Original
The Big Bang is another inconsistent theory of modern Big Sci:
The expansion began from a single point, yet the BB has no center!
The universe is expanding into non-existence, yet it has no edge!
Correct - there is no inconsistency in either of these things - if you think there is inconsistency that is because you fail to understand the science. Here is a little thing I wrote earlier:
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm
There’s no inconsistency in these fallacies because an inconsistent system, as is the Big Bang, can be used to prove anything. This requires an understanding of logic and inconsistent systems, the basis of empirical science.
Here’s a little thing Karl Popper wrote earlier (The Logic of Scientific Discovery):
A theoretical system may be said to be axiomatized if a set of statements, the axioms, has been formulated which satisfies the following fundamental requirements.
[Consistency] the system of axioms must be free from contradiction (whether self-contradiction or mutual contradiction). This is equivalent to the demand that not every arbitrarily chosen statement is deducible from it.
[Al: Since every arbitrarily chosen statement includes contradictory statements, an inconsistent logical system allows ANY statement to be proven true or false. This is the path via agnosticism to nihilism.]
…
[Testability] A second criterion concerns the logical form of the theory. Popper admits only theories capable of being tested by experience. If the form of a theory is such that its basic statements simply don’t correspond to experience, or are otherwise not testable, then that theory does not qualify as empirical scientific. For a theory to be scientific it must be testable.
If we are expanding from the BB origin along with the shell of remnants, there should be a variation in star density in a plane around us, the local tangent plane to the shell surface. There is, the Milky Way, but current cosmo. thinking says no, the galactic axis does not contain the BB origin… There is no center for the expansion we are moving in!
The solar system is moving toward the Virgo cluster in the CMB frame, we are told, so the BB origin should be the Virgin’s antipode: ~ RA 190, Dec -10. King Cosmo again says no - that would be logical. We are expanding in the direction of Virgo, but the direction we started from is unknown!
In all the sorcerer’s smoke and mirrors another fallacy is hidden:
The CMB rest frame is the frame of the BB origin, even though this contradicts relativity - an absolute frame.
The description of the void of non-existence is a philosophical teaser addressed in Metaphysics 101. The lack of reality, nihil, can’t be perceived by the senses; after all, it lacks reality. “From nothing, comes nothing” - Aristotle.
Describe what we would observe (a scientific method requirement) at the leading edge of the expanding BB front of spatial creation, as it expands ‘outward’ into ‘nihil’. …Even darkness was created.
This thread is based on evidence from scholastic realism. Let the nihilists start their own thread and discuss the properties and appearance of the absence of reality - non-existence.
There are no cosmic effects that support rotation of the universe once per day, …
All measurable effects that support rotation of the earth once per day, also support rotation of the universe once per day… Mach’s principle of relative rotation equivalence, never falsified.
Both SR and GR have yet to fail an observational test.
Exactly… an inconsistent theory can prove anything! see Popper above, again.
This inconsistency isn’t really accidental. This is a tactic of flexing variant interpretations, axioms and solutions.
A modern mathematician with a Ph.D. in logic has examined the US culture of modern physics and relativity history:
In America recent public funding of scientific research has this underlying problem of politically motivated ideology. Those who controlled the funding produced more doctorates as more graduate students were awarded research assistantships, etc. The more Ph.D.s, the more influence on academic course curricula and research directions. Just follow the money.
This US money class wanted to restrict what physicists were going to be allowed to investigate by replacing free investigation with the “dogma” of what you were allowed to believe - like a modernist physics religion.
Einstein was caught saying one thing one moment and later saying the opposite. He even said that since the mathematicians (objectively, pseudo-mathematicians) had taken over his theory that he no longer understood it. They grabbed hold of his theory to interpret it in lots of ambiguous ways. If you spot one mistake – well, you alter his theory in a way to correct it. Always a work in progress, but never finished… or logically stable.
Einstein was treated as a “sacred cow”; if you did criticize him you were accused of being an anti-Semite; a pretty good way of stopping further discussion.
There should really be clashes between the defenders of different SR versions, but that usually gets stamped out by those holding the upper hand, claiming they know the “true” SR while accusing others of not understanding SR.
The real culprit of the destruction of theoretical physics is not Einstein. It was a coordinated effort by pseudo-mathematicians who grabbed the chance to gain power.
Beware , brother, of getting enamored of the modernist deception.
AMDG
