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 Here ‘logical deduction’ part has been replaced by ‘Mathematical Derivation’.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.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/te…

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:

http://www.physics.umd.edu/grt/t…

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.

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.

Mathematics is quantitative extension of logic. It can move beyond logic only in exact quantitative terms. The basic realities are discovered through observations. Secondary realities are discovered through logic. Quantitative realities are derived from basic and secondary realities by using mathematics.

Mathematics

Unfortunately Modern Physics is built on assumption that mathematics itself is capable to discover unknown realities of Physics. We often read in science literature that physical fact ‘x’ was already ‘predicted’ by equations ‘M’ so physical fact ‘x’ is considered as a necessary consequence of equations ‘M’ and interpreted only within the context of same equations ‘M’.

In the Big Bang Theory, there is a deceptive claim that in year 1927, Georges Lemaître had ‘mathematically predicted’ physical fact of linear relationship of redshifts and distance whereas that mathematical prediction came true in year 1929 when Edwin Hubble experimentally found the same linear relationship. Only because the said relationship was already mathematically ‘predicted’, mainstream Physics did not feel the need to see whether that kind of relationship could be considered as physical proof of expansion or not. Only because already available mathematics was talking about ‘expansion’ so the newly found linear relationship was simply interpreted in terms of ‘expansion’.

Likewise, CMBR type radiation were already ‘mathematically’ predicted. When apparently same type of radiation were experimentally found, then again mainstream Physics felt no need to find the actual reason of those radiations and they were simply interpreted within the context of already available mathematics.

Right method should be Observation>>>Logical Interpretation of observed reality by evaluating all the possible explanations>>>Quantified Model using Mathematics. (This method implies that mathematics itself does not find unknown realities)

The actual prevailing method of Modern Physics is like Mathematics>>>apparent resemblance of later on found physical facts with already available mathematics>>>Hue and Cry that ‘mathematical prediction’ has come true>>>adaptation of already available mathematics (with few modifications) as final interpretation of newly found physical facts. (This method implies that only way to find unknown is the way of mathematics)

It is often stated that Einstein had found hard physical realities through the way of mathematics. Bending of light ray was experimentally confirmed during a Solar Eclipse etc. The thing to be noted in this case is that after reaching at ‘Equivalence Principle’ with the support of Eötvös experiment (Observed physical fact), First of all Einstein had logically evaluated the stuff. If acceleration due to gravity was independent of mass (a logical interpretation of physical experiment) then light also must accelerate under gravity (logic). But according to his own theory, speed of light could not be affected (logic). If speed of light could not be affected then there were two (logical) options; (i) Wavelength of light could be affected (gravitational redshifting) or (ii) light could change direction (i.e. other logical form of acceleration).

Thus logic took him to the idea of bending of light. Next stage was quantification i.e. ‘how much bending’. From this point onward the role of mathematics entered to the scene.

Therefore mathematics had not found unknown reality in this case. More specifically, if Solar Eclipse experiment had really confirmed anything then it was that (logical result out of observation) acceleration due to gravity was independent of mass.

However if we try to look at further details, then keeping in view the personality of Arthur Eddington who actually performed 1919 Solar Eclipse Experiment, the whole confirmation of General Relativity on the basis of this experiment sounds notorious and unreliable.

Arthur Eddington, within mainstream interpretation, had confirmed that mathematics really found unknown realities. Eddington again played a crucial role in 1931 when it was almost established that Georges Lemaître had already ‘mathematically predicted’ Hubble’s law in year 1927. However, later on, the same Arthur Eddington, in the case of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, would refuse that mathematics can find unknown realities of Physics.

But since Chandrasekhar’s point of view was succeeded at the end so mainstream Physics ignored the confession of Arthur Eddington that Mathematics itself cannot find realities of Physics. 

Role of mathematics is also important to be clearly explained and limits be identified within the domain of Philosophy. Below I am quoting a relevant portion of my upcoming book “Descriptive Knowledge, Mind and Reality; a case of Epistemological Realism”:

“There is no a priori knowledge which is totally independent of sense experience and neither mind is a flat recipient of sensory information. Those general tendencies form a natural flow of expression of contents of framework of consciousness and tend to make it consistent, smoother, balanced and/ or more accurate. This is logical way of how external reality is perceived and then expressed and does not amount to a priori knowledge. To say that mind derives things or can calculate is equivalent to accept that there is no a priori knowledge. Mind derives or calculates means that mind has the ability to derive or calculate and does not mean that mind is already aware of correct answers. Certainty that we get from the results of mathematics is not real as most of the times it depends on suppositions. One plus one is always two because quantity of one is supposed to be fixed. Mathematics in its practical usage by mind is based on suppositions and thus not real; however there comes a real aspect of mind that mind is able to suppose fixed, unchanging, absolute or universal entities and then becomes able to get certain results by performing mathematical or logical operations on those supposed universals. Universals themselves are unreal but ability of mind to suppose them and perform mathematics and logic on them is real. Universals come from ability of mind to suppose and not from ability of mind to generalize. Generalization leads to ultimate categorization and not universalization. Simple analytic judgments are also not a priori. Judgment, basically being one or the other form of inference or conclusion, itself is a secondary thing. At the most it is a mold which gives the primary sensory information a different and useful shape such that all the ingredients of final product were already contained in that primary sensory information. In this capacity, again it is ability and not pre-existent correct answer. In analytic judgments where predicate is obtained by simply analyzing the subject, the pre-existent correct answer was contained in primary sense data and not created by mind through judgment. We take example of analytic judgment as provided by Lord Bertrand Russell[i] which is stated as: “a bald man is a man”. This type of analytic judgment was regarded in pre-Kant era, Bertrand Russell states, as example of a priori knowledge because in these judgments, predicate being part of the subject, we are certain a priori. As already mentioned, judgments themselves are secondary in origin therefore certainty connected with them is also secondary in character thus there is nothing a priori in analytic judgment. This is equivalent to say that it is certain that a tree is tree so knowledge of tree is a priori or at least this judgment is a priori. Knowledge of tree comes from senses and judgment is a secondary thing which tells us nothing wholly independent of sensory information.

Issue of analytic judgments, as Russell continues, is connected with principle of contradiction which asserts that nothing can at the same time have and not have a certain property. We should now examine the case whether this principle itself can be regarded as innate or a priori or not. The certain thing is that this principle in descriptive form is not innate. Even in the capacity of a logical mold machine, it is doubtful that this principle is innate of mind. However it is a fact that mind is not able to form mind images of self-contradictory things like impossible figures. But how an impossible thing can be regarded as innate just because mind remains unable to perform that impossible task? If principle of contradiction is innate of mind then inability of mind to see view of sun which is less than 8 minutes old is also innate of mind. The principle of contradiction is a general characteristic of outer reality which does not accommodate any object that at the same time has and not has a certain property. If we accept that this principle is innate of mind then next claim that outer reality is constructed by mind also becomes possible because then outer reality would be obeying this principle of mind and could well be a product of mind. In this regard, what is innate of mind is the ability of mind to remain consistent with outer reality though mind is able to stay away from facts of outer reality also. Basically human mind tends to stay away from facts and only after sufferings through mistakes then becomes able to keep itself consistent with outer reality. With the passage of this evolutionary process, mind has then captured this principle from the general behavior of outer reality through sense experience and through its own inability to form mind image of self-contradictory things. Then mind has given it absolute form through innate ability of supposition of universals. This principle talks of universal, unchanging and fixed entities; such things being non-extractable from general behavior of outer reality so this ability of supposition is innate of mind. But what things can be assigned universal attributes? The answer is only those things whose all component parts are traceable to sense experience, details thereof we shall see in chapter 5. Here we can proceed with our conclusion regarding analytic judgments and principle of contradiction that both are not innate and do not amount to a priori knowledge. However with regard to principle of contradiction, we do acknowledge that ‘inability’ of mind to imagine self-contradictory idea in the form of mind image is innate but at the same time this inability does not constitute any innate or a priori knowledge of mind which is independent of sense experience. Examples include impossible figures which cannot be imagined in the form of mind image and neither can be drawn on paper except in the form of illusory tricks. But this inability of mind is consistent with the inability of outer reality where also any impossible figure cannot exist. Self-contradictory thing is an impossible thing in itself and does not depend on inability of mind for its impossibility of physical existence. In simple terms, mind is not able to imagine what is impossible in itself so there is no involvement of any positive ability of mind. Positive ability of mind in this connection is the ability to conceive self-contradictory things only in descriptive format. It is possible for mind to conceive descriptive concept of impossible figure like a ‘square circle’ but it is not possible for mind to form mind image of same concept. Mere ability or inability of this sort does not constitute a priori or innate knowledge of mind. Our conclusion regarding ability of supposition of universals is that this ability is innate to human mind only since this ability seems not available to animal mind and that things that are supposed as universals ultimately had come from sense experience and thus there is no involvement of a priori knowledge.
If we take simple meaning of a priori knowledge as something we do not need to confirm in our routine judgments then yes we know a priori that a bald man is a man. Or that 7+5=12 is also a priori knowledge. But through this philosophy, we are examining our basic tools and infrastructure. In this realm, innately we are not even provided with any idea of 7 or 5. Children of pre-school age can learn counting only if they are taught by parents or guardians. Few months back I met a 10-11 years old boy who does not know counting more than 20 because his father died when he was so young and due to difficult domestic economic conditions, he might have attended school for only a short duration. Suppose he can do 2+2=4, which he cannot do in fact but suppose he can do, but how he will do 22+22=44? Suppose up to 20 figures are innate in him but why the simple figure 103 is not innate in him? It was a slip number which he could not read. My 4 years son who is studying in prep class can count up to 100 but he cannot do simple sum of 2+2=4 without my help and guidance that I provide using examples of concrete things. Lord Russell further states and affirms with reference to works of David Hume that 7+5=12 is a synthetic judgment as idea of 12 is not contained in 7 or 5; not even in idea of adding them together and also that knowledge of pure mathematics is a priori. Russell seems to point out that with this new problem, synthetic judgments also became a candidate of a priori knowledge. In fact David Hume has not discussed analytic or synthetic stuff at least in Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. And in my humble opinion, David Hume has taken pure mathematics as a priori only in routine sense which I have described at the start of this paragraph. After discussing mathematics as a priori, then Hume moves to matters of fact such as someone is in Paris or not etc. that needs factual evidence for knowing the truth. Then he discusses cause and effect and concludes that cause and effect cannot be known a priori. His following sentence will make sense that basically he is talking about a priori knowledge in routine sense.

“I venture to assert, as true without exception, that knowledge about causes is never acquired through a priori reasoning, and always comes from our experience of finding that particular objects are constantly associated with one other.”[ii]

While discussing mathematics, his point was that reasoning alone could perform arithmetic or geometric operations and experience was not required. With the problem of cause and effects, his opinion is that reasoning alone is insufficient and experience is required. With further proceedings, more troubles will arise and he will say that past experience will also fail to predict future occurrences. Anyways, I here disagree that only pure reasoning can solve arithmetic or geometric problems as no pure reasoning which is independent of sensory experience exists at all because reasoning is the name of inferring process which is not independent of sense experience. However by saying that through reasoning, problems of arithmetic etc. will be solved, he is clearly taking routine meanings of a priori knowledge and same is the case with his later analysis. And perhaps Kant also has example of only mathematics with regard to synthetic form of a priori knowledge which we accept a priori only in routine sense and not in the sense of basic innate a priori knowledge of human mind. On the whole yes we are a priori certain that 7+5=12 but what about mathematical assertion that sum of series of odd numbers like “1+3+5+…” is always a perfect square? Only a person who already knows it through experience would be a priori certain about it. Any person who has not yet experienced it would tend to confirm it by adding 1 with 3 to get 4 which is a perfect square and then would add 5 with earlier answer 4 to get 9 which again is a perfect square and so on up to a reasonable limit to get a priority surety for the next times. David Hume had rightly pointed out (i.e. with only adjustment that pure reasoning is not independent of experience) that by examining only reasonable instances of mathematical assertions, we can get a priority surety for the future with regard to all the rest of un-examined infinite instances. But this is not the case with cause-effect situations where a priority surety for the future occurrences is not possible regardless of how many instances we already have examined.”
  

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.

Physical proof is simply the experimental proof. The redshifts that scientists have observed in light coming from far off galaxies are NOT due to Doppler’s effect thus do not amount to physical proof. That is a different kind of redshift which is called Cosmological Redshift.

bbtwp

This redshift is not proof of receding of anything. The only proof which Big Bang supporters have is a mathematical proof (FLRW metric). Its meaning is that the theory (Big Bang) is NOT developed out of experimental findings. It is NOT developed out of Doppler’s Effect. It is developed out of FLRW metric which only ‘explains’ or ‘attempts to explain’ the observed fact of ‘cosmological redshift’. Likewise, theory is also not developed out of experimental finding of CMBR. Only thing is that experimental finding has been ‘explained’ in terms of FLRW metric. At the most they got ‘prediction’ of CMBR from FLRW metric. In this way the maximum thing is that the Big Bang Theory becomes mathematical explanation of CMBR. But after all theory was not developed out of experimental finding of CMBR. At the foundation level, there is only mathematics. Observed facts are only at ‘interpretation’ level. It is possible to interpret both cosmological redshift as well as CMBR in some other way.

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”.

Post thumbnail

CMBR is electromagnetic radiation within microwaves zone of the spectrum and coming from all the parts of sky. It is right to think of it as a form of (invisible) light coming from everywhere. Source of CMBR is said to be the state of Universe as it existed some 380,000 years after Big Bang. At that time, according to the Big Bang Model, diameter of Universe was 43 million light years.

This state of Universe is said to emit light for the first time. Originally it was compressed radiation of visible glow. But it is said that Universe was expanding and light was also expanding. That light is now reaching us in expanded (invisible) form and now lies within microwaves zone of spectrum and we call it CMBR.

But that early state of Universe lasted for a maximum period of only 600 million years as after this time, galaxies appeared. It means that source of CMBR lasted for only 600 million years. If we assume or accept a non-expanding universe then we are living in a perfect age where we can observe this radiation.

But Big Bang defenders argue that universe is not static. Universe is expanding faster than speed of light and redshifted light is chasing the Universe. So they conclude that CMBR shall stay for ever.

The point to be considered is that CMBR has been explained only in the expanding Universe context – and that also in such an expanding Universe that is expanding faster than light itself. If these assumptions are not true then Big Bang supporters have no alternative justification for the CMBR.

cmbr

Image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration.

In fact our Universe is static. CMBR is redshifted light of very remote areas of Universe that extends like infinity. It is in accordance with Olbers’ ‘paradox’ which is not a paradox as such. Olbers’ simply did not know Hubble’s law in his time (19th century) so he did not know that light coming from far off distances was to be more redshifted. Exactly in accordance with Olbers’ paradox, our night sky is actually fully bright. But it is bright in redshifted to invisible spectrum zone. That’s why our night sky is not really bright. And this CMBR is actually the proof that we live in an infinite universe. Olber’s ‘paradox’ already contained prediction of CMBR and thus credit of prediction of CMBR does not exclusively belongs to the Big Bang Model. Further details have been explained in the book.

Post thumbnail

Big Bang Cosmologists deceptively tell us that Doppler’s Redshift observed in light coming from far off galaxies is the proof of expansion of universe. The fact is that the redshifts they have so observed are not Doppler’s Shifts at all. That is a different kind of redshift which is called Cosmological Redshift. Given the fact that Cosmological Redshift is different from Doppler’s Redshift, scientists should not use the term Doppler’s Effect within the context of the Big Bang Theory. They know that this is different kind of redshift but they continue to use this irrelevant term in official papers and discussions. By using the term Doppler’s Effect, they deceptively project that the Big Bang Model was developed on solid observational grounds because Doppler’s Effect is the physical proof of receding or approaching velocity of any object. Cosmological Redshift, on the other hand, is not the physical proof of receding of any object.  Though it is possible that recessional movement may occur under cosmological redshift but it is NOT necessary. There may NOT be recessional movement in redshift-distance relationship. For example there is redshift-distant relation in surface water waves and there is no recessional movement of source of waves. Therefore unlike Doppler’s effect, Cosmological Redshift itself is NOT the proof of recessional velocity of anything. It will amount to proof only if it is supported by direct evidence – such as we have 100 years old redshift data of many galaxies. If there is recessional velocity going on then those galaxies are now at greater distance and there should be greater value of redshift for those galaxies. But all values are same. Big Bang supports say that 100 years are not enough to notice any difference in value. I say ok … lets say few thousand years are enough … but it means that NOW you are without proof … You can acquire proof only after few thousand years … Right now you are without proof. The only ‘proof’ that you tell us is a ‘mathematical proof’ rather than a physical proof. And that ‘mathematical proof’ is also dubious mathematics which is based on manipulated translation.

Doppler’s Shift (redshift) is observed if something is physically moving away from us. Let’s say a far off galaxy is physically moving away from us. The light emitted by the galaxy, right from start, will be redshifted to the full value. With Doppler’s Shift, we get a physical proof that yes the galaxy is physically moving away from us. Doppler’s Effect is essentially redshiftspeed relationship. In contrast to this, Cosmological Redshift is redshiftdistance relationship. Let’s say an object at near location is moving away with speed 100; at farther distance, speed shall again be 100. At both near and far distance, the Doppler’s Redshift value shall remain the same due to the fact that speed was same. However Cosmological Redshift value shall be different for both the locations because distance is not the same.

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cms/cpg15x/albums/userpics/dopplershift+0.mp4

(Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech — taken from this site.)

Please see in this video that due to recessional or approaching velocity of light source, the wavelength is modified exactly at the time of departure. The same modified wavelength, without further alterations is then reached at the receiving point. In Doppler’s redshift, wavelength of light does not increase during the journey of light.

Whereas in ‘Cosmological Redshift’, the far off galaxy is physically NOT moving away from us and normal light is emitted by that galaxy. But during long journey of light, wavelength of light keeps on increasing. The larger distance is covered, the wavelength has become larger. It means if larger distance is covered, the greater redshift is observed at the receiving end. Exact this thing was noted by Edwin Hubble and finally scientists realized that what redshifts they had been observing since second decade of twentieth century were not Doppler’s Shifts but were Cosmological Redshifts.

water waves
(Credit: Image permitted to be used by Jesse Witwer)

Above image of surface water waves is the perfect example of linear relationship between wavelength (redshift) and distance. Hubble actually did not say in year 1929 that Universe is Expanding and his actual finding was simply the linear redshift-distance relationship whose perfect example is above depicted wavelength (redshift) – distance relationship of surface water waves.

Since Cosmological Redshift is not the physical proof of receding of galaxies, so Expansionists now say that it is ‘space’ which is expanding. What is the proof of ‘expansion of space’? The proof is only mathematics – i.e. dubious FLRW metric.

Simple finding of Hubble was that “there is linear relation between redshift and distance”.

FLRW only adds an unnecessary bracket and wants us to read Hubble’s simple finding as “there is linear relation between redshift and (increasing) distance.”

‘Increasing distance’ means expansion of space is going on and proof of this (increasing) bracket is FLRW metric itself.