Unscientific methodology of Science within the Big Bang Cosmology

Modern science, especially the Big Bang Cosmology, tends to explain little (observable) facts on the basis of ‘already known’ realities of whole universe. For example, our scientist (Georges Lemaître) already knows that ‘Universe is Expanding’. On the basis of this ‘already known’ larger fact of reality, he ‘explains’ observed redshifts of galaxies (little fact).

wak

Title of his (1927) paper is “A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulæ”.

Thus before explaining redshifts, he is already aware of ‘larger fact’ that radius of universe is increasing. On the basis of already known ‘larger fact’, he is explaining or interpreting a little (observable) fact.

CMBR is also explained in this way. Science ‘already knows’ that universe originated from a point that, after 380000 years, had become 43 million light years in diameter. Science ‘already knows’ that this universe first time emitted light (photons). Science ‘already knows’ that that universe had such and such temperature. Science ‘already knows’ that universe was expanding and that light was also expanding. Science ‘already knows’ that now the original light must have this much temperature.

On the basis of these ‘already known’ larger realities of universe, CMBR (a little observable fact) is explained.

‘Predictions’ of Big Bang Cosmology did not even match with observed fact. Therefore, adjustments of dark matter/dark energy are applied to get matching results. This is the actual prevailing scientific methodology whose examples are quite apparent in different aspects of the Big Bang Cosmology. And they say that it is science.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Unscientific methodology of Science within the Big Bang Cosmology

  1. Hello ,

    I saw your tweet about animals and thought I will check your website. I like it!

    I love pets. I have two beautiful thai cats called Tammy(female) and Yommo(male). Yommo is 1 year older than Tommy. He acts like a bigger brother for her. 🙂
    I have even created an Instagram account for them ( https://www.instagram.com/tayo_home/ ) and probably soon they will have more followers than me (kinda funny).

    I have subscribed to your newsletter. 🙂

    Keep up the good work on your blog.

    Regards
    Wiki

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The Big Bang and everything else is refuted by the results of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

    Here is the evidence
    https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Proof-of-an-Extra-Spatial-Dimension

    I plotted the 1.3 million galaxies and quantified the Galaxy density.

    It is clear the spherical region with higher galaxy density. That can only be created when the Universe was dense and by acoustic oscillations. Since one cannot have spherical acoustic oscillations in a 3D Unbound Spatial Manifold, the Universe has to be embedded.

    This means that the Universe is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface.

    It also means that there was no Big Bang. Symmetry alone is enough to preclude the Universe to collapse into a Singularity if the Universe is hyperspherical.

    Further proof is shown below:

    https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9bcea333885f9243b8c8124c1ccd28ca
    Here you can see the cross-section of the 3D Galaxy Density map showing clustering. At each recurrence of the acoustic wave, new galaxies were seeded.

    The profile is only consistent with an increasing pattern of acoustic energy.

    I explained everything in my theory – The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU)
    http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/WSN-82-2017-1-96-1.pdf

    Cosmogenesis is called – The Big Pop and Many Bangs Cosmogenesis:

    https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Fluctuations-of-Zero

    and here is how the Universe was set to travel at the speed of light:

    https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Was-the-Creation-of-the-Universe-an-Entropic-Explosion-An-Hyperspherical-Prince-Rupert-s-Drop

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Hi – liked your post, but i have a point .

    Aren’t you discounting the latest observations of radiation from far off neutron star collisions that confirm big bang theory? Nothing is assumed in this case – with the current knowhow and measurement techniques – big bang is the obvious conclusion..

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s