The fundamental equivocation of cosmology is the universe. Cosmology is based on the equivocation the “observable universe” and the “universe as a whole”.
Typical Big Bang platitudes:
With a cosmic yardstick for measuring the distance to the galaxies, Edwin Hubble made a remarkable discovery. He found that all the galaxies were racing apart from each other. Not only that, but the further away a galaxy was, the faster it was moving.
Running the clock backwards led to a disturbing conclusion. There must have been an instant in the distant past –that day without a yesterday — when everything in the universe exploded into being out of a single point in space. The evidence was pointing towards a Big Bang. A moment of creation.
The runner of the clock backwards, in this case is the writer Simon Singh. He has a PhD in physics. He has written bestselling books. But he has no qualms about running the clock backwards into the primordial explosion. He has no qualms about assuming that the few galaxies observed by Hubble constituted the entire universe. He is a willing executioner of the universe-cosmos pun.
How can these supposedly intelligent people so easily and so eagerly suspend disbelief and repeat the official cosmogonic mythology without questioning this absurd assumption? Is there a Dark Big Bang Conspiracy? The mother of all academic conspiracies? I hate conspiracy theories but for a such a silly theory to have become the official cosmogonic mythology of mankind pretending to be a scientific fact I don’t know what else to say.
And this is how the official cosmogony of humanity are taught at primary schools. Here too we see that Big Bang is competing with old cosmogonies of the book religions.
Ralph Alpher mentions this when talking about the thermodynamical absurdity of inflationary scenarios. So
Is thermodynamics applicable to the universe as a unique system?
The scientific answer is No. The shamanistic answer is Yes.
The Big Bang mythology is based on the supposition that the universe is a closed (or unique) thermodynamical system. But we know that this is not the case. Even physicists concede that there is a Dark Universe from where no information comes to us and never will.
Physicists use all kinds of scholastic sophistry and cosmological principles and doublespeak hidden in mathematical looking formulas to justify that the totality is uniquely thermodynamical. In this way physicists assert that they know scientifically what they do not know and they will never know. This is not the scientific method. This is the well-known method of shamans.
Physicists working on Big Bang mythology look more and more like shamans who launder cosmogonic mythologies for unhuman organisms who then sell them to consumers as scientific theories.
This article has been moved here.
In this post Mark Trodden writes that he disagrees “with religion because it is false.” He adds that he likes “plenty of things that aren’t true” but the things that he likes that aren’t true “don’t claim to be true.”
I found this interesting. Because I was just writing in comments that physicists claim to know what they do not know and prove it by false association with observations. I am talking about the cosmogonic mythology called the Big Bang developed by physicists. Mark Trodden is one of those physicists who believe in the Big Bang without questioning its absurd initial assumptions. He is the director of the Center for Particle Cosmology at the University of Pennsylvania where Big Bang is claimed to be the true and absolute origin of the totality supported by scientific evidence and observations. According to their About page
in the last decade new data has transformed Cosmology into a mature, empirically grounded physical science. The next decade will see vast increases in astronomical data and qualitatively new observational regimes . . . with the potential of opening a window into the earliest times in the Universe.
This is an explicit claim of what is not true to be true. Big Bang is the alternative cosmogonic myth that was designed for consumers who have become savvy enough to question the age old cosmogonic mythologies of the old book religions and needed a “scientific” cosmogony that they could believe. Therefore, Big Bang cosmogony is an offense against science which is worse than religious cosmogonies. In fact, religious cosmogonies are not against science — they have nothing to do with science — they are proudly presented as religion. Old book reeligions do not claim to be anything else. Religion does not claim to be science. Mark Trodden, on the other hand, contributes to the Big Bang mythology by associating it with particle physics and marketing the cosmogonic mythology that is Big Bang as if it were science. Physicists are the true offenders against science because they are packaging a cosmogonic mythology as a scientific cosmogony.
So cosmogonic mythology of book religions are clearly labeled “religion” for consumers to see. It’s their choice, they can buy it or not. Big Bang is a cosmogonic mythology competing with religious cosmogonies but it is labeled “science” to fool the consumer into buying it as their science. If there were a Science Regulation Commission Big Bang would have been labeled with the caveat “Warning: The active ingredient of Big Bang is absurd and it may be harmful to your reason! Don’t believe Big Bang without questioning!”
Mark Trodden is skeptical toward cosmogonic mythologies propounded by book religions but when it comes to the secular cosmogonic mythology of Big Bang he is not a skeptic and accepts what his Book, i.e., physics code, tells him. This is selective skepticism. I believe that what confuses him is that in traditional book religions, designed thousands of years ago for illiterate people, the author of the book was defined as an all-powerful supernatural being. Today the author of the Book of Physics is not claimed to be a supernatural being. The consumers of the physics religion are not illiterate peasants of two thousand years ago. They are enlightened “intelligent laymen.” In fact, in physics there is no explicit single author and there is no explicit single book. But the physics code, as codified in textbooks, is the official sacred Book of Physics. Physics textbooks are as sacred as the Bible and what is in them cannot be changed or questioned. Big Bang is one of the many mythologies in the Book of Physics.
All religions appear initally as science to consumers. Physics is no different. The sacred Book of Physics that a priestly class called physicists study for over two decades and believe in it absolutely and unquestioningly and defend it against outside questioning shows all the signs of being a religion. It may be a secular religion but it is religion. It is not a complete religion as the old book religions because it does not instruct its believers on their diet or lifestyles or it does not want them to mutilate their body parts as part of a covenant with the author of the Book, but in a way, it is more powerful, because, in Newtonism, it has the power to shape how we perceive the world. Physics religion is encoded in our language in the word physical. We perceive nature as physical because this British religion is the religion of states all over the world and it is taught as true science. Physical means Newtonian. So Newtonism, the fundamental ideology of physics, is a powerful religion, a meta-religion, above other book religions.
Why Mark Trodden does not realize this? Because the difference I am talking about, the difference between the Newtonian religion and the old book religions is the difference between Doctors of Philosophy and Doctors of Theology. Mark Trodden is a Doctor of Philosophy. Ever since Newton took the authority to cosmologize from the hands of Theological Doctors and gave it to Doctors of Philosophy, the Doctors of Theology want their old authority back. The academic turf wars between these two types of professional doctors have been going on for centuries and there is no end in sight.
This is the view of physics by physicists as stated for instance in this paper:
The primary role of physics remains the deep insight and rational understanding of measurable, natural phenomena.
On the next page the author gives some big numbers used by physicists:
Number of electrons in a cm^3 of a metal = 10^22
Estimated number of atoms in human body = 10^28
Estimated number of atoms in the Universe = 10^80
This is how physicists are lying.
Human body is a well-defined entity and the number can be estimated. Let’s say electrons in cm^3 can also be estimated. But the number of atoms in the Universe cannot be known rationally and it cannot be measured. This physicist, like every physicist, is using the Universe-Cosmos pun. He means there is 10^80 atoms in the cosmos, an entity invented by physicists, then he secretly defines his cosmos to be the whole Universe, the Universe with initial cap.
Why is this important? For a physicist this is semantics. For a physicist lying is mere semantics because he is repeating what is legal. That’s all that matters for a physicist. He repeats what is legal physics. This is what separates a physicist from a scientist.