Cosmology: Inflation theory under attack part 1 (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Monday, October 16, 2017, 22:48 (2381 days ago) @ dhw

Cosmology: Inflation theory under attack
by dhw, Wednesday, August 02, 2017, 14:27 (72 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID's comment: Inflation explains much of why the universe looks as it does, but not without problems. A cyclic universe gets rid of the origin problem but keeps the Big Bang. It also gets rid of the multiverse. A cyclic universe doesn't get rid of a first cause.
Reblak has mentioned the redshift problem too, and perhaps he will explain this in more detail.

On this forum, we have repeatedly discussed the unanswerable question of what preceded the Big Bang if the Big Bang ever happened. The concept of eternal energy and matter as first cause would allow for any number of universes before this one, or for this one itself being eternal and constantly changing.

A cyclic Universe may well be a good suggestion and reflects somewhat my own view. How this cycle works is totally unknown. Proponents of other multiple universe ideas totally fail to accept that as Matter is unconscious it must work in accord with existing intrinsic universal physical law.

What is knowable is that there is no ‘first cause’. Eternity doesn’t include first causes! Everything has always existed, on and off, at different times and circumstances. In our perfect Universe, conditions at any point denote outcomes. Its inherent capacity allows any and every possible variation over time.

What it may include is an ongoing process of collapse and regeneration. That behaviour may possibly occur as a result of widespread supernovas. We may never know the definite truth. Such regeneration may entail a ‘rolling’ effect that is always afoot from place to place throughout the Universe. However, there can be no change in the actual makeup. The ‘laws’ have no capacity for change. An automatic process cannot change – it is immutable!

This process thereby totally precludes any pre-existing form of Universe. Such a view is a grossly misguided failure to understand that we have already a perfect Universe. Were it imperfect it would never have existed. This factor removes any possibility of any Big Bang or its attendant Black Holes and invisible Dark Fairies. Any re-formation absolutely must occur only within pre-exist [now also current] universal physical laws.

Automatic processes are part and parcel. To go on about the possibility of unknown and unknowable forces as real contenders to justify theoretically unprovable modern Big Bang cosmology is nothing short of a disgrace!

The concept of energy and Matter as somehow preceding itself [when possessing powers different from anything we can imagine] and ‘choosing’ everything we know of is utter nonsense. All Matter, all energy, is and can only be, integral to the whole.

Otherwise, how could energy exist? Sorry folks, imagination, magic or rubbish in rubbish out computer scenarios just don’t cut the mustard!

The question remains. Why do highly educated, intelligent scientists keep allowing their research to be influenced by what are ridiculous, utterly impossible, fairyland assumptions involving Big Bang theory, Dotty Dark Matter and Energy. Oh! I forgot, Multiple Universes!

Not one jot of actual proof has been advanced in support of these ideas. Instead, millions are spent creating scenarios where they might exist - without achieving anything other than well-off scientists!

To see why this so requires knowledge covering the machinations of the scientific hierarchy over the past century and longer. What now follows will shock the average reader and may be met with incredulity, even disbelief. I ask you to accept that the substance is accurate, though its interpretation [by me] reflects my own shocked and deeply resentful feelings with regard to the damage being done to the advancement of science.

The policy of the Royal Society still reflects the impact of the 24 years Pharaoh ideology residency of Sir Isaac Newton, a deeply religious, great man. His legacy has disallowed any known atheist access to this honour. Even the great Sir Fred Hoyle, the ‘Queen’s Astronomer’ was denied. It is a mistake to underestimate the ongoing power of this kind of influence.

It was around 1916 that it was discovered that the Milky Way was only a galaxy and not the entire Universe. Edwin Hubble suggested that distant reddish light [Redshift] might be interpreted as very high-speed motion away and could mean that the Universe is expanding.

Sadly, as in every ‘age’, the scientific establishment has twisted and turned [and lied] in an endeavour to resist new views.

So, the scientific leadership happily insisted this was proof, not possibility ¬- Hubble had proved it! This reinforced Newtonian ideology because it posited a beginning and allowed the notion of creation [i.e. God] so it was a socially acceptable explanation and considered a proven actuality – which it was not!