Gravitational Ripples So, with the ripples that are thought to be anti-gravitational in origin, theres five significant problems: 1. the theory requires two new particles that have never been detected. One of which (the inflaton no longer exists, somehow they all just disappeared. 2. Even with those particles, a best fit of the actual observed data to the theory doesnt work, it will require other new particles and possibly new forces to make it fit. 3. The observations dont actually imply a beginning to reality-as-a-whole (the common meaning of universe), but only one universe and only if that universe is modeled as part of a constantly expanding multiverse. The existence of other universes, according to the theory, would be undetectable from whatever splotch of reality we happen to be in. Any theory that within itself states that it cant be proved or disproved is nothing more than a just-so story by sciences own tenets, 4. This isnt the first observation made of these ripples - three other observations have been made via different equipment. The other three, while in agreement with each other, are wildly different from this fourth observation. I understood *scientific* observation to require repeatability, by which measure this observation, unless further observations demonstrate that it is correct, should currently be considered the dubious one. 5. That the region of space observed is in fact an early region of an inflating universe is itself just a posit, So what we have is an observation by a machine designed specifically to test a particular region of reality on the unproven assumption that it is the earliest observable part of reality finding evidence of something fudged into cosmology (inflatons) because the original predictions for cosmic inflation failed to match observed reality and therefore cast the big bang theory into serious doubt, Worse, all of the other observations made of the same region of reality by machines designed with the same assumptions contradict both these observations and the predictions of the theory itself. The vast amount of hypothesis contrasted with the dearth of positive evidence, wealth of negative evidence, and at times blatant self-contradiction makes astrology look highly scientific by comparison. The amount of coverage its receiving is one of the greatest examples of confirmation bias Ive ever seen. Considering that of the two physicists that originated the theory one no longer even considers it realistic himself, the way the story is being reported is even more ludicrous. Cosmology is unfortunately dominated by a priori assumptions, indemonstrable beliefs and wildly imaginative superstitions, the larger irony being that those assumptions and beliefs originated in Christian apologetics. Combined with physics inherently technical view of reality (technical literally means made or created as opposed to self-originated) and the big bang theory together with the inflaton fudge is simply creationism in another guise.
Posted on: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 22:14:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015