When will the Big Bang Theory be Retracted?

PSI Blog 20231016 When will the Big Bang Theory be Retracted?

 

The number of papers being disavowed or removed from scientific journals is accelerating. Is it cosmogony’s turn?

 

“(A) Number of retracted articles for specific causes by year of retraction. (B) Percentage of published articles retracted for fraud or suspected fraud by year of publication” (Fang et al., 2012).[1]

 

In this age of “fake news” and rampant misinformation, everyone should be concerned with retraction. Actually, it is the bright side of our attempts to rid ourselves of the lies that have invaded our politics and endangered our lives. A single fraudulent medical paper can result in great harm—even death. For instance, Wakefield’s fraudulent vaccine-autism study has led to vaccine phobia among gullible parents and an increase in easily preventable childhood diseases.

 

From Retraction Watch (the primary site concerned with scientific error/fraud):

 

“Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to well over 350. There are more than 43,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains well over 200 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? Or The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List?”

 

Note that hijacked journals involve websites copied from legitimate journals. Predatory journals involve relatively unknown websites that accept all submissions and do little or no peer review. Both types of fraud exist only to make money, generally having exorbitant charges for providing open access.

 

Possibly because, as a scientist, I am heavily involved in discovering the truth. I am particularly incensed by those fraudulent activities, so much so that since 2015 I have been an advisor on 19 papers highlighting methods to confront them.[2] That is in tune with my outrage at the promotion of the Big Bang Theory.

 

But is what we believe to be the “Last Creation Myth” really fraud? Fraud is defined as “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.” But do regressive physicists and cosmogonists realize they are perpetrating deceptions? I doubt that. It is true the Big Bang Theory has been falsified at least 20 times. Is ignoring those contradictions fraudulent?

 

According to Webster, a lie is defined as a) “an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive” or b) “an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer.” Your choice…

 

While there may be plenty of financial and personal gain involved, I doubt there are many cosmogonists who believe their claims are untrue. I doubt many of them even realize they base all their interpretations on the unprovable assumption the universe had an origin.

 

Or that they are flat-out violating the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed).

 

Or that, without questioning, they are accepting Einstein’s “Untired Light Theory,” which assumes light is a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space.

 

And on and on, as shown in "The Ten Assumptions of Science," "The Scientific Worldview," “Infinite Universe Theory,” "Religious Roots of Relativity" and all the papers and posts I have presented over the decades.

 

Back to the question we started with: Will the Big Bang Theory be redacted? I doubt it. It will dissipate like all other failed paradigms—one disbeliever at a time. After all, it is mostly a matter of interpretation. Cosmological data will survive; the cosmogonical view will not.

 

Misinterpretation, not Fraud: Some Cosmogonical Examples

 

Eddington interpreted the bending of starlight around the Sun as evidence for Einstein’s erroneous claim gravitation curved perfectly empty space. The bending actually was a result of refraction in the Sun’s atmosphere.

 

Abbott and others recently interpreted their results as evidence for Einstein’s erroneous claim “gravitational waves” would be discovered. That data had nothing to do with gravitation with the results actually a result of shock waves traveling through the aether medium at c.

 

If misinterpretation was fraudulent, what would it look like?

 

Let’s assume the second definition for a lie, in which the liar knows he is misinterpreting evidence. Suppose the liar has an old house that expands in the heat of the day and contracts in the cool of the night. He then claims the resulting sounds indicate the house is haunted, selling tickets to gullible folks who spend the night experiencing the “ghosts” whose existence they always suspected to be real. That would be fraud.

 

I doubt there are any cosmogonists that fit that definition. Most probably are like Neil deGrasse Tyson who is especially naïve about scientific philosophy. He does not seem to realize he is mistakenly assuming the universe is finite and therefore had a beginning. He apparently is not bothered by his violation of conservation, a contradiction pointed out to him in a debate won by David Balogun, a nine-year old genius from Nigeria. Like David, the rest of us have a choice: 1) Assume the universe exploded out of nothing or 2) assume it is infinite.

 

PSI Blog 20231016

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”

 

---

[1] Fang, Ferric C., Steen, R. Grant, and Casadevall, Arturo, 2012, Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 109, no. 42, p. 17028-17033. [10.1073/pnas.1212247109].

 

[2] Andoohgin Shahri, Mona, Jazi, Mohammad Davarpanah, Borchardt, Glenn, and Dadkhah, Mehdi, 2017, Detecting Hijacked Journals by Using Classification Algorithms: Science and Engineering Ethics, p. 1-14. [10.1007/s11948-017-9914-2].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Guidelines for selecting journals that avoid fraudulent practices in scholarly publishing: Iranian Journal of Management Studies, v. 9, no. 3, p. 529-538. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Guidelines-2016].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Hijacked Journals: An Emerging Challenge for Scholarly Publishing: Aesthetic Surgery Journal, p. 1-3. [10.1093/asj/sjw026].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Victimizing Researchers by Phishing: Razavi Int J Med, v. 4, no. 3, p. e40304. [10.17795/rijm40304].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Information Security for All Researchers (1st ed.), 46 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Infomation-security].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Borchardt, Glenn, and Lagzian, Mohammad, 2017, Do You Ignore Information Security in Your Journal Website?: Science and Engineering Ethics, v. 23, no. 4, p. 1227-1231. [10.1007/s11948-016-9849-z].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Borchardt, Glenn, Lagzian, Mohammad, and Bianciardi, Giorgio, 2017, Academic Journals Plagued by Bogus Impact Factors: Publishing Research Quarterly, p. 1-5. [10.1007/s12109-017-9509-4].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Borchardt, Glenn, and Maliszewski, Tomasz, 2016, Fraud in academic publishing: Researchers under cyber-attacks: The American Journal of Medicine, v. 130, p. 27-30. [10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.08.030].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Kahani, Mohsen, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review: Science and Engineering Ethics [10.1007/s11948-017-9960-9].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Lagzian, Mohammad, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Academic Information Security Researchers: Hackers or Specialists?: Science and Engineering Ethics, p. 1-7. [10.1007/s11948-017-9907-1].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Lagzian, Mohammad, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Identity Theft in the Academic World Leads to Junk Science: Science and Engineering Ethics, p. 1-4. [10.1007/s11948-016-9867-x].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Mohammad, Lagzian, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, The Game of Hacking Academic Websites: World Digital Libraries, v. 9, no. 2, p. 131-133. [10.18329/09757597/2016/9210].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Mohammad, Lagzian, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Is retraction sufficient for medical papers?: Pol Arch Med Wewn, v. 126, p. 1017-1018. [10.20452/pamw.3727.].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Mohammad, Lagzian, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Information systems in journal management: the ugly duckling of academic publishing: European Science Editing, v. 43, no. 1, p. 7-10. [10.20316/ESE.2017.43.032].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Mohammad, Lagzian, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Questionable Papers in Citation Databases as an Issue for Literature Review: Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling, p. 1-5. [10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Rahimnia, Fariborz, Darbyshire, Philip, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2021, Ten (Bad) reasons researchers publish their papers in hijacked journals: Journal of Clinical Nursing, v. 00, no. 15947, p. 1-4. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15947].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Rahimnia, Fariborz, Rafati Niya, Sina, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2021, Jourchain: using blockchain to avoid questionable journals: Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) [10.1007/s11845-021-02697-x].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Raja, Abdul Majed, Memon, Aamir Raoof, Borchardt, Glenn, Nedungadi, Prema, Abu-Eteen, Khaled, and Raman, Raghu, 2023, A toolkit for detecting fallacious calls for papers from potential predatory journals: Adv Pharm Bull [10.34172/apb.2023.068].

 

Dadkhah, Mehdi, Seno, Seyed Amin Hosseini, and Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Current and potential cyber attacks on medical journals; guidelines for improving security: European Journal of Internal Medicine, v. 38, p. 25-29. [10.1016/j.ejim.2016.11.014].