where hypotheses come to die (madman101) wrote,
where hypotheses come to die
madman101

Contrarian Cosmology

So, here is a common-man philosopher who begs to differ with conventional physics. I have been intrigued by a few other such fellows in the past, and have found that there arguments were usually punctured by errant assumptions. More along the lines of logic than physics. But it is good to have these people around, thinking, questioning.

Well, this guy is more concerned with what he sees as the logical fallacies in assumptions of modern physics. One thing he argues is that red-shift has been confused with the Doppler effect - which is something I am also mindful of. Because of this mistake, measures of the universe supposedly expanding are wrong. By extension, there is no such thing as dark matter, which is more of a mathematical fudge to explain why the universe is supposedly expanding at a slowing rate. Then, there is the added constant called dark energy, to fudge the fudge. Finally, he argues that there was no initial Big Bang - a concept originally created by a monotheistic priest, or such. Instead, the universe is perpetually creating itself. In science, the perpetual creation theory is said to have been, if not debunked, discreditted. However, all theories have Achilles heals, and so I allow for the possibility that this supposed disproval may be invalid. Rather, I allow for the possibility of an alternate and simultaneous theory to the Big Bang, being perpetual creation. And, by some other theories, such as those involving consciousness or gods, both of these are wrong.

I am not saying that everything or anything that this guy says is correct. I am letting you know about him because he offers alternate ideas. Many of them very much remind me of early ideas I had, where logic challenged conventional physics. These early ideas of mine, right or wrong, have served me well in helping grow my understanding of things. One idea of his is that there could be no Big Bang arising from nothing, i.e., from no time, because that is a logical contradiction. I.e., at what point in no-time did the universe begin? Makes no logical sense. You know, I thought I went beyond this simple reasoning, in hewing to the standard view that, "It defies comprehension," in the same way that quantum weirdness defies comprehension. (Actually, I see the latter as being somewhat sensible, in a way). But, maybe that was a kind of scientific hubris on my part, just like some elitist assumptions of free trade theory. Or, maybe not.

Another idea he has, which reminds me of one of my basic ideas, is that there can be no such thing as an alternate universe impinging upon our own because, by definition, "universe," means all that exists, and so that 'other' universe is merely part of our own. Right on. And a very simple notion, based on logic. And, then again, is quantum mechanics based on logic? Well, we continue to zero in on the physicality of quantum activity, as we study quantum qubits in emerging quantum computer technology. And that is a lot like disecting the man into a million pieces - do we pinpoint where is will? It is this whole thing of consciousness which basically leaves all these questions open and, for me, allows that alternate, even contradictory interpretations may be compatible. In a philosophy of paradox.

Therefore, this guys complete adherence to logic may help enlighten us, but it is not necessarilly the be all and end all. Nothing is.

Contrarian Cosmology - with David Rowland

PS - I basically stopped listening to Coast-to-Coast, because George Nory is a boring money-grubbing idiot, and he tends to want to insert a Deus into every fucking Machina. In this convo, however, he wasn't so guilty of the latter. Still, he is NO Art Bell.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments