The tipping point for the Big Bang

Dr. Carroll writes:

Hubble’s Law is an empirical fact about photons we receive in our telescopes, but it’s implications are profound: the universe is expanding.

This is a profound lie. There is no scientific evidence that galaxies observed by Hubble are representative of the whole universe.

Dr. Carroll claims that observed galaxies are representative of the entire universe.

This is not true. We cannot know this. The entire Big Bang theory is based on this Big Bang Delusion. Big Bang is a hoax perpetuated by physicists. There is no passage from the local to the universal without crossing over to charlatanism.

So how many rational people do we need to counter the authority of Dr. Carroll? I am asking because I want to start a page here and have people join in and contribute to the scientific questioning of the Big Bang.

I assume that we need to “weigh” somehow the number of people who do not believe that local is representative of total so that we can convert their lowly amateur authority to the highly professional authority of Doctor Carroll.

So if, say 10 thousand people joined and said local is not representative of total, would that be enough to counter Dr. Carroll’s doctoral authority? Ten thousand to one? Probably not. I believe that if the entire world (except physicists) joined in saying that local is not total this one Doctor’s authority will still prevail. Yes, that’s how much ancient authority these doctors enjoy.

But the same Doctor’s authority will crumble if a doctor of physics with a higher authority index claimed the opposite. So, if uber physicist the famous Hawking suddenly decided to switch to science from entertainment and issued a statement that local is not total, Dr. Carroll’s authority will crumble. Or more likely Dr. Carroll will swiftly switch sides and claim to have never made the assumption that local is total. These are minor academic positionings that doctors do automatically, we won’t even notice.

Dr. Carroll will no doubt claim to on the side of observations. Yes, he will claim that his authority does not matter, it is the authority of observations that counts. He will position himself as the righteous defender of observations. He is the tireless defender of principles of physics which includes an absolute faith in experiments and observations.

But we are not disputing Hubble’s observations. We assume that Hubble observed galaxies. We agree with the great words of Dr. Carroll, yes, indeed empirical photons have been received by Edwin Hubble’s telescope. Granted. And we assume that Hubble observed galaxies expanding. Granted. So both Dr. Carroll and we are in agreement on observations. We are on the same page re observations.

But we are not in agreement on the hidden assumption that Dr. Carroll is making. His hidden assumption is that local is total. So can we make this explicit? Let’s try. Dr. Carroll writes

1. Hubble’s Law is an empirical fact about photons we receive in our telescopes
2. but it’s implications are profound.
3. the universe is expanding.

Great reasoning! Right out of the book of scholastic polemics 101. Anyways, number 2 is just rhetorical decoration so we can ignore it. So Dr. Carroll really says

1. Galaxies are expanding


2. The universe is expanding

So here, given = local galaxies are expanding
and, profound Doctoral conclusion = The universe is expanding

Or with the hidden assumption

1. Galaxies are expanding


3. Therefore, totality is expanding.

Yes, this is the type of miraculous reasoning that doctors of religion also have been using to prove their ideology of god.

I would like to know then your suggestion about how many rational people who detest doctoral hidden assumptions are needed to counter Dr. Carroll’s Big Bang Delusion.

I counted about 500 people here already who rejected Big Bang on various scientific grounds. Well, we see that 500 to 1 is not enough. The reason is that Dr. Carroll is a defender of orthodoxy, in his own words. And as in the Catholic Church, when you defend the orthodoxy, i.e. what is right by fiat, you are supported by the authority of the institution whose orthodoxy you are defending. In this case the media-state-military-physics complex is the institution who owns the Big Bang. So actually, Dr. Carroll’s authority is the authority of the office, not an individual doctor’s authority. So this appears to be more complex than I thought. Your advice is welcome.

One thought on “The tipping point for the Big Bang

  1. “Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.” – Karl Popper

    An apparent expansion or contraction in observing far away galaxies can be caused by the elleptical path that the sun follows around our galaxy. The curvature skews observations. Physicists saying “Big Bang” is the only possible explanation are not suited fo their profession…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s