May 2019

Supporters of Big Bang Cosmology often come up with this argument. Recently, a Philosopher of Science, Dr. Bjørn Ekeberg (PhD) published a Philosophic themed book from the platform of a reputed University that pointed out some problems of Big Bang Cosmology.

The first response from the Big Bang Supporters that he faced was this title argument that “There is No Alternative to Big Bang Cosmology”.

The background of this argument is that present day science has settled in a “peer review” process. Now forget good old day’s open minded science where scientific research or experimental results were science. Now “what has been published” is science.

This is a closed process. New ‘scientist’ is required to cite recent publications. In this process only peer reviewed stuff is cited … may be it is hard requirement to cite only proper peer reviewed stuff.

The result is that for the modern ‘scientist’, science only exists in peer reviewed journals and any individual’s ideas are not science unless they are published in peer reviewed journal.

See that it is closed process and obviously it gives rise to close mindedness.

Contempt of ‘scientists’ against open mindedness is clear in their beloved Dunning and Kruger Effect. To any outside researcher, they straight away call “suffering from DK effect”.

Any outsider researcher has false confidence that he has found something in science. It is not possible that any outsider may find scientific fact. If any individual thinks so, he must be suffering from DK effect.

However, following is the reality of DK effect:

Dunning-Kruger Effect — How it is a faulty theory: by Khuram Rafique on khuram

A typical closed minded approach … Actual DK effect is the confidence that all the knowledge is contained only in peer reviewed books and journals. Dunning and Kruger were suffering from this actual DK effect. They formulated a theory about a person named McArthur Wheeler … and they did not bother to see that case type of McArthur Wheeler was already well theorized in a 19th century (pre-peer review era) important book.

The nature of contempt of ‘scientists’ is that for them any outside thing does not even exist. If they say that Big Bang Theory is the only explanation of related observed phenomenon, they are right only to the extent that yes within peer reviewed domain it is the only thing in town. And they do not publish outside things. Therefore only thing in town remains the only thing in town.

Actual DK effect is like a cartoon character who has a big nose. Everywhere he can see only his own nose. So only his own nose is everywhere. This is the nature of contempt of present day ‘scientist’ against open mindedness.

Open minded person says alternatives exist … just open your mind. Our scientist would say no everywhere is my own nose. No other thing exists in town.

The latest story is that after finding that expansion rate of Universe is 9% faster than previously thought now they recalculate the age of Universe and say it must be one billion years younger than previous estimate of 13.8 billion years. The new estimate is around 12.5 billion years.

The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought. Scientists are scrambling to figure out why.

For me, these are not impressive results. These are pathetic. Researchers that include Nobel laureates are insisting that Universe is only 12.5 billion years old.

Universe is neither 12, 13 or 14 billion years old. Their model has inherent problems and they look into the reality only indirectly i.e. through their model. They are not ready to throw this model altogether. Still they are trying to find only minor mistakes in their model and somehow they will reconcile through fine tuning and simple adjustments. But fact is that Universe is not expanding at all and even the farthest visible galaxies may be located at distance of many hundred billion light years. I am going to explain this point in my second upcoming book titled “Philosophy Unscrambles Dark Matter”.

Basically supporters of modern official science frequently raise this question only to make a point as if Philosophy actually cannot teach anything.

The answer is that Philosophy teaches us our right limits. We do not claim to have hard knowledge of things beyond of our limits. With philosophy we find the logical boundary of any assertion. We do not conclude out of proportion things like since we observe redshifts so whole Universe is expanding. There are logical barriers in the process of accepting that since galaxies are redshifted so Universe is expanding. Non Philosophical mind is almost free of these logical barriers and easily accepts this out of proportion claim. The two barriers that rightfully stop a philosopher are that observed redshift (cosmological redshift) is different from doppler’s effect and that mathematical possibility of expansion of ‘space’ does not mean an actual physical possibility of the same.

Philosophy thus keeps us in right limits. And Philosophy also liberates from artificial limits or boundaries that since we have not crossed a man-made criteria so we are not competent to get right knowledge of certain things. Our limit is not our official qualification. Our limit is our exposure to actual world and sources of information. To conclude the things, our minds need exposure to information and not any certificate issued by anyone.

Equipped with Philosophy, we know that anything mathematically possible does not imply that it is also physically possible. Neither mathematical things become physical for us like since gravity problems are solved through metric equations therefore gravity itself is metrical in nature or spacetime is a physical thing and there are physical ripples in this solid spacetime. Obviously, ripples were in anything actually physical and not pure mathematical or mathematical taken as physical.

Philosophy is straightening and strengthening of the process of thinking and concluding. Without right thinking process, Universe is expanding by way of expansion of space, spacetime is curved, there are ripples in spacetime, gravity is metrical in nature, first quantum moment of the creation of universe took place before our eyes and we know all the tiny details of that tiny moment and other like things.

Official Theoretical Physicists always blame any non-official stance on science matters as pseudoscience. However following clear indications of pseudoscience are common in official Theoretical Physics.

1- Out of proportion claims – We see redshifts and say “Universe is expanding”.

2- Claim to have sort out all the reality – like GR has the claim that everything will be sorted out only within GR and any outer thing can do nothing. (Only QM can do where GR is not applicable)

3- Assigning physical attributes to non-physical things — Spacetime Curved, Ripples in Spacetime, Expansion of Space.

4- Reality status to Ghost objects — Dark Matter, Dark Energy.

5- Explaining hard observations on the basis of already held model, theory or belief rather than developing right theory for hard observations – Cosmological Redshift, CMBR

Therefore, we see that lot of Pseudoscience is being promoted under the name of Theoretical Physics. We already have seen that Theoretical Physics is a form of Rationalism Philosophy.

Newton was Theoretical Physicist … (a point of view)

Well, basically Newton was Natural Philosopher.

English Translation title of his Principlia Mathematica is “The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”.

Newton was not Theoretical Physicist. He was greatest Natural Philosopher however.

While every Science or Philosophy must have to start from a point, The unique sign or indication of Rationalism Philosophy is that starting point itself is boundary.

You have staring point. Now onward close your eyes … Now just ‘deduce in mind’ or ‘derive on blackboard’.

The idea is that since first principle was correct so only mind (logic) or mathematics can lead to all the details of reality.

Does Natural Philosophy of Newton follow this principle?

Newton does start from ‘axioms’ which are his three laws of motion. But he does not provide these three laws as a form of boundary. Now onward we should not close our eyes. The purpose of axioms was only to derive few theorems and not the whole of reality.

But Rationalism Philosophy intends to deduce or derive whole of reality only out of first principles.

Rationalism is a closed system of knowledge. There is no need to observe anything. Mind itself or somehow found the first principle. Rest of the reality will be found just out of logical deductions or mathematical derivations.

Now Theoretical Physics, being a form of Rationalism Philosophy, is also a closed system. Instead of emphasis on logical deductions, there is importance of only mathematical derivation. Since there is no essential difference between logical deduction and mathematical derivation, so to this extent Theoretical Physics completely follows the footsteps of Rationalism Philosophy.

There is however slight variation. Just like Rationalism Philosophy, your eyes are closed basically. You only open your eyes in order to celebrate that your ‘predictions’ have come true.

When, in year 1929, Edwin Hubble found a new observed fact, it was not even treated as a new observed fact. It was treated as ‘prediction coming true’. Eyes were closed … we already ‘knew’ this truth out of our ‘mathematical derivations’. We opened our eyes just for a while only to celebrate the success of our so-called earlier mathematical derivations. Similarly, finding of CMBR was not treated as a new observation. That was not a new thing at all as it was also already ‘mathematically derived’. That is how things are ‘observed’ in modern Theoretical Physics. When you already know the reality in your mind then you tend to observe the actual reality through your colored spectacles. This thing is true for Rationalism Philosophy and this thing is also true for Theoretical Physics or any ancient Mythology.

Natural Philosophy of Newton had started from axioms. But there is no requirement of keeping your eyes closed. You independently observe the reality and logically or mathematically conclude the things. In Theoretical Physics, the purpose of observations is not to see new things. Here, the purpose of observations is only to celebrate that ‘predictions have come true’. Within next few years NASA is going to launch James Webb Space Telescope that shall be 100x more powerful than Hubble Space Telescope. What is the purpose? Will this telescope show us some new things?

Not at all (for practical reasons). NASA already knows all the things through mathematical derivations. NASA already knows that no galaxy beyond this much distance will be seen and that after that distance there was a dark era and within this darkness was the time of creation of universe. So all the things are already known. Purpose of observations is only to celebrate the already known things.

Purpose of this blog post was to show that Theoretical Physics did not start from Newton. He was Natural Philosopher. And that Theoretical Physics of today is basically a form of Rationalism Philosophy.

First thing is that it is not due to Doppler’s Effect. Now suppose we have no alternative explanation. So should we accept Doppler’s Effect as winner simply because there is no contestant?

Doppler’s effect is “redshift-speed” relationship. Cosmological Redshift is “redshift-distance” relationship.

It is possible that a car is receding from us at uniform speed. At near or far distance, the speed remains the same. No matter what is the distance, speed is same; therefore redshift shall also be the same.

Thus we see that Doppler’s Effect has no direct bearing with distance. Therefore in isolation, redshift-distance relationship is not the indication of Doppler’s Effect.

Given the assumption that we have no alternative explanation, we should not adopt Doppler’s interpretation. But exactly this wrong course was suggested by Edwin Hubble. He was not satisfied with Doppler’s interpretation. He even said that redshifts could be due to unrecognized principle of nature. But he advised that as long as correct reason is found, Doppler’s meaning may be adopted but only for practical reasons.

Following is from his book “The Realm of the Nebulae” (1936)

So only for the sake of “convenience”, velocity meaning of redshift is advocated. I am against this “convenience” approach. If we have no alternative, then reason of redshifts is “indeterminate” and there is no need of wild speculations that Universe is Expanding.

Having said that now I come to the alternative which is correct to my satisfaction at least and I have explained it in book. In my opinion, the reason of redshifts is Huygens’ Principle.

See that wave at t2 is greater in size. According to Huygens’ Principle, light propagates in this way. With propagation, size of wave gets increased. Somehow light itself is expanding by way of expansion in wavelengths.

Theoretical Physics is a form of Rationalism Philosophy. Rationalism is all about ‘deducing’ details of reality from first principles. In today’s Theoretical Physics, certain ‘first principles’ or ‘frameworks’ (GR and QM) have been worked out. Here ‘logical deduction’ part has been replaced by ‘Mathematical Derivation’.

Theoretical Physics

There is no essential difference between deduction and derivation. Essentially, Theoretical Physics is a modern form of Rationalism Philosophy … and … as futile as its medieval counterpart.

Present day science — specifically Theoretical Physics is based on body of knowledge and rigid frameworks already worked out by various scientists during the last hundred years. New scientist is required to take start from the point where previous scientists had reached. This system, by and large, works on trust that overall body of knowledge worked out by others is correct and a system of citations is used to build the body of knowledge layer upon layer.

On the other hand, Philosopher is one who must start from scratch. He must start from a point where he has removed all the doubtful elements. Starting point must be confirmed to his full satisfaction. Present day type Science can function correctly as long as it is already 100% correct. But many substandard and even fake ideas merge, submerge and grow within this science. There is a weak citation method where new scientist just trust works or results of others and starts building his own castles of ideas or theories. New scientists thus start building their extensions on an ill structured building. A stage comes when only solution left is that building may be bulldozed and re-constructed from scratch. Only a good philosopher can do that.

Anyhow, a major reformation in citation methodology is needed within scientific method that new scientists must not be allowed to merely cite the works of others. Whatever they are citing, they must analyze it and reach to the conclusion that they are citing it because they agree to it after thorough verification.  

If above mentioned major reformation is not introduced then Philosophers should come forward to bulldoze the ill structured body of knowledge with accurate criticism and start the things on solid foundations with the methodology to cite works of others only after thorough analysis and verification.

Ideal vs real science is a reality. People generally defend official science because they trust that only ideal things are going on. Actually there are lot of factual inaccuracies in various science papers – and science people keep citing those factual inaccuracies.

Following are examples:

1- Alaxender Friedmann (1922) ‘predicted’ Hubble Law.

2- Lemaitre (1927) ‘predicted’ Hubble Law out of GR equations.

3- Hubble (1929) found ‘Expanding Universe’.

4- GR equations originally had the ‘prediction’ of either expanding or contracting universe and that Einstein introduced Cosmological Constant only to stay with prevailing point of view of static universe.

List may go on … all above are factually wrong statements … but they have been merged, submerged and they keep growing under established scientific citation method.

Scientists only follow “standard format” of citation … they do not actually analyze and confirm the reality of what they are citing. A handsome number of citations are to the credit of Dunning and Krugger Effect and no one including Dunning and Krugger has ever bothered to confirm that case of Mc Auther Wheeler was already well theorized by Sir James Frazer and there was no need of a substandard theory of DK effect when a better theory was already available.

I have asked following question directly from Mr. Dunning … but no response … In fact this actually delivered system works this way … as opposed to advertisements … He will not respond.

Why were Dunning and Kruger themselves not incompetent as they did not realize that the case of McAuther Wheeler related to the phenomenon of ‘Sympathetic Magic’ that was already well studied and explained by Sir James Frazer?

Philosophy is not standardized … Yes now ‘Academic Philosophy’ is standardized … but they are only publish or perish type of people who are maintaining their job careers and they are the ones who have completely ruined the spirit of Philosophy. The actual spirit of philosophy is to start from scratch … or if cite anyone … then first analyze that one and conclude that one by yourself and then cite with your own conclusion.

Yes Philosophy is full of non-sense blunders. But it is like digging the earth. By ratio you will get greater amounts of useless soil and things … but gems will also be found in lesser ratio off course. Here sand and soil cannot be blamed as output of Philosophy as they are essential part of doing effort to reach at the level of gems.

And by the way, Theoretical Physics is actually a form of Rationalism Philosophy … but obviously science people are not going to accept it.

Theoretical Physics is a form of Rationalism Philosophy:

Fritz Zwicky (so called father of dark matter) had proposed various alternative mechanisms to explain redshifts in those early days but he himself accepted that they did not work as expected.

Since all other ‘mechanisms’ failed … so only the ‘velocity’ mechanism survived.

But that was not just the survival of fittest thing.

Hubble was skeptical of velocity interpretation of redshifts but … actually he was also alone. He did not openly disregard velocity meanings. He cited de-Sitter in his 1929 paper that in the de-Sitter Cosmology, displacement of spectra arise from reasons other than motion.

But … de-Sitter also left him alone. Mainly because perhaps the specific point of de-Sitter was not having direct link with General Relativity.

After 1929, de-Sitter and Arthur Eddington both were anxious how to explain Hubble type redshift-distance relationship within GR framework.

Hubble was thinking that de-Sitter already had the prediction of cosmological redshifts in terms other than motion.

de-Sitter knew that he did have prediction but only by way of speculation or expectation out of observed data of few redshifted galaxies by time 1917.

de-Sitter did speculate that redshift could be systematically linked with distance and he had speculate this thing in year 1917.…

Above is de-Sitter (1917) paper. The speculation about redshift-distance can be seen at the end of page No.26.

He is saying that distance may cause redshifts , giving rise to spurious positive radial velocity.

Meanings of ‘Spurious’ can be seen here:

SPURIOUS | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

false and not what it appears to be, or (of reasons and judgments)based on something that has not been correctlyunderstoodand thereforefalse:

On the next page (27), he is saying that Helium stars actually show this type of displacement of (spectra) … On same page, he is using term ‘apparent velocities’ for galactic redshifts.

Who was Willem de Sitter – Wikipedia?

After development of GR equation in 1916 … Einstein was perhaps the first who developed a model of whole universe based on GR equations in year 1917.

de-Sitter was the second person who also developed a model of whole Universe based on GR equations in same year 1917.

The 1917 de-Sitter paper is like a ‘solution’ to GR equations or at least regarded as solution to GR equations.

In this 1917 paper, de-Sitter is saying that distance may be linked to ‘spurious’ velocity (redshift).

In this paper … he did develop solution to GR equations … but there is lot of general discussion as well … like various developments in astronomy etc. including redshifts.

Now whether had ‘Spurious Velocity’ come from GR or from general speculation?

If it came from GR, then why de-Sitter and Eddington … after 1929 … were sitting together to find a solution of Hubble type redshifts from within GR equations and were not reaching at satisfactory conclusion…???

I do not know answer to this question. Only justification is that de-Sitter knew that page 26–28 of his 1917 paper were mere wild speculations and thus they did not relate to the current problem of how to account for Hubble type redshift-distance relationship within the framework of GR.

de-Sitter and Arthur Eddington were actually worrying in year 1930 regarding how to account for Hubble type redshift-distance relationship within the framework of GR equations. Following reference tells the story that they were worrying on this point:…

The story can be found on page 8 of this PDF file (PDF page).

The rest of the story is that Lemaitre approached Eddington that he already had published similar solution in year 1927.

Then Eddington got a plan. He advised Lemaitre to publish the translation but with modifications.

The English translation (1931) of Lemaitre paper changed the game. That was a modified and deceptive translation … showing as if Lemaitre had already (in 1927) derived Hubble Law from GR equations.

In this way, Hubble was left alone. de-Sitter also adopted Lemaitre explanation. Zwicky proposed alternatives but then withdrew his proposals not because he was satisfied with expansionism … only because he had not found viable alternative.

About Latest developments:

It is often stated that latest developments have confirmed expansion of universe. Actually there is no latest development with regards to providing direct evidence that galaxies are in fact in motion. Even the so called ‘inflation theory’ has been ‘derived’ from de-Sitter model where cause of redshifts was other than motion.