Let me amuse you some more :
The Big Bang Has Big Problems
Quite irrelevant to the topic of "Rockets can't fly in a vacuum".
Everything is Interconnected & Inseparable, this especially applies to modern cosmology and astrophysics.
No one at the present time has any understanding of where this ‘energy of nothing’ comes from....If we take the latest theory of subatomic particles and try to compute the value of this dark energy, we find a number that is off by 10^120.
Michio KakuSo, here is an even bigger problem. Since Big Bang cosmologists believe space contains 10^120 more energy than what we have detected; and since Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity requires that all forms of energy (even the 10^120) function as a source of gravity; and since Einstein’s equations require that the “curvature” of the universe depends on its energy content, then, since the energy content is 10^120 more than what Einstein proposed,
the whole universe should presently be curled up into a space smaller than the dot on this i. Obviously it isn’t. As we can see,
the Big Bang universe simply does not work under present empirical evidence. Noted physicist
Paul Steinhardt of Princeton has gone on record against the present Big Bang theory. He opts for what can best be called the Big Brane theory. In a recent lecture, Steinhardt says the following of the Big Bang:
So, the first point I want to make about the Big Bang model is that the Big Bang model of 2011...that model I just described, definitely fails....We have to fix the Big Bang model, we have to add things to it to make it work.Indeed, things like Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Lambda values and Hubble “constants” of which the only thing constant is that they are constantly being changed to accommodate the next fudge factor that will prop up the Big Bang. Along these lines,
Richard Lieu submitted a scathing critique of the ΛCDM [Big Bang] model in a 2007 paper:
...Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researches are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempts in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter and now, dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy?...ΛCDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models....I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future....Charging under the banner of Einstein’s extreme eminence and his forbidding theory of General Relativity, have cosmologists been over-exercising our privileges?...Could this be a sign of a person (or camp of people in prestigious institutes) who become angry because they are embarrassed?As it was for
Einstein in 1905 when he invented Special Relativity,
any ad hoc solution other than an Earth in the center of the universe would be acceptable for modern man. The reason was plain. As
Hubble put it in his book:
“Such a favored position, of course, is intolerable.”Essentially,
spatial curvature and homogeneity are modern cosmology’s manufactured but necessary ingredients to maintain the Copernican Principle,
the presuppositional belief that the Earth is not special and inhabits no special place in the universe. Spatial curvature removes the Earth from the center of a three-dimensional Euclidean universe and puts it on the surface of a two-dimensional hyperspace.
As noted in his book,
Hubble also wanted a homogeneous universe. This means that as one looks into the universe, everything will appear to be precisely the same, analogous to homogenized milk that has no cream on top and no lumps in the middle. This is otherwise known as the
Cosmological Principle, which then leads to the conclusion that the universe has no distinguished place, and thus no center and no motionless celestial body to occupy a center. It would be the same as if one were in the desert and looked north, east, south and west and saw the same sand in each direction with no distinguishing features.
After
Einstein and
Hubble presented the foundation for cosmology,
all subsequent theories had to be based on a homogeneous and spatially curved universe,
otherwise it would necessarily be geocentric. As noted, the amount of curvature needed was calculated by using Einstein’s famous tensor equation,
G = 8πΤ and G –λ = 8πΤ.
The homogeneity that was needed to make
Einstein and Hubble’s universe feasible was calculated by a Russian physicist named
Alexander Friedmann who
adjusted Einstein’s equations for this very purpose.
A few decades later,
Stephen Hawking admitted the real motivation behind Friedmann’s attempt to make the universe homogeneous. As was becoming common in modern cosmology, the motivation was to eliminate a center, and more specifically,
Earth’s possible occupation of the center.
Hawking writes in
A Brief History of Time:
There is, however, an alternate explanation [to a central Earth]: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.So we see that the men of
Hubble and Hawking’s generation choose their cosmological model
based not so much on science (since the science is ambiguous)
but on a commitment to a universe that best fits their philosophy. One wonders, then, whether Hawking’s claim of “modesty” in deciding against a central Earth is actually pride in disguise, especially since he has since become known for proposing the universe did not need a God to begin it or continue it.
According to Hawking, who is an avowed atheist, the universe could start all by itself, from nothing.It may be boldly asked where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance willfully deceived himself; Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton’s school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince. In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern history theory of Cosmology, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientists of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this
universally disseminated DELIRIUM OF LUNATICS. ~
Goethe (August 28, 1749 – March 22, 1832)
What would Goethe say today???