Phantasy Physics

The Forum is provided for both SIS members and non-members to discuss topics relevant to the Society's work. It also provides the opportunity for non-members to ask questions about the Society’s work and/or published material.
All posts are moderated before inclusion. No attachments are permitted.

Phantasy Physics

Postby John » Wed 16 May 2018 5:11 pm

Whilst I am convinced that we inhabit an eternal Universe and any changes that occur can do so only in conformity with its intrinsic, unchangeable physical laws. These act automatically in perfect and harmonious conjunction and offer no possibility of alteration. Nonetheless, cosmology has been inverted: stood on its head - so as to present some assumed and amazing behaviour powered by astounding and (in terms of known physics) impossible physical processes.
It is postulated that another universe somehow condensed some of its Matter into a tiny, tiny space called a Singularity. It is quite unknown how this could be achieved. No feasible explanation is possible in terms of known physics. Therefore, this idea is a hypothesis, not a theory!
It relies for its understanding entirely on assuming the activity of physical laws unknown in our Universe and consequently impossible to re-create.
Its proponents cannot offer any rationally possible explanation (using known physical laws) for these events and rely on fluffing up purely imaginary solutions and quoting “the magical mystery” of our Universe as offering some reason to accept their hypothetical improbabilities!

The concept of a Singularity and its Big Bang (said to have created our Universe), became mathematically necessary (to its progenitors) to justify their presentation of an expanding Universe. Without knowable physics, a mathematical model is the only way to explain their view. Sadly (for them) even their proffered equations are wrong.
Garbage in > Garbage out!
Of course the Universe is not expanding and the Big Bang hypothesis is founded on questionable, (probably mistaken) beliefs surrounding the causes of Redshift and its interpretation.
The physical difficulties that this idea has presented over the past 100 years demanded that a known physical property (gravity) had to be dramatically enhanced; else the whole idea would founder.
The whole hypothesis is founded on the influence of this, the weakest known force. However, for gravity to function effectively in this scenario it became necessary to explain how its power could have been sufficiently increased.
It was realised that this could be generated by the collapse of Matter into an intensely compressed mass. Thus was born the hypothesis of the Black Hole!
Amazingly, such phenomena was not only found, but Black Holes were (allegedly!) suddenly discovered all over the visible Universe! The ‘history’ associated with these phenomena is piled high with caveats invented to account for the endless improbabilities that this fantasy cosmology has generated. The overrated (though remarkable) Stephen Hawking is ‘credited’ with proving they are fundamental to galaxy formation – but – he didn’t! His math (not for the first time) was wrong.

Here I express my thanks to Stephen Crothers who has ‘authored’ many of the points I have converted to my own inimitable style!
(Stephen J. Crothers writes: "It is very easily proven that the black hole and the big bang contradict one another and so they are mutually exclusive. All alleged black hole solutions to Einstein's field equations pertain to universes that are spatially infinite, are eternal, contain only one mass, are not expanding, and are asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved. But the alleged big bang universes are spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases), are of finite age, contain radiation and many masses (including multiple black holes, some of which are primordial), are expanding, and are not asymptotically anything Thus black hole universes and big bang universes contradict one another. They are mutually exclusive and so they cannot co-exist. It is therefore not possible for a black hole to be present in a big bang universe or even in another black hole universe, and likewise, it is not possible for a big bang universe to be present in a black hole universe or in another big bang universe. Nonetheless, the astrophysical magicians superpose black hole and big bang universes notwithstanding that they are incompatible by their very definitions, and that the Principle of Superposition does not hold in General Relativity. Much of modern physics is simply manufactured in this way and so it bears no relation to the actual Universe".
Most of his papers are at ><

Recent research has established that there are at least 1.3 billion stars in the Milky Way and between 100-200 million galaxies in the visible Universe.
All this stuff from a pinpoint Singularity!
This must be so - according to the ‘establishment’ - and were it a reality - perhaps it might. The major failing (leaving its sheer impossibility to one side) is that the miraculous Singularity cannot explain how new Matter can still be forming at the fringes of the Universe. This recent ‘discovery’ is apparently in action 13.5 billion years after the dissolution of its forebear but shows no sign of Dark Matter!
We are, apparently, expected to believe all this has happened and could be a process repeated at intervals of untold billions of years. When challenged to show evidence in support of this, they resort to claiming that these events took place at the initial formation of the present Universe and all evidence was dissipated, changed or even destroyed during that early process.
I’m pleased to say I have seen articles (by the new generation) that hint quite strongly that there may be alternatives to ‘explanations’ that engage Dark Matter etc. Is the Big Bang facing the Final Flutter?
On a slightly more rational basis, is it possible that the tiny nodule of the Universe we can see is still recovering from Hoyle’s ongoing galactic disintegration? Could this (perhaps) account for phenomena that presently are not really understood?
I believe that Fred Hoyle’s “Steady State” Universe was (and is) close to the mark. What say you?
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue 25 Sep 2012 9:03 am

Return to SIS Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests