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.

About the author

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Magellanic CloudAryamanTidbitsMarco PereiraWiki Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Wiki
Guest
Wiki

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

Marco Pereira
Guest

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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytuEctnD334 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… Read more »

Tidbits
Guest

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..

Aryaman
Guest
Magellanic Cloud
Guest

This live science article is factually wrong.