Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Sunday, August 06, 2017, 17:37 (2665 days ago) @ dhw

Hello dhw
Very happy to see your input – the more the better ! Unfortunately, as is so often the case, my remarks are misread or misunderstood (presumably I am at fault in some way).

You posted this
“Forgive my intrusion, but firstly I don’t see why we must choose (what happened to open-mindedness?), and secondly I don’t see why the existence of God and the language of physics should be a “one or the other” choice: if God exists, could he/would he not have used the language of physics, chemistry and biology his “wonders” to perform?

My answers are:
The question of choice must always be a personal decision. However – ‘sitting on the fence’ has little appeal for me – one gets stabbed by too many unwanted metaphorical splinters that way! I take the view that, from any standpoint, where in the course of research one avenue seems more likely than the other/s, my mental energy is going to be concentrated more on the one than any other. Note that I say ‘more’- not entirely.
The alternative is to sit back and wait upon the views of others. I do that as well! Choice!

Your second point:
“... if God exists, could he/would he not have used the language of physics, chemistry and biology his “wonders” to perform?

In my post I made very clear my position on this. I wrote:
For your better understanding, I would say, (were I religious) that God created the Universe just as it is, with its own logic and knew that humanity would eventually emerge.

I mentioned somewhere else that if God created the Universe, it is - must be - perfect. I have no belief (in this regard) other than in the efficacy of Mother Nature and am utterly, immovably convinced that the Universe is totally and absolutely perfect. Its very perfection precludes – in my perception of logic – any ‘previous configuration’ at all. The Universe functions entirely within its 'rules of engagement' and these particular 'rules of engagement' are all embracing and cannot be modified or disregarded in any manner.

Whilst there is a multiplicity of other cast iron reasons for dismissing Big Bang theory, on this basis alone I feel fully justified in claiming that the whole Big Bang philosophy is, to coin a phrase, “Up the pictures!”

While there is insufficient space left to say as much as I would like I will content myself with what there is.

The scientific establishment has generated their opinion on the basis of one unproven assumption, that redshift displays as evidence that the Universe is expanding and that therefore it must have evolved from another Universe, after taking the form of a tiny Singularity (into which our entire Universe had been compressed).

The Singularity goes on to expand with incredible power into a cloud of ‘gases’ for about 400 millions of years, then finally, (bored stiff of condensing into solid stars or whatever), it gears itself up and springs into action, racing out into empty (???!!!) ‘space’ for around some 13.5 billion years, in every direction, at absolutely astonishingly speed. Again, this fantastic, inexplicable rate is forced on them so as to ‘explain’ their now assumed distance, in the time allowed. Presumably, galaxies were built en route as there are millions of them.

This raises the question of Matter being continually produced from nowhere!
“And now, ladies and gentlemen, in my next trick, a real execution by guillotine, you will notice that at no time does my head leave my neck!” Impossible, you say? No no! I am a Cosmologist!

What our own galaxy was doing for the putative billions of years, is carefully avoided.
Despite their agreeing that ‘obviously’ the chances of our being at the centre of this Universe are remote to the point of absurdity, they claim that in all ‘directions’ the farthest stars are ‘reshifted’ and at similar distances!

Eh! But ‘they’ agree that we are not in the middle!

If this (virtually a certainty) is so, the redshift cannot possibly be (at every whichway) the actual ‘edge’ of the Universe. What we cannot ‘see’, as it were, behind us, must be a lot more Universe! This of itself makes conclusions about the age of the Universe totally uncertain and purely speculative.

On top of these few pointers, those who propound this utterly irrational scenario can offer absolutely no vestige of evidence nor reasonable hypothesis. They resort to the (undeniable) fact that we can know nothing of something that pre-existed our Universe!

Yet, here they are, inventing a wholey different Universe, packed with Dark Matter, Black Holes etc, ad Infinitum, all because their potty ideas keep falling apart without them! Black Holes became necessary to invent a way to increase the power of gravity when they realised that the Big Bang would not work with true gravity being the weakest known force.

The phenomena they propound as ‘evidence’ can all be explained by the use of known physical laws and effects. What appears to be their problem is the result of an apparent determination to see what they want, not what is logically explainable in another way.