PSI Blog 20240826 Neil deGrasse Tyson and Other Cosmogonists Go Wild
The regressive gang goes crazy over Big Bang Theory.
Photo credit: StarTalk with Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Thanks to George Coyne for this link to a video of the
greatest minds in cosmogony displaying the results of their regressive assumptions:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1859416304571349
This video is quite the BS fest. Maybe you thought wormholes and four dimensions were unbelievable, but this bunch of comments demonstrates the kind of irrationality common to the Big Bang henhouse.
George
writes:
“In this video with Neil deGrasse Tyson, a panel of
scientists claim there is no question that there was a Big Bang because of the
cosmic microwave background that remains from it. They have zero doubt that the
BBT could be wrong. How would you respond to what they state?” Here is my
review:
1. Are all
electrons identical? Nope. That is a violation of the Ninth Assumption of
Science, relativism
(All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as
well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things) and of the
Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite,
both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). In other words, the
current regressive view is that electrons are fundamental (finite) particles not
consisting of smaller particles. Logically, they must contain perfectly empty
space as assumed by Einstein for photons or they must be filled with perfectly
solid matter as assumed by Democritus. Both of these are idealizations and
therefore are impossibilities.
2. Tyson speculates that there is only one electron in the universe and that it
goes forward and backward in time. This is a violation of the Seventh
Assumption of Science, irreversibility (All
processes are irreversible). It also is a violation of true relativity, which
is the assumption that all things are in motion. Heraclitus of Ephesus (500
BCE) was first to enunciate this with his famous saying “No man ever steps in
the same river twice.” Many others emphasized relativity, with Einstein getting
credit while messing it up with his religious assumptions and dubious mathematics. Tyson’s comments merely show that, like Einstein, he does not know what time
is: motion. Time, being the motion of things, is not something you can go
backward and forward in. Note that, to his credit, one of the guys thinks the one electron idea is “insane.”
3. At
6:32 one claims the Cosmic Microwave Background absolutely proves the Big
Bang Theory is correct. His comment proves he is not cognizant of Popper’s demonstration
that a theory never can be completely proven—it only can be disproven.[1]
And, as I pointed out in No. 10 in my list of 24 falsifications of the Big Bang Theory,
cosmogonists predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background would be about 10
degrees Kelvin. It is 2.7 degrees Kelvin. Apparently, Tyson's
hubris is communicable. Remember that temperature is merely the motion of
matter. I suspect the background is simply the result of the equilibrated cosmological
redshift coming from light beyond the observed universe that now has a redshift
of z=1089.[2]
4. Lastly,
they get into what I call the “Last Creation Myth” and whether a creator was necessary.
They mention a pope’s proclamation that “You know what, the Big Bang has been shown
to be scientifically true, therefore god exists.” They go on to declare that to
be a leap of faith (never admitting their own leap of faith in assuming finity
instead of infinity). They are so proud of their “evidence-based
theory,” which in fact is simply an erroneous result of the many
misinterpretations and “Einsteinisms” I highlighted in “Infinite Universe
Theory.”[3]
When will they ever learn?
PSI Blog 20240826
[1]Popper, K.R., 2002, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
(15th ed.): New York, Routledge, 544 p.
[3]Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory:
Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
Great blog, Glenn. Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder writes books and has 618,000 YouTube subscribers. In an Guardian interview she was asked “You write that a lot of research in physics, such as hypotheses for the early universe, is ‘religion masquerading as science under the guise of mathematics.’ Could you elaborate on that?”
ReplyDeleteHossenfelder replied: “There are quite a few areas where the foundations of physics blur into religion, but physicists don’t notice because they’re not paying attention. It’s a lack of education in the philosophy of science in general. For example, the most commonly accepted story about the beginning of the universe is the big bang. and to some extent this is really just the simplest way you can extrapolate the equations into the past – and then you can add inflation, which is an exponential phase of expansion; or, like Roger Penrose, you can make it a cyclic universe. But maybe it was a big bounce, or it started with the collision of membranes. These ideas are all possible – they’re all compatible with the observations that we have. But I would call them ascientific – the kind of idea that evidence says nothing for nor against.”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/26/physicist-sabine-hossenfelder-there-are-quite-a-few-areas-where-physics-blurs-into-religion-multiverse
George: Thanks for the comment, which is typical of reformists, who still assume finity. It would be nice if you put it on my Medium.com site where I am about to have 2,000 followers any day now.
ReplyDelete