This is what seems to be the case, in spite of the frenzied attempts by his loyal admirers to cover up this nakedness with ever-new and exotic cosmic outfits! An abstract Spacetime geometrical manifold as the basis of objective reality and the axiomatic truths of the theories of relativity are extended without any limit to fabricate a fictitious and Grande virtual edifice of cosmology upon the ground of the Einstein’s “Castle in the Air”. These theories are extended as “after-thoughts” to explain any unknown or newly observed cosmic phenomena, the only exception being the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) which was discovered by accident and remains as the only authentic and genuine discovery so far. Profound claims of “proofs” of this virtual edifice are being made from the most simplistic, spurious and mostly irrelevant observational and experimental “evidence” about the aspects of the enormously complex manifestation of the cosmos and that take into account only those aspects, which conform to the axioms and the theories of relativity.
But what is the reality?:
1. The validity of a scientific theory depends on its tangible social/scientific/technological practice. In more than hundred years of their existence the theories of relativity have provided none.
2. The recent big claim of the “discovery” (LIGO) of gravitational wave remains doubtful and suspicious for many around the world. Einstein himself and the greatest proponent of GR; Arthur Eddington were very doubtful about the possibility of the existence of such waves. Eddington ridiculed the possibility of gravitational wave as “propagating at the speed of thought”.
Premature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe, argues Paul Steinhardt1.
http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346
3. The Nobel awarded claim of the accelerated expansion of the universe “proving” the so-called “dark energy” is now countered with a publication in the “mother of all journals", namely Nature, disputing such an accelerated expansion.
"Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type 1a supernovae":
J..T. Nielsen, A. Guffanti & S. Sarkar
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596
"The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate—or is it? https://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-rateor.html?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Phys.org_TrendMD_1
4. One of the two primary tools, Supernova Type 1a used in support of this virtual cosmology and the fantastic claims made so far, are defective and unreliable. It is now established that there are more than one mechanism for the Type 1a Supernova that would give widely varying luminosity and hence uncertain distance measurements. The “Standard Candle” on which the claims of accelerated expansion were made now seems to be anything but “standard”.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2014/08/28/type-1a-supernovas-cosmic-candle-mystery/
5. The second primary tool of cosmology, namely redshift as a measure of cosmological distance is being hotly debated by many astronomers and astrophysicists, most notably Halton (Chip) Arp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EckBfKPAGNM
Edwin Hubble, in whose name the cosmic expansion and the Big Bang theory is peddled, never accepted the official interpretation of his work: "… if redshift are not primarily due to velocity shift … there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature … and we find ourselves in the presence of one of the principles of nature that is still unknown to us today … whereas, if redshifts are velocity shifts which measure the rate of expansion, the expanding models are definitely inconsistent with the observations that have been made … expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results." ("Effects of Red Shifts on the Distribution of Nebulae" by E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936)
6. The much touted Large Hadrons Collider (LHC) that was supposed to “seal the deal” by discovering “supersymmetry”, “Dark Matter”, A “Theory of Everything” etc., remains empty-handed so far and no promise is in sight. Even the much advertised “God Particle” (The Higgs boson) still remains to be authenticated: Please see the discussion in the following RG forum:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_much_and_how_does_a_Global_Positioning_System_GPS_depend_on_relativity_theories?_ec=topicPostOverviewFollowedQuestions&_sg=X_Lr9Qsyd0JSpm2FbHot8rH8wmeW01StviXgsFBB_2fJvJEXJOuT9jOH4K88KLLsKTD1SiNborkdtL86.0OOmynKtZbi2U_aRuiWDsIGiLheMVhwTPdpBoxj4KbXQTyniBlvIYZsZE49vZwVJc37wct6_EJGpOvYPIC-R1Mw
7. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is the only authentic and accidentally discovery that was made free of confirmation bias and was independent of theory. It is a contrived and forced interpretation that CMBR represent the "after-glow" of so-called hot Big Bang creation of the universe. There could be many other interpretations of CMBR, including a dialectical and quantum mechanically mandated view that CMBR represent the “Zero-Point energy” of an infinite and eternal universe:
Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*
Article THE COSMIC GAMMA-RAY HALO.
8. Towards the end of his life (1954), Einstein expressed grave doubt about his theories of relativity in a letter to his close friend Michele Besso, “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,
It was not only Einstein who had doubt about his esoteric theories of relativity; there had been a phenomenal increase of the number of doubters in the recent decades. One Jean de Climont, has even compiled a list of some of them:
http://editionsassailly.com/livres/climont%20full%20list%20htm.htm
Reagarding your point 7 even the CMB seems to be an scientific artefact:
http://www.reach-unlimited.com/p/1039043492/planck-satellite-data-confirm-earth-may-be-the-center-of-universe
A close up of the WMAP map is not showing the energy map of the galaxies as it is too similar to the distribution of water on our planet,
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_CMB_radiation_just_microwave_radiation_from_the_water_of_earths_oceans
Dear Gregor,
Did you cite the link to a theological website as a humour? In an infinite universe (an age-old conclusion of dialectics) a so-called "Centre" has no meaning at all! A CMBR is mandated by the uncertainty principle, like the "Zero-point" vibrational energy.
All these CMBR measurements by COBE, Planck-satellite etc., are subjective, pre-suppose a Big Bang creation and are geared to justify that theory, so there is no "scientific" value to those. Please see my article:
Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*
The earth is bathed in the microwave and other radiation from the Milky Way; the very small variation of CMBR is obtained by the subtraction of (difference between two large) electronic signals ( the total - the Milky Way galaxy). You can adjust and manipulate electronically to get almost anything you want! Moreover, in addition to the picture presented by Christopoulos, (if I remember it correctly) Robitaille et al., have argued that the presence of water both in Earth's atmosphere and elsewhere in the intergalactic medium is bound to interfere with any mocrowave measurements.
The following is what Halton (Chip) Arp had to say on COBE results in a personal letter to me: “The intergalactic medium has to have some temperature. Eddington calculated about 2.7 deg. in 1926. In the 1940’s Max Born calculated 2.7 deg. on the basis of tired light. Gamow calculated 50 deg. before Pezias and Wilson measured 2.73 deg. But a Canadian astronomer, McKellar had already measured it from the excitation of the inter-stellar CN molecule. The ultimate irony is that it is a primary reference frame which violates Einstein’s assumption about no preferred reference frames.”
Dear Abdul,
as long as there is a majority profiting from a theory (e.g. to become famous, important or rich, one needs to publish data of self-injected events) there is no way to pulverize it.
Science is still dependent on politics. In Galileo's times it was generally accepted that the pope had the final say. But today? Most people do not know that acceptance of Big Bang theory was declared during a conference in Vatican and finally established by pope's grace.
As long as science has no principles and no means to decide whether some result is trash, dadistic nonsense or not there is a need for political decisions.
To establish integrity in science, there must be a fair competition of independent researchers, of people primarily dedicated to research and intrinsically motivated only!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation