Adonis Diaries

Is Cosmology a substitute religion? What’s so scientific about the creation of the universe?

Posted on: February 16, 2012

Is Cosmology a substitute religion? What’s so scientific about the creation of the universe?

The famous crippled physicist Stephen Hawkins offered a paradigm shift “The Big Bang” as to how the universe was created. The theoretical framework of the BB model rely on:

First: The concept of Space-Time is not the location of phenomenon, but it is a phenomena.  Space-Time is a dynamic entity, so that the expansion of the universe is not a matter of material displacement, but mainly the dilatation of space…

Second: Black Holes are apprehended thanks to this notion of Space-Time: As a dense star explodes in supernovas, the Space is so dense that nothing can escape.  This dense space may transform to Time and vice versa, revolving around this “singularity” of End of Time. 

Third: Before the Big Bang, a monstrous force had packed all the particles and matters in such a small Space that no void was permitted.  Sort of the notion of space was made relevant after the Big Bang, and much later the notion of Time…

Consider these premises and tell what is so scientific about the creation of the universe that is an accepted consensus among cosmologists:

One: The experience of the “creation of the universe” is not reproducible. Thus, there are no possibility to infer, verify, and validate from repeated observations…

Two: The observer is part of the “system” and the conditions of objective and unbiased (neutral) observer is not applicable…

Three: The initial conditions are not available.  For example, we cannot conceive of what was anterior to universe and what is external to the system..

Four: the kinds of energy potentials before the Big bang are not known, and may not be compatible with the system of energies witnessed and tested on earth…There is a consensus among cosmologists that the types of high-energies involved in Black Holes are not the same as experienced on earth and they have no clear idea of these energies.  In that case, if energy system is unknown and out the window, then on what scientific basis is cosmology based on?

Five: Even the state of the “final object” is partial since the vast universe is not observed completely and may not be possible…

Six: The mass of the universe is unknown

Seven: The reconciliation between general relativity and quantum mechanics is still not resolved

Eight: Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize, has lauded the boson of Higgs, the smallest particle ever discovered on earth, and recently thought to be experienced in a millionth of a second before disappearing, as the “Particle-God”. If the boson is so flicker and cannot be seriously studied experimentally, what of the other high-energy particles that are available near the Black Holes and totally unknown to cosmologists?

With all these basic shortcomings, cosmologists want us to believe that it is a science because measurements are extremely precise and the mathematics are solid…

The irony is that several conjectures are proposed and heralded as very convincing and mightily solid, such as:

One: The Big Band is firmly established…

Two: The expansion of the universe or the galaxies are diverging at great accelerations…

Three:  The abundance of chemical elements in the universe accord well with the “predictive” guidelines of nuclear physics scenario of the Big Bang…

Four: The content of the cosmos evolved with time, a situation that cannot be conceived of if the universe was static and eternal…

Five: Fossil rays behave exactly as “expected”…

Six: The diffuseness of photons from all directions confirms the “finger prints” left by the intense heat generated immediately after the Big Bang…

Other conjectures expose the theory that there are many universes.  I tend to like this proposition: If we focus on studying our Milky Way galaxy instead of trying to figuring out how the vast voids among galaxies could be overcome to explaining gravity…

So what if the giant galaxy Andromeda will eventually “digest” our galaxy? Earth will have desintegrated and disappeared long time ago…May we focus on how the Milky Way behaves and how it is affecting our sun and the planets around the sun?

If all the current religions start to complicate their belief system on how the universe was created, as cosmologists are doing, I am pretty sure no one will feel confident enough to killing his neighbor on the premise that he doesn’t believe the same way I believe the universe was created…

If the western civilization make the effort of gathering the hundreds imaginative and poetic stories of how the universe was created from the minority verbal cultures, we might have a chance of appreciating the genius of mankind mind in confirming that he is basically a delusional specie…

Frequently resisting the conventional paradigms is the way to optimism in a better future.  Resisting the status quo is creating another future more adapted to our wishes, emotions, and fears…The more social values change the more capable we are in finding similarities between mankind and the animal kingdom, and the more we appreciate differences in positions and opinions among civilizations and cultures…  

Note: Post inspired from an article by Aurelien Barrau in the French monthly “Le Monde Diplomatique” # 695

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s




February 2012

Blog Stats

  • 1,427,896 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 775 other followers

%d bloggers like this: