This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20190227
Defending the Big Bang paradigm by name calling
2 comments:
Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.
For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:
Nitecruzr writes:
[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?
The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html
Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.
Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html
Of course, name calling is the weapon of last resort for despaired incompetent losers. But despite Dave’s very extensive analysis, I still feel that two or three points haven’t been covered.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all: crackpots exist! Being critical of Einstein, GR or BBT doesn’t automatically mean that one's alternative “theory” is worthy of concern. Of course, the opposite isn’t true either, but we can’t ignore the fact that some (lots!) are cranks who deserve the epithet. Yes, it’s a shame that they would be put in the same basket as you, Lerner, Van Flanders, Radcliffe, Marmet and others who are genuine researchers with respectable credentials. But then again, mainstream physicists, after a century of professing their absurd dogmas, are the only ones to blame for the very existence of crackpots.
Secondly, when accusing Einstein of being “wrong” (or GR, or Newton, for that matter), one should avoid the trap of mixing up hypotheses with conclusions. Einstein had this very peculiar way of thinking that, from his own admission, was more heuristic than pragmatic. You wrote about this many times yourself: “right for the wrong reason”. We should not overlook that in formal logic, deriving correct conclusions from incorrect premisses is perfectly valid. Look up “Material Conditional” in Wikipedia; it says: “P implies Q does not specify a causal relationship between P and Q”, even though the statement “P implies Q” may be true with P false. In that way, it’s not Einstein who'se wrong, and it’s not GR that’s wrong; it’s the claim that there would be a “causal relationship” between photons and solar panels, between contracting lengths and the Lorentz transform, and between curved space time and GPS. Compare this to Hawking, who also started from wrong assumptions, but ended with totally useless conclusions...
Thirdly and finally, the idea that GPS's wouldn’t work if Einstein was wrong, is such a gross sophism that even a child wouldn’t buy it, barring serious mental ailment. In neomechanics, gravitational force will still be mass times mass divided by distance squared, and gravitational redshift will still be the square root of one minus mass divided by distance times the speed of light squared. I’m willing to bet my pay check against yours that when a purely neomechanically-based theory of gravity is completed, it will include the exact same field equations that GR does, barring the cosmological constant which will be replaced by a term coherent with an infinite universe. GR doesn’t deserve being thrown away any more than Newron's did; it needs improvement so that it becomes predictive of infinity.
Another great blog on the absurdities in orthodox physics and cosmology.
ReplyDeleteDavid de Hilster, scientist and president of the Chappell Natural Philosophy Society comments about this blog in an excellent video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEYNi60G2OM&feature=youtu.be&t=3. In my book Notfinity Process:Microcosms-in-Motion (available in April 2019) which highlights 50 invalidating problems with the Big Bang theory, discusses how those who determine the allocation of science funding, only direct money to those who support present consensus paradigms in physics and cosmology. Those brave scientists such as the late astronomer Halton C Arp, who still insist on pursuing the truth, endure serious sanctions from the scientific establishment, including losing their jobs. For those who do not already know, Arp was a great admirer of Borchardt’s work.
Also in the May 1, 2019 issue of a new science magazine at www.sciencewoke.org I write about the Big Bang in an article titled “Big Problem with the Big Bang theory,” which discusses the fact that the best “evidence” for the Big Bang theory is the cosmic microwave background, which does not actually require the Big Bang hypothesis of a photon-decoupling period.