Back to Infinity and its Discontents

I started these blogs with Hilton Ratcliffe’s The Virtue of Heresy (Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer). His mathematically confusing discussion of infinity was critiqued.

However, his main focus is that “big bang astronomy” is nonsense! (p12, 35, 51, 82 and elsewhere) First, it is only a mathematical theory – searching for observational support. (p51, 170) But yet it obeyed “laws.” [Ratcliffe is a proud logician and empiricist, but he frequently reverts to a Theory believer. (p25, 39, 51)] But laws predated the big bang event. (p66-70) Thus, the big bang is “creationism without God.” (p84, 108)

Additional comments that he makes:

The work of Dr Halton C Arp invalidates Hubble’s redshift hypothesis. (p43, 111-116, 240-242)

Niels Bohr’s model of the atom cured a Newtonian difficulty with quantum madness. (p151, 365, 368, 370, 378)

Prof Steven Weinberg could not “get” Hubble’s redshift from Hubble’s data. (p177)

No matter how far we “see” into the universe, there are no developmental differences – there are no “age” differences apparent. So… (p183, 198-9)
Ratcliffe has a form of “intelligent design.” (p136, 305)

Galaxy collisions contradict the big bang hypothesis. How do collisions occur with everything moving outward from an explosion? (p93, 207-209)
Magnetism does not exist without electricity. (p255, 269)

Mathematics is not science. Mathematics does not occur in nature. It is the product of the mind and does not exist outside of the mind. … Why do mathematicians fall into subjective traps? (p205, 231, 287-288, 293, 303, 307)

Einstein and Sagnac sparred. Einstein said the Sagnac effect has nothing to do with relativity. Sagnac responded that relativity has nothing to do with reality! (p336, 340-344)

Eddington made errors “proving” relativity. (p349-354)

“There is no one outside of the inner circle (of quantum mechanics) who can verify the experiments” (p384, 387), including entanglement. (p386-394)

And on and on the non-communicative conversation continues. Relativity, quantum mechanics and big bang cosmology consistently work out the conclusions dependent upon their subjective foundations. They are science, falsely so-called.

Yet none within the consensus communities will believe any of this criticism. I suppose no leader or Nobel prize winner will dissent either.
The elite P U’s assure us that Science has no disagreements! This is S3: the siren call of Secular Sacred Subjectivity. They believe that only religion or anything else that is pre-Scientific is subjective. In contrast, they promote Theory-Generated Understandings – but the real good news is that a recent ex nihilo creation is the reasonable alternative!

None of the big-name theories discussed above are based on theory-free knowledge. We must operate with true empiricism – respecting the Knowledge Acquisition Spectrum.

So, Ratcliffe’s book is recommended reading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *