Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Sunday, July 30, 2017, 08:45 (2673 days ago) @ dhw

It seems to me, not surprisingly perhaps, that atheism presents an unambiguous view of nature. Together with the extension of its logic in considering the state of ‘matter’ and other basic configurations, I suggest that following the path it sets will be the preferred choice for a rational thinker.
In this sense, a 'rational thinker' is one who seeks logical advances that employ no help from a 'superpower'.

In support of my view, I make the following points:
1. This first point is absolutely fundamental. The Universe is composed of the material we call ‘Matter’.
2. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed. There is nowhere for Matter to come from or ‘disappear’ into.
3. On this point, if you fantasise some other place, you face only more problems! Where is this other place? How does the Matter become destroyed? How then does it get fed into that ‘other place’? But - It still hasn't ‘disappeared'. It lives on in some invented ‘other place’!
So - even in fantasy - this bit of Matter is neither destroyed nor disappeared. Even the ancient Greeks knew this.
4. Eternity: Quite a few people have a problem with this as an understandable idea. The idea has been around for thousands of years. The religious have always claimed eternity for their God. So, if God is eternal, why has he delayed (near eternally!) creating the Universe for so long? If he has existed forever previously and - the pundits claim our Universe is only 13-15 billion years old - and surely ‘his’ Universe would be perfectly formed in every way.
Here I need to make the point that, as an atheist, I maintain that the Universe is indeed a perfect place, which is why everything works so well.
We should now (unless religious) be at least in agreement that Matter is indestructible and therefore eternal.
That being so, and as the Universe is composed of Matter, it also is, therefore, indestructible, so it too must be eternal. Case proved – in Spades!
It really makes little difference what machinations you may choose to 'explain’ its existence, you can never get rid of it!
Some may perhaps say “Ah! But you never know! Maybe there’s something out there we know nothing of, that can do all these things that presently are impossible for us to even conceive.”
On this basis, of what if?, they will doubtless consider something like the Big Bang. If they do – there’s a problem!
Where did the Big Bang come from? (Refer here back to the indestructibility of Matter, Eternity etc.)
Whether you choose some sort of multi universe scenario, or stick as I do, with the one we’ve got, the whole thing is (eternally) pretty well the same story over and over, an endless roundabout. ETERNITY!

5. This conclusion, viewed now (by me) as a certainty, indicates that no superpower has any useful place in the Universe nor is it needed. Considering it at all, from a research angle is a complete waste of time. as it leads nowhere other than to yet another cosmological gum tree!
These considerations make a nonsense of gods etc., exposing these superstitions for what they are – superstition.
6. This allows us to consider ideas in a rational and logical manner. The Big Bang proposes that our present Universe manifested itself, theoretically, from ‘another outside universe’ that was able to invest all the Matter necessary to constitute our present Universe into a miniscule point called a Singularity. No information as to how this could be achieved is available! What led early 20th century astronomers into this fairyland was that having only recently (c.1915ish) discovered the Universe, they saw a red light emanating from the most distant stars. They designated this as ‘redshift’ and interpreted it as evidence that these stars were receding from us at speeds only exceeded by light itself. On this basis, they ‘concluded’ that the universe is expanding. If so, it must earlier have been smaller. Here enters the Singularity. Eventually, they decided that they could only ‘suppose’ a force capable of expanding the Singularity at such speed, so they did!
7. There is no definite evidence that the Universe is expanding. The meaning of Redshift is strongly disputed. I will cover this in a further post.The world renowned Astronomer Royal, Sir Fred Hoyle denounced the expanding Universe in a radio broadcast in the 1940’s and sneeringly called the whole idea the Big Bang! He later introduced an alternative idea he named as the Steady State. Unfortunately, he became mentally unwell and could not handle the stress he was subject to.
8. It is a shame (for me) that space on this site limits the length and breadth of my case which will later include web references that further support the case against the shoddy ‘science’ that presents supposition, unsupported by real evidence, as proven fact. Outrageous abuse of position and authority. The underlying motive force is (of course) money and professional position in a greedy world.