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list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up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].