krauss, Lawrence M., 2012, A universe from nothing: Why there is something
rather than nothing: New York, Free Press, 224 p.
[3]
Guth, Alan H., 1998, The inflationary universe: The quest for a new theory of
cosmic origins, Basic Books, 384 p. [https://rebrand.ly/robot9b7e].
[4]
Ibid, p. 12.
1 comment:
Great post Glenn. Thanks!. Anyone interested in seeing a video about a chapter on Brain, Mind Self and Consciousness from the book check out my website. I presented a well received 53 minute paper at UBC to an international conventions of scientists. The video reached 150 face book views in the first few days. https://www.facebook.com/NotfinityProcess/
Post a Comment