Category Archives: Arguments of Big Bang Supporters

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

We get Redshifted light from all the directions. What are the possible interpretations?

We are getting redshifted light from everywhere.

Now there are two possibilities:

1- Space is expanding at every scale and universe is expanding like a balloon. (far fetched idea – we should expect such an idea from pseudoscience or flat-earth type people).

2- Only light is getting redshifted per unit of distance. (Sensible idea – should have been expected from mainstream).

Mainstream people of Physics accuse critics of the Big Bang Theory as ‘cranks’ and ‘crackpots’. They argue that discipline of Physics is prone to attacks from ‘cranks’ (for unexplained reason) whereas this is not the case with other branches of science such a Biology.

My response to them is that when mainstream Physics itself is ‘cranky’ then we feel the need to come forward. Other branches of science like Biology etc. are not ‘cranky’ themselves so we do not criticize them. It is modern Physics which has challenged human commonsense and at least my response to Physics is like answer to Modern Physics by the commonsense.

Anyways, to the above narrated two possibilities, I received following objection:

“If what you’re saying was true, then andromeda should also be redshifted, since it is far away from us, but it’s not, because it’s coming towards us.

We get the same thing with binary stars, when they are approaching they are blue, when they’re going away they’re red.

The same happens with spiral galaxies, the side spinning towards us is closer to blue, and the side going away is closer to red.”

My response was following to which I received no further reply:

“Light is getting redshifted per unit of distance.”

The rate of redshifting of light is very low. Within the range of local group of galaxies, the “light’s inherent redshift” can be lower than “Doppler’s Blueshift” due to actual approaching speed of galaxies of local group.

Same applies to binary stars where Doppler’s interpretation is correct.

But after a sufficient distance, inherent redshift of light always overcomes Doppler’s blue shift due to actual motion so after a considerable distance, we always get redshifted light.

 

 

North of North Pole Argument of Big Bang Supporters:

Big Bang supports love to argue that time did not exist prior to Big Bang. Their famous argument is that “North of North Pole is meaningless therefore asking what existed prior to Big Bang is also meaningless.”

np

Here we are to analyze this argument without dragging ourselves to ultra deep philosophy. In simple sense, North Pole is not a dead-end where further movement is not even possible. Suppose moving towards North Pole is considered as backward movement in time. At North Pole, we reach to Zero time. Now forward movement is possible. OK we are again moving to South side but not on the same side of globe. We are watching new scenes and facing new events. It is still a forward movement. It was not meaningless to move further from North Pole.

Secondly, North of North Pole is essentially an upward movement beyond the point of actual North Pole. That upward movement shall eventually take us to the equally, or may be less famous, “North Star”.

Within a BIG picture, if we are standing on equator, then our North is pointed towards North Star and South is exact opposite direction. From equator, if we start moving towards North and we adopt a straight line which is not affected by the curvature of globe, then our first destination towards North would be the North Star itself. And that will not be the end of journey towards North.

The argument that “North of North Pole is meaningless” is equally meaningless argument as saying that “Corner of Circle is meaningless”. With a meaningless argument, existence of time before a particular event cannot be denied.

According to the standard Big Bang Model, time before Big Bang was meaningless. Then a meaningless event occurred and everything emerged and all what emerged was expanding like a balloon. And this is known as a serious theory of Modern Physics. I accept that under certain conditions, time can be meaningless but the condition won’t be like that “North of North Pole is meaningless”.

“Universe is under no obligation to make sense”. An analysis of this Argument

argument

“Universe is under no obligation to make sense”

Supporters of the Big Bang Theory often give reply to criticism of their theory in the form of above quoted argument.

Well … This is a misleading argument. This argument is correct but applies only to realities that are unknown. For example there may be an incomprehensible reality regarding how life started on earth. This is a reality but makes no sense simply because it is unknown. If a reality is known then it was comprehensible in the first place that’s why it has been ‘known’. But if there is a claim that a reality is known under an incomprehensible (counter intuitive) mode or category then either that ‘claimed reality’ is mere fiction or at the most, a distorted form of truth. Known realities are known because they could be known. They were comprehensible in the first place. They were compatible with the understanding abilities of human mind. Known realities must therefore make sense. They cannot be counter intuitive.