Of all the pseudo-scientific nonsense with which reasoning men have had to contend, none can equal the Big Bang Theory. Only a theory, many astronomers discuss Big Bang as if it truly happened, but in all their bizarre explanations there is one question that none has dared even mention.
Where was the epicenter of this great event?
It would have to have been right here in our own system, since the galaxies that are racing outward at the speed of light are all the same distance from us in every direction. Oh, yeah; the universe is expanding, according to this ill-conceived fantasy. Of course it isn't, but one thing it is: It's a whole lot bigger that anyone can imagine. It's one thing to suggest that the universe got off to such an exciting start when the earth was thought to be at the center of everything, with only six planets, the sun, the moon, and a jewel-studded canopy covering out flat earth like the top of a cake dish. But now, with billions and billions of galaxies, each containing billions and billions of stars, a point-mass origin with no identifiable cause is pure nonsense.
And the earth is no longer the center of the universe; in fact our solar system lies in a spiral arm ( one of twelve ) at the outermost reaches of our rather ordinary galaxy, the Milky Way. That Big Bang is not science may be shown from a simple standpoint: Compelling Cause.
Compelling Cause is the starting point of all true scientific investigation. It's the initial awareness a condition, an event, or any other personal experience that demands greater understanding, either for personal or tribal reasons, or just for the sake of curiosity. Compelling Cause is present when;
Something is seen for the first time - the discovery of fire.
Something changes - the rusting of iron, the movement of the tides, phases of the moon.
Something that was there disappears and is replaced by something else - the caterpillar morphs into a butterfly or a moth.
Something that was there vanishes - a pond dries up, a mirage.
All these causes would, by their very nature, trigger the mind to further examination of these phenomena. Take the discovery of fire; it's warm and bright and certainly drove the chill out of the caves our remote ancestors called home. But it didn't stop there. Further investigation was undertaken to detrmine what burns and what doesn't, and how to make in happen when it's wanted, how to make it go away when it's no longer needed. Fire science is still a leading discipline.
True scientific investigation begins with effect and then determines cause; why does iron rust? Why do the tides rise and fall? How do we make fire? How do we put fire out? Pseudo-science is just the reverse; beginning with an a piori conclusion it then tries to gather evidence in support of that conclusion. It is the way of the Ideaologue, one whose knowledge is conditioned by his beliefs; present him with arguments that do not agree with his pre-conceived notions and he refuses to listen. True science holds to beliefs that are conditioned by knowledge. Gather the evidence and form conclusions consistent with that evidence.
It's a simple idea.
So we must ask; where is the Compelling Cause that requires us to believe in Big Bang? Has anyone ever experienced No Universe? Except for the universe getting bigger than anyone ever thought, has it changed much? Is it really possible to have an effect ( the Big Bang ) without an identifiable cause? Why was it necessary for Stephen Hawking to invent a particle that he decided was necessary for the expansion to continue past the first millionth of a second of Big Bang: he did. He called it the Instanton, and it existed for only as long as it was needed, upon which it vanished never to be seen again! Delusional? Hmmmm. But is that the first instance of bogus justification for a patently false notion?
When Gaius Ptolemaecus developed his earth-contered universe, describe above, cake dish and all, it was hailed as a factual account of what was seen in the heavens above. Until Mars started moving backwards at times. Of course we know why this retrograde movement occurs: it's when earth passes Mars on its way around the sun. It's like when you are driving your car and pass a slower moving vehicle on the highway; while you are passing it, the other vehicle seems to be moving backward, and only when the pass is completed does it appear to be travelling forward. But Mr. Ptolemy's followers, anxious to preserve their idea of the cosmos, decided that the planets did follow circular orbits around the earth, but not exactly. In addition, they theorized that the planets actually rotated around an invisible point along the imagined orbit, and they called these Epicycles. The fallacy here is that these Epicycles only appeared whent hey were needed to explain the retrograde movement of Mars; the rest of the time the Red Planet moved in a nice smooth path, no jiggling back and forth - which would have been the case with steady-state Epicycles. And puhleeease don't ask why the 13-billion year-old univers has stars in it that are at least 17-billion years old. It's a fact, but ideaologues aren't interested in facts, only evidence that supports their preconceived ideas: Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone? And if there's no evidence available, why - invent it!
The sad fact is that the Big Bang Theory actually retards good scientific investigation. Will we ever venture out into space? One day, I'm sure, if we can survive. Then we will have to trash this toxic theory in favor of one that makes sense, and that can help us achieve our dream of going into space. Not only will we have to scrap this nonsense but we will also have to accept an idea that is presently unacceptable.
The idea? That a body can be in more than one place at one time. But that's in the next installment.
No comments:
Post a Comment