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.


Postby John » Thu 13 Feb 2020 11:43 pm

The Cosmos is a fascinating topic. It has captured our attention since the earliest times. The Greeks were well into it, correctly ordering the planets and making the Sun the centre of the Solar System. Critically, they deduced that Matter cannot be created nor destroyed and must, therefore, be eternal. They saw the Universe as being composed of Matter and that Matter is composed of atoms.

We have discovered that atoms are not the end of the story, but in a specific sense, we haven't really moved much farther than that, though we have learned that the Solar System and the Milky Way are but a tiny part of the (now) observable Universe.

Telescopy has opened the way to the stars as boundless discovery. Unfortunately, the now Standard Model (SM) of the Universe introduced ideas that fly in the face of the Grecian interpretation and have substituted hypothesis in place of fact as the correct modus operandi. That is an unsound practice.

The only good way to ferret out the true nature of the Universe is by applying sound logic and experimentation using known physics. This does not mean that no new ideas are possible, but it does mean that innovations must comply precisely to known physics or provably modify our understanding of them.

If 'different' physics are proposed that do not so comply, they are plain wrong! Either that is so or our already apparently proven physics are phoney.

No serious thinker could doubt that established physics are more correct than fanciful physics dreamed up to substantiate current cosmological inventions.

If it is accepted that Matter is eternal, then it follows that the natural laws that describe Matter's actions are – absolutely - the only possible laws.

Any proven alternative to these 'laws' would mean that our understanding of physics is totally wrong. The 'Laws of Nature' must act in perfect harmony.

In common with quite a few others, I believe our understanding is largely correct.

This being the case makes the following ideology true:

The Universe is eternal and capable of limitless variation within the unalterable framework of natural law. Something eternal cannot have its framework altered, else the framework would collapse. Further, something eternal cannot be modified or modifiable in any way whatever – else it is not eternal!
Logically therefore, the Universe has no beginning and no end. As it has been around forever its functions (anything possible) must be the epitome of stability.

The convolutions claimed by Big Bangers etc, etc, are quite impossible. Trying to prove such logically wrong ideas is a hopeless task. This fact explains the endless failures of that ideology and its accompanying quirk, an expanding Universe. An infinite Universe may move about but it cannot expand.

Claiming to be seeing billions of years into the past via a telescope is a tenuous philosophy at best. We are still puzzled by the behaviour and makeup of light. No light theory is without ambiguities. This casts doubt upon the practice of determining distance by relying on comparative amplitude and very dodgy redshift assumptions.

Even the Milky Way extends for 100,000 light-years so there are vast differences between what we see and its reality. We draw conclusions about its structure by relying on our interpretation of the perceived structure of more distant galaxies. This is a logical process and does not require - so far! – any 'new' physics.

By making observations from opposites ends of our orbit around the Sun, fairly accurate distances are gauged to a large number of distant galaxies. Even so, there are uncertainties caused by gravitation bending light. This system breaks down altogether when the 'lines of sight' at the apex of these points becomes too distant and lie very close to each other. This latter 'line of sight' observation becomes indistinguishable from any single 'straight-line' observation of the object from any place in the Solar System.

The product of these uncertainties casts (for me) serious doubt on the veracity of the huge distances currently assumed and therefore the true extent of the visible Universe. Perhaps a reader can resolve my uncertainty.
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