THE BIG IRRATIONALITY
IN THE «BIG BANG» THEORY
(Big Bang, the ironic name that
was given by the famous astrophysicist Fred Hoyle)
I had written in the early 2000's
The arbitrariness of numbers and misinterpretation of data, that will remain an error in the history of Science,
so unacceptable same as theories of flat Earth and Earth placed in centre of the Universe. The excuse will be similar. They will answer that
empiric data were rightly and also will change the formulation. As when they said “ether” and later rejected it and soon interpreted as “energy field”,
“energy of void”, “quintessence”, "geometry of space", "expansion of space".
So, with attention of thief they restore concepts that hastily they rejected from the “back door”. This will not be the first time, neither the
The absurdity is found in the thinking by which attempted an explanation about beginning of the Universe in its entirety, with
indifference for the visible impasse in their irrational thoughts. Researchers exceeded scientific data,
transferred the question of creation of world and they maintained the Big Impasse of their
cosmological theory, with hasty and scrappy thoughts. It
would be more reasonable and reliable for
the Science, if they leave this question of Creation pending in order to be
answered in the end, when newer data will allow a better answer. But they made abuse of our good faith to science and
they persisted in a childish philosophical interpretation as
if were a leading scientific achievement.
Things resemble are connected with something same, while no one of known finite things is not the initial cause
of all others. In order to they explain the creation, uniformity, resemblance in the substance of things, unity and existence of same laws on
all things, researchers needed to resort in something extreme separate. Something perfectly different, which has not been created and it is
without known laws. This flippant opinion, which some earlier philosophers from ancient years (before Christ Time) have thought, it is presented
with a cloak of science under of special and abstruse terms and with courage, that a mixture of mathematics gives. The scientific data “fell” in
scientists unskilled in Philosophy.
The central idea of the
"Big Bang" theory is an absurdity and a characteristic example of blind faith in mathematics with wrong concepts. This case reminds laws of state are
unswervingly applied with severity and for this reason unfairly. As in some cases where a defendant is guilty, however is acquitted because the
probative elements are insufficient. Formulas and mathematical
calculations can be rightly, but this do not mean that the all essential data are calculated and with correct measurements and perhaps observations have not
been rightly interpreted. Absurdity does not stop here. Researchers did not stay to thought that the Universe (that is to say, the total of material world
in space and time), is emanated from something perfectly different than what we know. Absurdity to utmost. They dared and supported that the
Universe was created from nothing, as an accidental disturbance of zero.
We should admit... any opinion can be supported with arguments that are come from experience. Modern researchers theoretically attempted
to deduce all quality from a initial quantity. This thought is not heard as an absurd, however is a big trap when we reference in entirety of cosmos.
“ Possibilities were in the beginning and afterwards became reality ”.
This could be a simplified formulation of explanation that modern researchers attempt.
Can possibilities exist without a previous reality, without have any
relation with something substantive? Possibilities could
be materialized by themselves and something to happen from
absolutely nothing? Finally, why the universe became so much
different? Nothing by “previous”
presence did not maintained? Our Universe is not connected with a previous presence and it will not be connected never again? This thinking fall
in these reasonable queries and impasses, if we will remove equations and their scientific terminology. But as appear it, their priorities were
other and not to answer these queries and brake a big fallacy. Unfortunately, modern researchers tolerate paranoia and absurdity until an inspired
scientist can save them from madness. Their ambition surpasses their reliability and courage to