According to ‘FLRW metric’ expansion of space is taking place all the time everywhere. If 1 mm distance is becoming 2 mm in 1 billion years then 2 mm is becoming 4 mm in same 1 billion year and so on. Every length of space has to become double in same 1 billion years.
So it is like Big Bang of creation of empty space taking place right now – everywhere. Nothing solid is being created by this everyday-everywhere happening Big Bang. However solid things are getting distant apart due to this all the time everywhere happening Big Bang.
And we are told that this is science. Failure to rightly explain cosmological redshifts has resulted in this non-sense Physics. This is really possible only in balloon surface like expansion where every point of surface keeps on expanding. But balloon is expanded due to continuous application of pumping action or force whereas in Big Bang Model, it is said that only the original one time pumping action is still doing its work. It cannot be argued that current expansion is the inertial motion generated by original one time Big Bang because it is not one time thing. This ‘Big Bang’ is taking place all the time – even now.
This type of Big Bang is all the time creating only ‘new empty space’. We should conclude that matter was never created by Big Bang. Matter existed already. Big Bang could only create ‘space’ and even now doing only the same. Given that Universe existed prior to Big Bang, the Big Bang only started ‘expansion’. Before start of Big Bang, it was a static universe. After stoppage of ongoing Big Bang, universe shall be again static.
Title of the paper is: “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae.”
Here “radial velocity” means “redshift”.
From 1912 onwards, scientists had been noticing redshifts in far off galaxies (then thought of spiral nebulae). Naturally by that time those redshifts were interpreted in terms of Doppler’s Effect. Due to Doppler’s interpretation, those redshifts were also called “radial velocities”.
Here in the title of his paper, Hubble has used common term “radial velocity” for “redshift”.
But to determine what he actually wants to say, we must very carefully study the first paragraph of 1929 paper. Following is the first paragraph:
“Determinations of the motion of the sun with respect to the extra-galactic nebulae have involved a K term of several hundred kilometers which appears to be variable. Explanations of this paradox have been sought in a correlation between apparent radial velocities and distances, but so far the results have not been convincing. The present paper is a re-examination of the question, based on only those nebular distances which are believed to be fairly reliable.”
Here it is also true that he starts his paper with sentence “Determinations of the motion of the sun with respect to the extra-galactic nebulae”.
But … in the very first paragraph … he is pointing something perplexing for which he is using word ‘paradox’ and after pointing out this ‘paradox’, now he is using term apparentvelocities instead of velocities.
Following is relevant sentence in the first paragraph:
“Explanations of this paradox have been sought in a correlation between apparent radial velocities and distances, but so far the results have not been convincing.”
Here is the point. In Doppler’s Shift, there is no redshift-distance relationship but what Hubble was observing was a redshift-distance relationship. Therefore with this paper, he was seeking explanations for this ‘paradox’.
From whom he was seeking explanation?
He wrote this question in a public paper so he asked it from wise community. But he asked for this explanation from particular people of his choice also. Furthermore, he has skeptically concluded this paper with following words:
“In the de Sitter cosmology, displacements of the spectra arise from two sources, an apparent slowing down of atomic vibrations and a general tendency of material particles to scatter. The latter involves an acceleration and hence introduces the element of time. The relative importance of these two effects should determine the form of the relation between distances and observed velocities; and in this connection it may be emphasized that the linear relation found in the present discussion is a first approximation representing a restricted range in distance.”
In the letter to de-Sitter, he writes:
“Mr. Humason and I are both deeply sensible of your gracious appreciation of the papers on velocities and distances of nebulae. We use the term ‘apparent’ velocities to emphasize the empirical features of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority.[i]”
Thus ‘apparently’ redshifts seemed like velocities but for Hubble, the actual interpretation of redshifts was unresolved question. With this, he actually rightly recognized the fact that redshift involved in extra galactic nebulae was of a different kind than to the usual Doppler’s Shift.
With his 1929 paper, Hubble not only did not suggest ‘expansion of universe’, he also almost denied that meaning of ‘redshifts’ was ‘velocities’. He used term ‘apparent velocities’ and he even looked for such reasons of redshift as apparent slowing down of atomic vibrations and a general tendency of material particles to scatter.
The usage of term ‘apparent’ for velocities and then looking for explanation of redshifts in such reasons as apparent slowing down of atomic vibrations and a general tendency of material particles to scatter indicates that for Edwin Hubble, ‘velocities’ was not the final meaning for redshifts. The term ‘apparent’ points to the determination of meaning of redshifts as indeterminate.
But soon Robertson and Walker were going to give him an undue gift of literal meaning of ‘apparent velocities’. FLRW metric (Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker) was declared to be the only possible interpretation of cosmological redshifts. In this so-called metric, ‘apparent velocities’ of galaxies literally became ‘apparent velocities’ such that there was no actual velocity but ‘space’ was expanding thus galaxies were ‘apparently’ receding away from our solar system.
Whatever FLRW metric says but point of this blog post is only to show that Edwin Hubble himself did not suggest expansion of universe and neither did he took redshifts of galaxies as actual receding velocities of those galaxies.
After having seen what Hubble exactly told us in year 1929, now we should guess the level of misinformation in general public about Hubble’s finding when NASA itself is also gravely misinformed. Following is a quote from NASA website:
“The Big Bang model was a natural outcome of Einstein’s General Relativity as applied to a homogeneous universe. However, in 1917, the idea that the universe was expanding was thought to be absurd. So Einstein invented the cosmological constant as a term in his General Relativity theory that allowed for a static universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that his observations of galaxies outside our own Milky Way showed that they were systematically moving away from us with a speed that was proportional to their distance from us. The more distant the galaxy, the faster it was receding from us. The universe was expanding after all, just as General Relativity originally predicted! Hubble observed that the light from a given galaxy was shifted further toward the red end of the light spectrum the further that galaxy was from our galaxy.”
For heaven’s sake NASA – Hubble DID NOT say that galaxies are ‘moving away’. At the most he said that galaxies are APPARENTLY moving away.
In year 1936, Edwin Hubble clearly stated following in his book “Realm of the Nebulae”:
And … he reached to final conclusion by the end of year 1941 where he clearly stated that observations are actually showing a static universe.
Preface thoroughly outlines the development and status of dark matter theory at the time of publishing this book. First chapter is like a combat between mathematical counterintuitive physics and human commonsense and explains that human commonsense equipped with proper philosophical approach is capable to deal with the problem of dark matter. Thus the first chapter makes a case for human commonsense and philosophical method.
This section of the book points out that rather than ‘dark matter’, the actual anomalies are in the official distances of galaxies. All the luminosity based distances of galaxies are systematically wrong. All the galaxies having redshift greater than 3 are located at (light travel) distance of more than 14 billion light years. The farthest visible galaxies may be located at (light travel) distance of hundreds of billions light years.
Scientists did apply Newton’s Shell Theorem to the Galactic Rotation Problem. These sections of book explain that scientists applied irrelevant part of Shell Theorem (Theorem XXXI) that was applicable to Solar System and terribly missed to apply the relevant part of Shell Theorem (Theorem XXXIII) that was applicable to the galaxies. These sections then properly explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies in the light of Theorem XXXIII without leaving room for dark matter or ‘modification of theory’. As flat curves are naturally explained, Spiral Structure of Galaxies also gets explained. These sections also explain dwarf galaxies with respect to attribution of greater quantity of dark matter towards them and so-called ‘no dark matter galaxies’ also have been discussed. It is concluded that theory was complete enough to explain flat rotation curves of galaxies. Dark Matter was not the failure of theory rather it was the failure of counterintuitive regime of Physics and Cosmology.
This section of the book analyses and rejects the claim that Georges Lemaître (1927) had mathematically predicted Hubble’s Law. It is explained that he did reach to this law in year 1927 but he had learnt Hubble’ Law from Hubble himself and had not derived it from GR equations. GR had not ‘predicted’ this law. Lemaître published manipulated translation of French article (1927) in year 1931. The manipulated translation removed the reference to Hubble and it appeared as if Lemaître had mathematically predicted Hubble’s Law in year 1927.
These sections of the book analyze and reject the claim that Friedmann (1922) had already mathematically reached to the Hubble’s Law or Hubble type redshift-distance relationship. The source of the idea of (Big Bang) initial singularity is also traced within the works of Friedmann and it is pointed out that Friedmann was talking about monotonic world of which the initial singularity is a distorted and misunderstood form.
“The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. It means that the early universe did not expand “into” anything and does not require space to exist “outside” the universe – instead space itself changed, carrying the early universe with it as it grew. This is a completely different kind of expansion than the expansions and explosions seen in daily life. It also seems to be a property of the entire universe as a whole rather than a phenomenon that applies just to one part of the universe or can be observed from “outside” it. Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric(FLRW Metric) and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit. However, the model is valid only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above), because gravitational attraction binds matter together strongly enough that metric expansion cannot be observed at this time, on a smaller scale.”
In short, according to official sources, ‘Expansion of Space’ stuff is rooted in FLRW metric. It is said that before the discovery of ‘redshift-distance’ relationship in light coming from far off galaxies in 1929 by Edwin Hubble, (F) Friedmann (1922) and (L) Lemaître (1927) already had described ‘Expansion of Space’ in their respective works.
Big Bang theorists do not claim that space is “created physically”, whatever that means.
Big Bang theorists do claim that things, on average, recede from each other; that the distance between things is therefore increasing, on average; and that correspondingly, the metric of spacetime evolves as governed by Einstein’s field equations.
None of this implies space being created, “physically” or otherwise. (For starters, space is not a measurable, tangible concept, nor is it a conserved physical quantity. When you measure “space”, what you actually measure is the distance between things, not space itself, which is intangible.)
Not for the first time, allow me to be the contrarian here and challenge my esteemed colleagues who are telling you that space is expanding, by making three (to me) rather important points: (i) What is this “space” that is expanding? How do you measure it? Where are its little markers to which you can attach your measuring tape? And exactly how is this “space” represented in the Friedmann equations? (ii) Speaking of which, if it was space expanding, how come I can derive (see, e.g., books by Weinberg or Mukhanov) the aforementioned Friedmann equations purely in the context of Newtonian physics, with its concept of absolute space and time? (iii) Last but not least, when gravity brings expansion to a halt, how does it do that? Is it somehow acting on “space”, as opposed to acting on matter? (See also Peacock’s Cosmological Physics.)
No, space is not expanding. It’s not even something we could measure if it did. The Friedmann equations contain two entities: matter (represented by its density and pressure) and the gravitational field (represented by one component of the very special, homogeneous and isotropic FLRW metric.)
Galaxies are moving further apart. If you could stretch a measuring tape from the Milky Way to a distant galaxy, the distant galaxy would be zipping alongside that measuring tape at quite a clip (probably several hundred kilometers a second, at the very least.) And when, in a region where matter is denser-than-average, gravity prevails, it stops those galaxies from moving away from one another.
The purpose of presenting quotes of Mr. Victor T. Toth was to show that some big bang cosmologists are already against the idea of Expansion of Space. However here Mr. Victor T. Toth is not representing the dominant opinion of mainstream big bang cosmologists who overwhelmingly think that Space is Expanding and that this notion of Expansion of Space is rooted in the works of (F) Friedmann (1922) and (L) Lemaître (1927).
Therefore, now I will show that both (F) Friedmann (1922) and (L) Lemaître (1927) did not actually talk anything about Expansion of Space and that this notion is deceptively being attributed to them by the mainstream cosmologists. Mr. Victor T. Toth already has given a hint that Friedmann equations contain two entities which are (i) matter and (ii) gravitational field and thus there is nothing like Expansion of Space in the works of Friedmann (1922).
So let us first check the Friedmann’s actual concept of space. The English Translated title of his 1922 paper is “On the Curvature of Space”. He uses terms ‘space’ synonymous to ‘radius of universe’. By the term ‘radius of universe’ his meaning is that mass contents of universe would cause gravitational boundary of universe that a straight line universal journey of a physical object would be a complete circle and would reach back to the original point. ‘Radius of universe’ is radius of this universal ‘straight’ line which is actually circular. Within this meaning of ‘space’, it is physically valid to say that space may expand or contract. Within mathematical model of Friedmann, space is really expanding or contracting according to this meaning. Following are some examples in Friedmann’s paper of usage of term Radius R as curvature of space:
“Here R depends only on x4 and it is proportional to the radius of curvature of space, which may therefore change with time.”
While deriving constant universe model of Einstein within his own general scheme,
Friedmann writes: “whereby R signifies the constant (independent of x4) radius of curvature of space.”
“If we restrict our consideration to positive radii of curvature”.
“Let the radius of curvature equal R0 for t = t0.”
“Positive or negative depending on whether the radius of curvature is increasing or decreasing for t = t0.”
“by choice of the time it can always be arranged such that the radius of curvature increases with increasing time at t = t0.”
It is now clear that yes space is contracting or expanding in Friedmann’s model but it is contracting or expanding within above physically valid meanings of contraction or expansion of space. But Big Bang Cosmologists tell us a whole different and misleading thing and they attribute their own faulty model to Friedmann. They call their own misleading model of ‘expansion of space’ as ‘metric expansion of space’ and wrongfully attribute this faulty physical model to Friedmann.
After checking the actual position of Friedmann (1922), now we come to see the actual position of Lemaître (1927) with regards to the notion of Expansion of Space.
Modern concept of Expansion of Space has actually come from manipulating Equation No.23 of Lemaître (1927) paper. Following is the snapshot of Equation No.23:
This equation can be written as V/C = (R’/R)r
The above form of equation No.23 superficially resembles to Hubble Law which is V = HD
In Equation No.23, V/C is ‘Redshift’ and in Hubble Law, V is ‘Redshift’; thus LHS of both equations are equal.
Moreover, in Equation No.23, r is Distance, so ‘r’ and ‘D’ of RHS of both equations are also equal.
Therefore, if we use the notation of Hubble Law, we can write Equation No.23 as following:
V = (R’/R)D
means radius of whole Universe … (Radius of ‘whole’ universe itself
should have been regarded as ‘cranky idea’ in first place).
Anyhow ‘R’ means radius of whole universe.
What Lemaître stated was like V=(R’/R)D
What standard ‘interpretation’ goes in every official source … books/papers etc. that is V=(S’/S)D
In short Lemaître was saying in his equation No.23 (1927) that redshift (V) is caused by increase of radius of whole universe. While distance of galaxy (D) remains constant.
equation No.23 is not exact this one. If we use notation of Hubble law
then equation No.23 becomes like this and superficially does resemble
with Hubble law.
But unlike Hubble law where H is constant … here we have distance of galaxy (D) as constant.
R’/R … does it mean H or not?
Whether or not it mean H … it is not constant like H
This is the actual position of Lemaître .
What FLRW metric attributes to him?
FLRW metric makes this thing into V=(S’/S)D where S means ‘Space’.
Here conversion of R into S is a simple manipulation.
Lemaitre here did not say increase of Space or even increase of distance of galaxy… according to equation No.23, distance of galaxy remained the same.
This thing has been ‘interpreted’ in FLRW metric that ‘coordinate’ of galaxy remains the same and space is increasing.
In the end … after all this is a deceptive manipulation. V=(R’/R)D is NOT equal to V=(S’/S)D.
Thus we have seen and confirmed that both Friedmann (1922) and Lemaître (1927) had not coined the term or concept of Expansion of Space and that this concept or notion is only deceptively being attributed to both of them by the so-called FLRW metric.
Position is that without the notion of Expansion of Space, the Standard Model of Cosmology (Lambda-CDM) does not work and this notion itself is unreal, illogical, non-physical as well as deceptive.
There is reality in gravity having its effect distinct from electric effects. But it is also fact that effects of electricity and magnetism start well before reaching to so-called singularity only where according to ‘legitimate’ scientists, theory of gravity fails.
Earth-moon system works differently than the known effects of electricity. So Solar system, galactic system and larger structures are likely being operated by gravity rather than electricity or magnetism. But small scale contributions of forces other than gravity also cannot be denied. Stars are made of plasma therefore within stars major contribution of electric or magnetic effects make sense.
More importantly, mainstream point of view that early universe was hot and dense yet only gravity was the major player in the dynamics of such dense and hot environment makes no sense.
Overall electric and magnetic dynamics are more complex and beyond my satisfactory comprehension ability. Mainstream scientists also avoid indulging themselves into the complexities of electric and magnetic effects at larger scales. Mere presumption that these effects just get neutralized is over simplification. Overall I also assume that larger structures are mainly operated by gravity. I just accept possibility of minor contribution of electricity and magnetism at such scales. Plasma stars are localized structures and major contribution of electricity and magnetism within plasma based local structures cannot be denied. It is also possible that some astronomical effects which are presently regarded or understood to be the effects of gravity might actually be the effects of electricity/magnetism.
By 1916, Einstein had successfully presented his Field Equations of Gravity i.e. General Relativity (GR). In year 1917, he attempted to apply his GR equations to describe whole Universe. Following is the link to English Translation of Einstein (1917) paper:
Einstein starts by evaluating compatibility of General Relativity with an infinite Universe and he does evaluate by going into technical details. Basically he was trying to set ‘boundary condition’ for a spatially infinite universe.
At the end he admits that he failed in doing so:
From what has now been said it will be seen that I have not succeeded in formulating boundary conditions for spatial infinity.
Einstein was more interested in ‘boundary condition’. He failed in determining the boundary condition for spatially infinite universe. But he would ‘successfully’ determine the same for a spatially finite universe.
So how did he ‘derive’ the idea of Finite Universe? Well … he did not derive. He just introduced this idea as a commonsense alternative. Only one extra thing i.e. Cosmological Constant was needed and every problem would be solved. So let’s see how actually the idea of Finite Universe was introduced and what problems were solved through cosmological constant:
Nevertheless, there is still a possible way out, without resigning as suggested under (b). For if it were possible to regard the universe as a continuum which is finite (closed) with respect to its spatial dimensions, we should have no need at all of any such boundary conditions. We shall proceed to show that both the general postulate of relativity and the fact of the small stellar velocities are com- patible with the hypothesis of a spatially finite universe; though certainly, in order to carry through this idea, we need a generalizing modification (i.e. Cosmological Constant) of the field equations of gravitation.
“For if it were possible to regard the universe as a continuum which is finite (closed) with respect to its spatial dimensions …” This sentence clearly shows that finite universe idea was not derived from equations. It was annexed to theory as a commonsense alternative where complexities of infinite option remained unsettled.
How boundary condition was determined? “we should have no need at all of any such boundary conditions.” So problem with regards to boundary condition is solved in a spatially finite universe as now such a boundary condition is not even needed.
And … what were the problems whose solution was the ‘cosmological constant’?
The above quoted paragraph shows that there were two problems:
(i) Finite Universe itself and; (ii) Fact of the smaller stellar velocities.
So the problem was associated with the idea of finite universe. If universe is infinite then there was no need of cosmological constant. With finite universe, Einstein feared that it should be collapsed under gravity.
Generally orbiting objects do not collapse under gravity and Einstein was fully aware of this fact. But why do objects orbit? They orbit due to side-way velocity. Einstein knew this fact also as it is clear from following quote out of same paper:
According to the general theory of relativity the metrical character (curvature) of the four-dimensional space-time continuum is defined at every point by the matter at that point and the state of that matter.
But Universe even if finite must have been very big. Einstein was thinking that at cosmic scale matter must be at permanent rest. In following quote, he is saying that at cosmic scales, the relative velocities of stars are very small:
The most important fact that we draw from experience as to the distribution of matter is that the relative velocities of the stars are very small as compared with the velocity of light.
On the basis of ‘fact’ that relative velocities of stars are very small, he then concludes that at cosmic scales, all matter must be at permanent rest:
There is a system of reference relatively to which matter may be looked upon as being permanently at rest.
“Stars are relatively at rest” … and therefore (finite) universe is at “permanent rest” … Einstein reached to this conclusion and need for introducing ‘cosmological constant’ was invoked.
Because in a finite cosmos, only orbit moving stars could prevent gravitational collapse … since stars were at “rest” … there was no orbiting going on … hence an anti-gravity agent “cosmological constant” was needed to prevent gravitational collapse.
We have seen that basic idea of Einstein was that since stars are relatively at rest therefore finite universe must be at permanent rest. In year 1917, Einstein was definitely not aware that finite island universes (galaxies) do exist where not only that stars are not relatively at rest but they are rotating at faster speed than could be (officially) expected for such galaxies.
Thus in a real finite universe, there was no need of cosmological constant. It was needed only for a flawed hypothetical infinite universe which is at permanent rest.
However actually this is the issue of perspective. Modern Science especially Physics is under the influence of Idealism. The implications of idealism on Physics are profound and deep which I have explained somewhere else in following words:
In this modern idealism, we start from GR equations. We find ‘correct solutions’ on paper and take them for real. It means we are at least at an advanced stage than those ancient animist people for whom any idea would be as real as physical reality. Our “modern science” has only sorted out that status of reality cannot be assigned to each and every idea of mind. This status goes only to ‘correct solutions’ of GR equations.
The actual physical reality is only that we are getting redshifted light from everywhere such that more distant galaxies are more redshifted. But more real for scientists is the very first moment of creation of universe that is found out through so called ‘correct solutions and our scientists become able to tell us (like modern magicians) all the details of that early stage of universe as if it took place before their eyes. Not only that, rather than theorizing larger reality on the basis of observed facts (scientific approach), they have started explaining or interpreting observed facts on the basis of so-called already known larger facts of reality.
Modern ‘Scientists’ are actually more than magicians. They are the kINGS of whole Universe and their theories are the governors of Universe. As I stated earlier, basically this is the issue of perspective. Outlook of ‘scientists’ has been contaminated by idealism. Reality can however be captured or grasped only from realistic point of view such as Epistemological Realism where external world is real i.e. not construction of mind. Mind is reflection. Our theories do not govern Cosmos … Our best theories only best represent the physical reality into theoretical – narrative or mathematical – format. Knowledge is confined to the boundaries of mind. Mind works on observational data and ‘organizes’ sense data into the form of knowledge. And Scientific knowledge also does not cross the boundaries of mind.
Yes Idealism is more charming. But realistically speaking, our theories do not ‘govern’ physical world.
Relativists always keep telling us that General Relativity (GR) has passed every test with flying colors. More precisely, they always tell us that every ‘prediction’ of GR has come true. Here we choose to accept that OK every test within the dynamical boundaries of Solar System was passed.
We also choose to not question the failure of GR at galactic and clusters of galaxies scale where they had to balance out their equations with ghost object of dark matter. We prefer to not raise question on this failure of GR because, as will be explained in upcoming posts, the dark matter was not the failure of theory but was the result of incorrect application of theory. Therefore, to the extent of galactic dynamics, we choose not to raise objection on GR.
But in definite terms, GR has failed the test at Cosmological Scales with more than flying colors.
Before introducing Cosmological Constant, Einstein (1917) is saying that space (on cosmological scale) must have constant curvature i.e. whole cosmos is a huge sphere.
Now please see how Einstein has concluded this 1917 paper:
In starting lines of this page, Einstein is saying that introduction of cosmological constant has also given the result that space on cosmological scale is spherical. At the end, he is explaining that curvature of space is positive even if cosmological constant is not considered or taken into account.
Therefore, by all means, ‘prediction’ of GR for Cosmology was that Space (or Universe) is curved or spherical etc.
The so-called Standard Model of Cosmology i.e. Lambda-CDM (nickname Big Bang Theory) is actually based on wrong assumption that GR is true for Cosmic Scales. Fact is that GR has terribly failed the test of Cosmos.
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 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.
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.