The Scientific Worldview

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.

20240624

Irrationality for Instilling and Enforcing Loyalty

PSI Blog 20240624 Irrationality for Instilling and Enforcing Loyalty

Is war possible without irrationality?

The Phantom Horseman,1870-93 by Sir John Gilbert (d.1897). Credit: Birmingham Museums Trust.

Thanks to Bill Wesley for this great response. It helps us understand the current state of theoretical physics and its irrational promotion of the Big Bang Theory.

“If we look at any social group there are nearly always aspects of religion in the core thesis that unites the group. The group insiders support each other in believing something that the group outsiders find impossible to believe, such that the irrational assertions made by the group canon are absolutely necessary to group identity since rational beliefs cross territorial lines so are shared by different groups. Rational beliefs cannot serve as a test of group loyalty like irrational beliefs can.

The irrational core belief is usually signaled by adherence to cultural practices associated with that particular belief, so everything from clothing to diet to the arts to language are regulated to signal adherence to the irrational core beliefs to other group members and to outsiders.

This tribal aspect of human nature runs counter to the needs of science; thus, science runs counter to the social needs of the human animal which are dependent on FASHION. [GB: Bill, I normally think of fashion as being relatively frivolous. I think it goes much deeper than that. As I have mentioned before, I believe the evolutionary purpose of religion is to instill and enforce loyalty. This was absolutely necessary for tribal defense whenever conflicts over scarce resources occurred. In other words, without loyalty war would be impossible.]

That means the social need for the irrational, the mythical, and the magical usually predominate over the needs of science for the rational, the objective, and the practical.

This means that the more the big bang is falsified the more attractive it becomes as a loyalty test to go ahead and espouse it anyway, as the big bang’s utility to science decreases, its social utility increases. [GB: This is an interesting observation in tune with Bill Mitchell’s suggestion over 30 years ago that the Big Bang Theorists amounted to being a cult just like the ones found among religions.[1] Even then, he was able to list 18 problems that would have led to the rejection of any truly scientific theory. As you and I have been saying all along, the durability of the Big Bang Theory is social, not scientific.]

As science the big bang is a very poor choice but also as ART the big bang is a poor choice, the universe is described as being "born" with no explanation what so ever, it is described as undergoing a heat death and the concept of entropy is hijacked and reformulated to support this claim.

It’s claimed that asking what caused the big bang is a pseudo-scientific question. Thus anyone who asks is defined as engaging in pseudo-science.

On an emotional level the big bang is a depressing formulation for the universe that is much the same as creationism without mention of God, thus it is even LESS rational than creationism since at least creationism attempts to explain what the first cause of a big bang might have been by attributing the infinite and eternal to God as a first cause.

An infinite and eternal universe does not need to explain a first cause, it was never created and is never destroyed so we need not waste time and intellect looking to make the impossible possible.

The infinite eternal universe is also inspiring as art, we need not try to cover over ugly flaws and impossible contortions, we can just stick to the evidence which suggests that the universe already has eternal life, an inspiring prospect.

By adopting a rational stance, we cannot be tested for group loyalty because for that we would need to submit to faith in the irrational canon of the mainstream cosmology club simply because that's what the current insiders have all done, independent minded scientists are not really welcome.

Science does not wear a uniform and is not well served by collective effort; this is why nearly all major innovation emerges from individuals and not from collectives." [GB: That does seem to be the case, with Newton and Einstein being good examples. Neither of them did much collaboration with others, which is common among those performing Kuhn’s “ordinary science” today. Most of the papers I have been reviewing lately seem to have at least a half dozen or a dozen authors. A recent paper claiming to confirm General Relativity Theory even had over 1000 authors.[2] Despite, or because of that huge number, none of them had the temerity to mention that the “gravitational waves” they detected were simply shock waves traveling through the aether at the speed of light as confirmed by a second paper.[3] None mentioned the data amounted to a falsification of Newton’s gravitational attraction hypothesis and that it had nothing to do with gravitation. Bill, all this is part of the “irrationality” you mentioned as the buttress for the Big Bang Theory. When the fundamental assumptions of scientific philosophy conflict with the irrational needs of society, the assumptions are bound to lose.

I might also mention that the current ominous surge toward irrationality is merely a prelude to the world-wide acceptance of fascism and the wars, big and small, that will accompany the destruction of “traditional values” along with the demise of the "Last Creation Myth" and the regressive physics that supports it.]

PSI Blog 20240624

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.” There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

[1] Mitchel, W.C., 1994, The cult of the big bang: Was there a bang? Carson City, NV, Cosmic Sense Books, 240 p.

[2] Abbott, B.P., et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), 2016, Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger: Physical Review Letters, v. 116, no. 061102, p. 1–16. [10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102].

[3] https://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2017/06/gravitational-waves-once-again-confirm.html

20240610

How Universal Expansion Came to be Postulated

PSI Blog 20240610 How Universal Expansion Came to be Postulated

A trail of tears leading to the “Last Creation Myth.”

Galaxies receding from us have light spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum as shown here. Those coming toward us have light spectra shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum. Credit: Georg Wiora.

With regard to the previous post on Big Bang Theory Falsification No. 24, anon asks:

“Does this evidence suggest that the universe is older than the Big Bang Theory predicts since this galaxy's composition couldn't have developed 290 million years since the…inception of the universe…”

[GB: Correct, although we didn’t get that obvious conclusion from the cosmogonists who did the work. It teaches us a valuable lesson. Such behavior is typical during the early stages of a revolution, whether political or scientific. Contradictions must be covered up, ignored, or otherwise dismissed as irrelevant. That is why we have 24 falsifications, but the Big Bang Theory keeps marching on.]

“Is there any evidence in the universe currently that simulates the mechanics of The Big Bang Theory in present day or is this a one-time occurrence reserved for the creation of the universe?”

[GB: Explosions, which amount to local “expansions,” occur throughout the universe, as in the sudden conversion of a solid or liquid to a gas. At least, the imagery is there for the divergence, although the convergence equally common in the Infinite Universe is not.]

“…how did this mechanism become postulated? It echoes the virgin birth of The Christ.”

[GB: Your implication is correct. The creation of something out of nothing is a religious assumption, with its popularity surreptitiously supporting the Big Bang Theory. That is why we call it the “Last Creation Myth.”

Here is a short summary of the evolution of the universal expansion hypothesis:

1. The Michelson-Morley Experiment proves a “fixed ether” does not exist (1887).

2. To wide acclaim, Einstein assumes a dynamic aether does not exist, implying that space is perfectly empty (1905).

3. Einstein assumes time is a dimension in developing General Relativity Theory (1916)

4. Friedman uses Einstein’s math to speculate that the universe could be expanding (1922).

5. Bishop Lemaître hypothesizes the universe is finite with an ever-increasing radius (1927).

6. Hubble mistakenly claims the cosmological redshift proves all galaxies are receding from us (1929).

7. Lemaître publishes a popular book that was the first (and last) to use “cosmogony” in the title (1950).

8. Various ad hocs are invented to support the Big Bang Theory every time it falters.

9. One of the most egregious ad hocs was the “inflationary universe” invented by Guth to resolve the greater than c recessional velocities calculated for those with z>1.5 (1981). Cosmogonists gave up the Doppler effect and substituted perfectly empty space, which thenceforth was assumed responsible for universal expansion.

On top of all this, remember that “nothing,” that is, perfectly empty space is merely an idealization. It is only an idea. The assumed “nonexistence” is impossible. The Infinite Universe exists everywhere for all time.]

PSI Blog 20240610

20240603

Big Bang Theory Falsification No. 24: 290 Million-Year-Old Elderly Galaxy Contains Oxygen.

PSI Blog 20240603 Big Bang Theory Falsification No. 24: 290 Million-Year-Old Elderly Galaxy Contains Oxygen.

Oops! Our own Sun is 4600 million years old, converts hydrogen into helium, and is not expected to produce oxygen for at least another 3 billion years.

“This infrared image from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (also called Webb or JWST) was taken by the NIRCam (Near-Infrared Camera) for the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey, or JADES, program. The NIRCam data was used to determine which galaxies to study further with spectroscopic observations. One such galaxy, JADES-GS-z14-0 (shown in the pullout), was determined to be at a redshift of 14.32 (+0.08/-0.20), making it the current record-holder for the most distant known galaxy. This corresponds to a time less than 300 million years after the big bang.

In the background image, blue represents light at 0.9, 1.15, and 1.5 microns (filters F090W + F115W + F150W), green is 2.0 and 2.77 microns (F200W + F277W), and red is 3.56, 4.1, and 4.44 microns (F356W + F410M + F444W). The pullout image shows light at 0.9 and 1.15 microns (F090W + F115W) as blue, 1.5 and 2.0 microns (F150W + F200W) as green, and 2.77 microns (F277W) as red.
Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, Brant Robertson (UC Santa Cruz), Ben Johnson (CfA), Sandro Tacchella (Cambridge), Phill Cargile (CfA)”

Another great heads up from George Coyne:

“Glenn,

The JWST finds galaxy, JADES-GS-z14-0 existed only 290 million years after the big bang. NASA knows that this galaxy was already old at this point: "The presence of oxygen so early in the life of this galaxy is a surprise and suggests that multiple generations of very massive stars had already lived their lives before we observed the galaxy."

As reported in the January 9, 2009 edition of Scientific American "The first stars did not appear until perhaps 100 million years after the big bang nearly a billion years passed before galaxies proliferated across the cosmos.”[1]

My question is how a large galaxy containing multi-generation stars can exist 290 million years after the hypothesized Big Bang.

If the JWST finds elderly galaxies one year past the Big Bang will it cause some astronomers to question the BBT? What do you think, Glenn?”

NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope Finds Most Distant Known Galaxy

Here are some quotes from this NASA blog article written by Thaddeus Cesari:

“In January 2024, NIRSpec observed this galaxy, JADES-GS-z14-0, for almost ten hours, and when the spectrum was first processed, there was unambiguous evidence that the galaxy was indeed at a redshift of 14.32, shattering the previous most-distant galaxy record (z = 13.2 of JADES-GS-z13-0).

…this galaxy must be intrinsically very luminous. From the images, the source is found to be over 1,600-light years across, proving that the light we see is coming mostly from young stars…

…This much starlight implies that the galaxy is several hundreds of millions of times the mass of the Sun! This raises the question: How can nature make such a bright, massive, and large galaxy in less than 300 million years?

…the brightness of the source implied by the MIRI observation is above what would be extrapolated from the measurements by the other Webb instruments, indicating the presence of strong ionized gas emission in the galaxy in the form of bright emission lines from hydrogen and oxygen. The presence of oxygen so early in the life of this galaxy is a surprise and suggests that multiple generations of very massive stars had already lived their lives before we observed the galaxy.”

[GB: Thanks once again George. I have been waiting for this Second-Generation evidence from the James Webb Space Telescope for quite a while since the Hubble Space Telescope also had similar indications. Let me simplify:

Elements are formed via convergence, that is, by the pushing together (fusion) of less massive elements via gravitation. The simplest is the fusion of two hydrogen atoms to form helium atoms. Because it is so young, that is about all that can be expected from our Sun. Older, redder, more massive stars have mostly completed this phase of star evolution and thenceforth produce higher pressures. This high pressure results in massive elements such as oxygen, gold, silver, and uranium. Eventually, they explode as supernovas, scattering those elements throughout the Milky Way. These essentially are contaminants mixed with the hydrogen gas that forms stars and their planetary systems.

I predict NASA eventually will discover gold in some of those “elderly galaxies” at the edge of the observed portion of the Infinite Universe.

George, now for your questions: “If the JWST finds elderly galaxies one year past the Big Bang will it cause some astronomers to question the BBT? What do you think, Glenn?”

[GB: Some of the younger cosmogonists will have qualms, but the older ones like Neal de Grasse Tyson, will squelch them. They have long careers and numerous utterances to protect. Remember, we now have 24 falsifications of the Big BangTheory, and that has not fazed believers in finity. My prediction still stands: Infinite Universe Theory will not be accepted by the mainstream until 2050.]

PSI Blog 20240603

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-first-stars-in-the-un/