INSTRUCTION 6—Bad Astrophysics Turning Into Even Worse
us be clear from the outset—astrophysics deals with the physics (and
chemistry) of the stars and planets in the galaxies. It can be a
legitimate scientific discipline, as long as in its speculations,
hypotheses and theories it obeys the strict laws of science.
Cosmology, in contrast, deals with absurdities such as the “theory”
of relativity and quantum mechanics, and tries to ascribe them to
the universe. Cosmology pushes so hard that it has already
contaminated most of astrophysics, even taking it over, as will be
seen. This is one of the greatest tragedies, if not the greatest,
which humanity has experienced in its entire existence because it
damages its very essence, its cognition.
section presents another brief illustration of what astrophysics
studies and how it has hopelessly slipped and deteriorated into
cosmology. We will see that astrophysics is not spared the ordeal of
being occupied by the contemporary insanity and outright lunacy in
physics, all efforts being applied to turn all astrophysics into the
absurd insanity of cosmology, in order to give cosmology legitimacy.
However, being concerned with more tangible realities, the chapter
deals with matters, also being speculative, which may resemble an
attempt at drawing a picture closer to a physical picture. It is
felt from the speculations that although the universe is mentioned,
what is had in mind is the development of the visible part of the
universe around us—the planets, the stars and the galaxies. Clearly,
that part of the universe can quite conceivably have a beginning and
end, all of it existing within the infinite space and infinite time
of the infinite universe, the same way every living or inanimate
object has a beginning and end. Presented that way, the otherwise
twisted and unlikely discussions of the confused cosmology acquire a
more realistic silhouette and sometimes even approach real science,
free from absurdities.
those who value their time and have basic self-respect and
integrity, already know the drill and are quite alert. The simple
general principle of economy emerging from this book, applies as
well to the hallucinations and deliriums presented as an exercise in
speculating on matters regarding our universe. It is already clearly
spelled out—immediately abandon further reading as soon as two
things are detected either individually or in combination—the mere
mentioning of the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics.
Reading further, any follow-up speculation is rendered senseless
with these non sequitur absurdities, adopted as the initial
run-down train-station of the journey into nothingness, along a
railroad with no rails.
As mentioned continuously in this book, clearly seen from what was
discussed, the “theory” of relativity can predict nothing because it
is an absurdity, least of all can it predict spacetime and its
beginning and end, big bang and properties thereof, black holes and
what will happen with matter if it falls therein.
All we already know about what the matter at hand is, tells us that
we are dealing with a certain group of sick minds, not even very
imaginative and creative with their figments, who have found each
other well, and, together, have set themselves to outrageous
bullying of the world, mainly to steal its resources, and in the
process, enjoy, as a bonus, an enormous ego-trip of falsely
glittering science stars.
As expected, the speculations about the universe, implicitly
considering its visible part, begin in the middle of things. As the
current scientific dictatorship demands, the correctness of the
“theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics is taken for granted
and the discussion about their viability is considered closed. Their
scientificity is considered beyond reproach and they are even
considered the standard of highest science. These two absurd
theories are considered the indubitable measure of truth. One really
wonders how this can be, since catastrophic arguments put forth by
this author, overthrowing these “theories” by unequivocally proving
that they are nothing other than intellectual menace, have been
around publicly for more than a decade. What keeps students, or any
audience, for that matter, listening to that absurdity, reading it
and trying to learn it? Obviously, a social gravity, the attraction
toward authority, as mangled intellectually as it can ever be, is
the societal black hole attracting really strongly, compared to the
attraction of the weak innocence of truth and reason. Besides, how
many are those who wouldn’t enjoy fairy tales, even if the setting
of their telling is not the most likely one, smelling of school—a
gathering ostensibly devoted to science, usually considered boring,
making not too few run away as soon as they hear about it. The
grapevine has spread the word that it would be different. The
preacher would pontificate contagious amazingness, which induces
catatonic stupor of dreams, not less entertaining and addictive than
what is causing the opioid crisis. Kudos for the lecturer. Good for
him, to be able to attract an audience on something so repellent to
the public mind such as science. Or, is it really good for him?
Judge for yourself.
So, let’s see what golden grains fall from the mouth of our good
speaker. Having turned his back to reason, considering discussing
such an annoying thing as reason as a closed topic, the speaker
takes it for granted, as a firmly established fact, that the
universe expands and observes it as if it is a vessel, containing
gas, which cools upon such expansion. Well, why wouldn’t he? You
have come to listen to him, not him listening to you. However, if he
really means the universe, not just our galaxy, the universe is
infinite and one cannot speculate one thing about infinity. Well,
like I said, he is not to report to you. Your questions are closed,
so be good and listen up?
Fine, let the journey begin—that beginning appearing as resembling
real science, not even suspecting what is ahead of us. First things
first, while, not being able to help ourselves, we will always think
of the galaxies as what the lecturer calls the universe, not
anything beyond it—if we do agree with the swelling universe,
getting cooler in the process, we cannot deny that its declining
energy is registered by falling temperature. However, together with
this, we cannot deny also that once the expansion of the universe is
taken as the true premise, then the actual premise implied is that
the universe had begun somewhere, and that beginning cannot take
place at just any “volume”, because, then one would rightfully
ask—hasn’t that same universe expanded prior to that moment or it
has just popped up in a stationary state, and then the expansion
began? What I want to say is that the idea that the universe must
have a beginning is already present in what is being speculated
about, in advance of even the commencement of the speculations. That
should be remembered, if the lecturer’s intention is to convince us
that he has proved that the universe has a beginning. No, he hasn’t
proved such a thing. He is offering that the universe has a
beginning as a premise, begging the question (committing petitio
At these high temperatures, the attracting nuclear or
electromagnetic forces will not manage to prevent the particles from
escaping their pull. That said, now the lecturer asks us to imagine
that at the beginning of that swelling of the universe, the
temperature is so high that whatever particles there are in it,
these particles overcome any electromagnetic or gravitational
attraction and are roaming freely—a close to mind picture, which
doesn’t take much to imagine.
It is also not reeking of imagination that when the temperature goes
down (remember, we accepted that the universe is like an expanding
cylinder with gas, whose temperature decreases due to the adiabatic
expansion) the particles won’t be able to resist the attractive
forces and will start clinging to each other more and more. This is
a pretty non-innovative picture, its questionable application to
model the universe notwithstanding. However, let us carry on. We are
talking about the particles that are already there, remember.
Here comes the next bump—we are asked to imagine that, now, when the
temperatures moves to lower values, although still high, the
particles have become conducive to interaction, and we must imagine
that antiparticles are also being produced, but in lesser quantity
than the particles themselves, so the particles overwhelm, they
survive. Now why should we imagine such a thing and where is the
evidence for it, that is not to be asked. Just take it at the
So, at these higher temperatures, particles are the winner.
Particles (not antiparticles) are the winner because the temperature
is so high that the antiparticles’ causing annihilation cannot catch
up with the production of new particle-antiparticle pairs—well, is
it not true that in order to get annihilated, the particle must be
produced first, never mind that also an anti-particle is produced
but its causing annihilation follows up in time, while in the
meantime a new pair is produced? So, in the overall account, at
these high temperatures, the antiparticles do not succeed in
annihilating the particles and, as a result, the particles
This picture presupposes that the temperatures are so high that the
particle-antiparticle pairs have certain lifetime, during which more
particle-antiparticle pairs are produced. It is like having a
production of entities which have a certain lifetime before they
die, but in the meantime, while they are alive, more entities are
produced. There will be, of course, a temperature, as temperature
goes down, when the produced will become equal to those that
disappear, and then, upon further lowering the temperature, the
production will become so slow that the disappearance will overwhelm
production, and the number of the living entities will begin
declining. The lecturer has chosen to model that dying off of
particles by introducing antiparticles.
Thus, at lower temperatures, we are told that the colliding
particles, having less energy, will, respectively, produce fewer
particle-antiparticle pairs, which will increase the number of
annihilations and the particles will decline in number.
one might ask, where is the “theory” of relativity and the quantum
mechanics in this picture and why shouldn’t we accept it as told,
especially if there is evidence for these predictions? However, no
sooner did we utter this question than the lecturer did not fail to
rumble, waving the ragged banner of the “theory” of relativity. Read
Thus, at one point, the lecturer spits out the pebble about which we
were wondering—yeah, there is a presupposed beginning, the big bang,
the universe having zero size and infinite temperature. The “theory”
of relativity says so. If this is what his calculations show, these
calculations are to be dismissed solely based on this ridiculous
conclusion for such a beginning, the absurdity of the “theory” of
relativity, claimed to have borne out such gibberish
as the universe expands, causing the dropping of its temperature,
although remaining extremely high, he becomes specific, naming what
the particles are. They must be of low mass and the current
knowledge supplies him with participants. The least controversial
are the electrons, then, because, as said, he conjectures
antiparticles, there are antielectrons, which, as a result of
annihilation, produce photons (coinciding with antiphotons). Those
who work in this area know that, in fact, two coincident photons are
emitted at 180 degree direction to each other—this illustrates what
was already implied; namely, that these speculations involve known
effects, mixed with conjectures, some taken from the legitimate
science, transferred completely illegitimately onto the universe, as
well as outright outlandishness of the “theory” of relativity
variety. The controversial particles are the massless neutrinos.
Protons and neutrons are also admitted but very few.
the further decrease of the temperature, the above-described
particle-antiparticle picture will kick in, applied to the
electrons. Electrons will begin disappearing because the
annihilation by the antielectrons will prevail. So, the electrons
are done with, all but a few of them.
so with the hypothetical inert neutrinos (respectively,
antineutrinos), which, because they don’t interact even with the
antineutrinos, must have survived to this day. Detecting the relics
of particles producing the microwave background radiation would be a
confirmation of the validity of the model.
However, there is always something—the relic-neutrinos would be of
undetectably low energy levels, but if dreams come true, and it
suddenly turns out that said neutrinos are not massless, despite
their inability to allow us to register them because of their low
energy, those relic particles would exert gravitational effects,
which can be felt. Nothing like this has been detected but dreams
are free—dark-matter-like effects by these relic neutrinos would be
a blessing for this model—that dark matter which, because of its
abundance, may cause reversing of the universe expansion by opposing
it gravitationally, causing its swiveling or collapsing back. The
latter is another conjecture unsupported by direct evidence, but
don’t worry, we are swimming freely in the straights of these
suppositions, an exercise, which for some people is like fish
swimming in tropical waters.
now we are at temperatures where protons and neutrons begin to feel
the so-called strong nuclear force, binding them into the simplest
nuclei, consisting of one proton and one neutron (deuterium).
Obviously, the lecturer takes into account the neutrons that are
around for some reason, that is why he doesn’t leave the protons
alone to form hydrogen.
However, he provides also for the further formation of
two-proton-two-neutron nuclei of helium, as well as lithium (three
proton and four neutron nucleus) and beryllium (four proton and
three neutron nucleus). There are some more details but this is the
gist. The point here is to give a sense of the speculations which
are made far and wide in cosmology.
This flimsy picture was further promoted, especially the expectation
that there may be relic photons from those early days of the
universe, surviving today, albeit at temperatures close to the
absolute zero, and experimental evidence began to be proposed for
such. This is one of the experiments that have to be revisited,
considering the atmosphere of manipulations that characterizes
The claims of agreement with what is predicted must be heeded with
utmost caution, especially if there is “theory” of relativity and
quantum mechanics contamination, which must be very carefully sifted
Don’t forget that the adherents to the big bang model are scraping
the barrel to find evidence for a model which should not be paid
attention to, to begin with, in view of its absurdity—well, the
major theory, such as the “theory” of relativity, is a brazen
absurdity, why not allow a little additional absurdity here and
there. This is how slowly but surely admitting a major
inappropriateness such as the “theory” of relativity undermines
thinking and things which would otherwise be unthinkable, are now as
common as “Guten tag!”
What was said so far has elements of a somewhat trivially plausible
picture of the beginning of life on earth, because it involves
chemistry, but it does not mitigate the feeling of flimsiness which
we get from the purely physical speculations.
That the picture painted is in agreement with what is observed today
is such a blanket statement that it must be checked, if not ignored
outright. One has a sense that the agreement part is said for the
personal reassurance of someone who is not exactly certain of what
he is talking about.
As in any model, there are questions arising, which sometimes defeat
the model. Here, the right question is not why the early universe
was so hot but, was there an early universe the way it was
described, and the answer is unequivocal—whatever the universe might
have been, neither “theory” of relativity, nor quantum mechanics can
give us even an inkling of an answer.
Neither “theory” of relativity, nor quantum mechanics can give an
answer to any other question about the universe and its isotropy,
the latter being entirely expected, provided the universe’s
The idea of the cosmologist is that there would not have been time
for the different regions to communicate among themselves in order
to reach homogeneity and isotropy because the highest speed
possible, according to the “theory” of relativity, is the speed of
light, no higher. Therefore, no faster information can take place.
Here, we have again reversal of the cause and effect. Thus, when
that cause-effect sequence is straightened out, then if the
communication between regions is of the essence—the factor
equalizing their properties—then the fact that nothing can travel
above the speed of light is an argument against the big bang. The
argument goes like this—we consider that the background microwave
radiation is a relic from the early moments of the big bang. It is
isotropic. However, that cannot be, because even the speed of light,
with its highest possible velocity, could not reach from one region
to another, let alone any other communication, having intrinsically
thing that may help the big bang argument, is recalling that the
“theory” of relativity is absurdity and we shouldn’t base any
ruminations on it. However, then, we would ruin the very big bang
party since the idea of a big bang is a figment of the adherents to
the “theory” of relativity.
cosmologist wonders why, for example, the universe started at the
same temperature, since the temperature of one region could not be
communicated fast enough to another region. Thus, there must be some
reason for each one of these parts to start out at the same
temperature. What is that reason?
Why did the universe start with just the right rate of expansion.
The cosmologist claims that all models show that if it were a little
bit less it would have recollapsed, while if it has been a little
bit more, it would have expanded forever, but, according to him,
even today, the universe is expanding at just the right rate,
despite it being homogeneous, as the relic microwave background
radiation indicates, there are stars and galaxies which are thought
to be local fluctuations of the density, which is not seen in the
relic radiation. Well, this is another argument against the big
bang. So much hope was delegated to the relic radiation to be a mark
from the distant past that there was a big bang, and now these nasty
planets and galaxies, irregularities not seen in the relic, mess up
the beautiful picture about the big bang, which we hoped so much to
be supported by the relic.
mistake the cosmologist makes is that he is looking for help in the
absurd “theory” of relativity. Being absurd, the “theory” of
relativity can predict nothing at all, let alone assist in
conjectures about the big bang, and the so-much hopeful eyes turned
to the relic to serve as supportive evidence. Therefore, revisit the
evidence and see, first, if that evidence comprises a real effect
and, second, even if it is real, whether or not it can serve as
evidence of something like the big bang, that is unlikely to begin
with. Remember, it was mentioned at one point in this book that the
fantasy-mongers, taking themselves as theoreticians of physics,
scrape the barrel for even crumbs of supportive evidence from the
working bees, from those who they label as the experimentalists.
A singularity is said to be predicted by a theory which is itself non-sequitur,
but that is not enough of a reason not to talk at all about it, but,
instead, proceed to discuss what will happen at the singularity and
even add that the absurd theory would collapse there, to say nothing
that even all the laws of physics would as well. Is this travesty or
on the verge of cutting big bang out of the theory, as the
cosmologist did before, with the question about what happened before
the big bang, he doesn’t give up that easily. The cosmologist takes
the “Columbus’s egg” route—if you don’t like a part of the model,
even if it is the crucial part that sustains its very integrity,
just cut it out. Fudging or cheating, it’s your choice how to call
that kind of manipulation.
instead of admitting the error, the cosmologist struggles for
justification of his cheating. According to him, science has
provided for such an approach. You just start in the middle of
things and go on studying what you see from that moment on. That’s
fine. However, what happened with the big bang? Are you still a fan
of it? Do you still subscribe to the view that the universe started
with a big bang? Because if you do, you add to your cheating another
cheating, since you just told us that, because of insurmountable
arguments, we have to cut out the initial moment of the big bang.
How did the next moment come about, then? That question arises
naturally because you did unleash your imagination and resorted to
extrapolating the effect back to a big bang, riding on the Hubble’s
purported red shift, but then you casually cut the big bang out of
your model, while still maintaining that the big bang did really
happen because there was a next moment after it. Go figure!
top of it, now, instead of being ashamed of your cheating, you have
the gall to imagine that, see, someone decreed laws, which somehow
do not fit the non-existing initial moment, but then they went into
effect. Have you no shame to make the reader read such rambling?
Choosing initial conditions that do not exist? That’s quite a
wait, to get out of this situation you suggest something new; i.e.,
that, now, we will never understand the chooser, is that right?
top of it, see, the chooser of the initial conditions chose also to
play with us, not that we, those who chose to adhere to an absurd
theory or make inappropriate inferences from a red-shift, ourselves
are out of our senses to fall for such a discourse.
in a while, at different turns of the story, ruminations about
science as such are offered, noting the trivial fact that humanity
realized that there are certain regularities that govern nature.
Even opinions are uttered to find out who set these regularities up,
countering arbitrariness. In other words, instead of addressing the
fact that the model isn’t working, we now should occupy ourselves
with pondering what science itself is, and how the veiled natural
codification of scientific studies, came about.
trivially, boundary conditions are part of the law of nature but you
chose to ignore them. You chose to cut them out of the theory. To
say nothing that spacetime does not belong to the laws of nature.
Inadequacies such as spacetime do not belong to the laws of nature.
When something is absurd, there cannot be even one single principle
that would undo the absurdity. Therefore, it makes no sense to
suggest, as some sort of a solution, what you call chaotic boundary
conditions. This will not get you out of the dead-end street you got
stuck in with the beginning moment of the big bang problem.
from now on, it is ridiculous to continue and be made to listen to
outlandishness such as whether universe is spatially infinite or it
is a gathering of infinitely many universes, and even the thought of
how universe started out, something that you, the cosmologist,
already cut out of the model. Besides, wasn’t it that the relic was
quite homogeneous and isotropic? What happened to that?
the observed homogeneity on a large scale of the universe breaks
down the whole stipulation about big bang. This became clear long
ago. Why are you continuing?
Besides—not again. Speculations about order\(\rightarrow\)disorder
are inapplicable to the infinite universe.
On top of it, adding non-entities such as black holes really makes
the whole thing doubly ridiculous. Nothing can save the big bang
model, least of all invoking absurd entities such as black holes.
naked supposition that there may be occasionally homogeneous regions
among the chaotic universe is just wishful thinking. Find them and
demonstrate them and then talk about such regions. Just suggesting
them makes no sense. No analogies will help in this case but direct
research to find such species. Good luck.
So, the main concern for the cosmologist is why the universe which
we know, is uniform judging from the relic. It just happened, is
your straw to catch at. However, anyone can say that it just
happened so. Anyone can say anything. Prove it. There isn’t even a
sliver of evidence. All evidence, even your favorite relic, proves
the opposite—smooth universe, contrary to the existing universe with
planets, stars and galaxies.
Going further—to reassure ourselves that we exist because we see the
universe the way it is, is not enough of an argument, if that can at
all be an argument to begin with, that there was a big bang. That is
a very lame line of thinking.
Well, don’t sway from the main problem. The suggestion that there
are peculiar regions conducive to existence of life is not an
argument in any way connected to the big bang.
top of it, never forget that above all this manipulation, there is
an absurdity hovering—the “theory” of relativity.
Meeting with these obstacles in explaining the origin of the
universe, the cosmologist reverts to discussing the appearance of
intelligent life. But, wait a minute, what we want to know, and we
spent some time on it, is not the appearance of intelligent life but
why we keep talking about the big bang, provided the relic attests
to homogeneous initial conditions, let alone temperature incapable
of being communicated between regions. Intelligent life has nothing
to do with the resolution of these problems.
So, now, in addition to the red-shift and the relic, we invoke our
own existence to trace it back to the big bang. What happened to all
the other arguments that defeated the very idea of big bang? Why
should we trace our existence back to something which did not exist
at all. It might have taken us a long time to evolve but that
doesn’t prove at all any connection with the beginning of the
universe. We see here again a total breakdown of the logical
connections, on top of violating causality. There is nothing
anthropomorphic about such an argumentation aimed at proving that
big bang really took place.
Ooops, now the cosmologist gets us into the generation of stars.
Wait a minute, you couldn’t explain how the stars arrived into the
picture in the first place, but now you forgot that and began
talking about generation of stars, as if that is taken for granted.
The explanation that the elements, especially carbon and oxygen,
appeared after conversion of the initial hydrogen and helium by the
stars, which then exploded as supernovas, further forming other
stars and planets, giving even time-frames up to reaching the stage
of biological evolution, has nothing to do with the big bang. It
could have happened without the big bang.
The above conjecture gave us no new knowledge regarding the claimed
beginning of the universe, the big bang. We could have uttered that
blabber under any circumstances, having not even heard of something
called the big bang.
There is also absolutely no grounds to propose such a thing as what
is labeled as many different universes, or a concept labeled many
different regions governed by different laws of science in one
universe. This is lunacy not better than the flat-earth theory.
Furthermore, how does the fact you mention; namely, that we cannot
derive the fundamental constants from theory, have any connection
with whether or not the big bang is real?
Hopes in vain that a theory may come up one day that would predict
all fundamental constants or that these fundamental constants are
different in some imagined parallel universes or in regions within
the same universe, is an example of the factors that cause distrust
in science. There are absolutely no grounds for imagining such a
sick thing and suggesting it is only pandering, for your book to
sell, to groups of society uneducated enough to hold such
Speaking about the fundamental constants, you say they must be
finely adjusted, but by whom? The laws of science, then, are finely
adjusted. However, they are not. There is no one to adjust the laws
of nature. The laws of nature are to be studied, not pondered where
they come from. Such a study is an idle pursuit.
ponder what would have happened if the values of the fundamental
constants were different is just like pondering what would have
happened if my grandmother was a man.
To say nothing of unsupported fantasies of intelligent life,
existing somewhere, different from what we are, are liked by the
public, which makes money for the author. Entertainment for the
feeble minded. This kind of banter puts the question where the limit
in science is (not in theater, literature and art as a whole where
it is almost limitless) for unleashing imagination and fantasy.
Imagination and fantasy in science stop at the absolute truths
science espouses and strives to learn about. Science is essentially
the continuous desire to reach new and new absolute truths.
Further, what does the suggestion that there are only limited values
of fundamental constants that support life, prove? Least of all does
it prove that there was a big bang, if we are to return to the
It doesn’t matter how the cosmologist dodges, twists and turns, no
rabbit will pop up from the intelligent-life-bush to sustain that
the universe had a beginning and that beginning was the big bang.
need not get into these speculations because they go without
saying—change the conditions on which the law is defined, and the
law won’t hold any more. The egg is not going to stay raw if it is
left in boiling water for ten minutes. To even think that the latter
can be taken as an expression of a divine principle, is laughable,
if one is concerned with science, not with theology.
it be said that we will cut out of the theory the existence of
parallel universes because they would not be observable from our
universe. But they cut themselves out already, because they are idle
banter with no support whatsoever.
as if this needs to be said, you cannot have different regions with
different physical laws in our universe because that contradicts the
findings of science. Science doesn’t exist for no reason. There are
so many ambitious scientists striving to make a discovery that, any
such discrepancy would make anyone finding it a hero.
this is not a discussion about the origin of life but concerns the
claimed origin of the universe—a claim doomed from the get go. To
say nothing of the fact that to claim different scientific laws in
different universes or in different regions of our universe,
confronts all science we know. Where is even an inkling of such
difference in scientific laws?
in all this rambling of the cosmologist, the underlying idea is that
universe has a beginning. However, this prerequisite was shown
untrue by just the simple remark that infinity, such as our
universe, cannot become more infinite through expansion or that zero
can become infinity via a big bang, let alone that we cannot cut out
of pondering the universe what might have happened prior to a
supposed big bang.
this major crushing of the idea of big bang by the above irrevocable
arguments against the big bang, it will be diminishing to the
discussion to repeat the arguments against the big bang, based on
details about the big bang, such as insufficiency of time to
communicate temperature to all parts of the universe or the need for
critical rate of expansion to prevent recollapse.
fans of the big bang, however, like to dig into the barrel of the
insignificant and outright outrageous, in order to scrape up
supportive details, at times, even timidly inventing with nothing to
support it—the entire attempt being flimsy as it is—implication of
example, such scraping the barrel, considering outside intervention
moot, an attempt at discussing such made-up detail of the originally
made-up idea of a big bang, is a discussion of what is known as
inflationary model of the development of the universe. It
presupposes the big bang but only tries to explain away the
particular, strictly set, rate of expansion. We will waste some time
on this for those who might be curious to take a peek at what
cosmologists, still dressed up as astrophysicists, waste their time
the inflationary model of the advancement after the big bang is a
simplistic model attempting to explain away that already mentioned,
menacing to the theory, inexplicable homogeneity of the universe in
the aftermath of the big bang (big bang is presumed) and the sudden
spread of temperature after the big bang, not possible to take place
since it would require speeds higher than the maximally possible
speed of light. The inflationary model of the universe is based on
the idea known as supercooling of water, at temperatures where water
should be solid but is still liquid. This trivial effect in the
ordinary, down to earth physics, is attempted to be used in trying
to introduce, as a tricky way of conceiving homogeneity, an
additional kick in the expansion of the universe—when supercooled;
that is, in a state where the initial symmetry between the 3
forces—strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic—had to be
broken (phase transition had to have occurred), but it still hadn't
been broken. When enjoying the symmetry, the universe has excess
energy (universe with broken symmetry has lost that excess energy
and is at a lower energy level) and this contributes as an
additional kick to the expansion. This additional kick plays the
role of a repulsive, antigravitational, as it were, force. This
explains how, with this additional kick, even the regions with
greater concentration of particles will be dispersed.
In other words, this model is created to explain why at the first
moments the universe was homogeneous, as the relic suggests,
although one would think that it was random, with concentrating
particles here and there. Well, it was, the cosmologist says, but
then it was supercooled and that additional force due to
supercooling kicked in and smoothed the whole picture out.
other words, in these initial moments, the irregularities would be
smoothed out because, due to the supercooled state, the particles
would be additionally blown farther away from each other and this
smooths out any wrinkles, to use the lingo of some cosmologists. So,
even if the universe started out non-uniform, this supercooling
smoothed it away.
this explains why in this smoothed state the light can travel from
one region to another. Rather, why no communication greater than the
speed of light is necessary, for all the regions to "know", as it
were, to resemble each other. The supercooling does the job for that
task, in the stead of communication by faster than the speed of
light “messaging”—quite a ridiculous convoluted conjecture. Thus,
any possible conjectures, even ridiculous ones, such as
supercooling, are utilized to justify big bang.
this is only an account of some ideas which are hovering in the
expanses of cosmology, we will not analyze the obvious untenability
of such proposals, which, aside from the unacceptability of the big
bang itself, also make attempts at endowing the universe with
physical properties it cannot have. This was a remark made also in
other places in this book when it comes to speculations on the
“juicy” topics of existence or ontology, if you wish, by exploiting
is also to be noticed how the cosmologist is talking about the
universe that we can observe. He flips all the time between the
universe we can observe and the entire (infinite) universe, in this
way muddling the reader in the whirl of the hinted, unspoken,
presumed idea of this whole talk being about the entire universe.
Some readers, however, may not fall for the trick, realizing that
this is what he means by universe; namely, the visible part of the
universe, even stated euphemistically. This makes the big bang idea
a bit more plausible, which mitigates the natural resistance which
the same person has when he is told about expansion of the infinity.
In this limited form, however, the idea of universe doesn’t do the
job which the cosmologist intends—he means the entire universe, but
that’s too bad. He can’t have it all, and in this way he can’t have
anything of what he intended. Tricks galore, this is what modern
physics relies upon, having no real substance, in fact being
if you don’t like the inappropriate use of terminology and concepts
from real science applied to cosmic matters, let alone the universe,
wait till you see how even these traces of real science we saw so
far, will disappear when the cosmologist takes full control over
these matters with his outright absurd “theory” of relativity and
quantum mechanics, completely hygienized even of traces of science
and basic reason.
the meantime, everything that looks like standard knowledge is
harnessed to drag the dreary cart of big bang. Thus, supercooling, a
known effect, is considered on par with quantum
mechanics—anti-scientific area, but fully recognized by the
mainstream. All this is stirred into an incredible mish-mash of an
explanation, supposed to be scientific.
if the above is not enough, here comes a peculiar twist connected
with the energy of the universe, whereby we would at once become
curious—how does the cosmologist know anything about the energy in
the infinite universe? The cosmologist conjures it through infinite
extrapolation, perhaps? However, as will be mentioned further on as
well, even if we consider that we have at hand improper integrals
having infinite limits, there is also the integrand. How does the
cosmologist know what the integrand, referring to the infinite
universe, is? Need it be repeated, he doesn’t know?
for the matter treated as energy, the argument goes like this. The
cosmologist considers the mass in the universe as positive
energy—well, isn’t it true that the mass is positive in \(E =
mc^2\), therefore \(E\) is positive. This is quite questionable,
however, if that equation is to be used for such mass-energy
substitution. Is it really true at all that mass was made of energy?
This is, again, a mechanistical assumption based on no grounds. The
cosmologist thinks that the claim that matter is locked energy
follows from quantum mechanics but quantum mechanics is absurdity
and therefore nothing can follow from it.
These flawed conjectures show how important it is to understand
exactly the meaning of \(E = mc^2\) and whether it really means that
matter can be converted into energy, let alone that mass can be
taken as energy, and also whether quantum mechanics is viable
scientifically. If that picture is wrong, we can get into these
wrong conjectures—what on earth, \(E = mc^2\) shows that mass and
energy are equivalent, so, then, why shouldn’t I be able to think
energy when I say mass?
On the other hand—because of gravity, particles apart have greater
energy as a whole than those same particles together, the former
acquiring the form of negative energy.
Let us pay attention to this Jesuit explanation—so, the masses
themselves, expressed as energy, are positive energy, but, because
they are apart, that energy should be considered negative.
thing is to recall that the universe is uniform. Why? That
uniformity follows from the uniform relic cosmic microwave
background radiation. Therefore, the conjecture is that the two
energies cancel each other. This is an obvious stretch, however,
because, even if we agree (we shouldn’t because is it not true that
there is gravity because of matter?) that gravity cancels
matter—because it was conjectured that gravity is negative energy,
while matter is positive energy—modeling infinite universe is
impossible. The objection will be that we have improper integrals
(with infinite limits). However, as was already said, what is
important, and what we cannot conjecture about, is what function is
to be integrated, what is under the integral. Therefore, it is not
at all evident that the total energy of the universe is zero.
the cosmologist continues—during the expansion of the universe it
increases the matter (positive energy) but also increases the
gravitational energy (negative energy), leading again to zero net
energy—because more of the zero is also zero. What an interesting
way of not violating conservation of energy and cheating nature by
ostensibly not violating conservation of energy.
such a far out, actually straight incorrect idea, is hailed because
it works in favor of the big bang enthusiasts. This is not the first
time in history when half-baked ideas, or outright wrong ideas, of
someone are praised to the skies because they fit well in support of
someone else’s hallucinations but that someone else has been
promoted by the monarchies or by whoever are the powers-to-be of the
day to the position of science dictators. Some would-be scientists
had turned such fawning to the figments of the science governors
into a family business, crunching otherwise completely senseless
papers, but mentioning the magic words that needed support when
first introduced, such as “quantum”, on every page. As in any
business, the business of producing papers which open academic doors
and then open doors to immortality and planetary fame, requires
skills even more sinister and corrupt than the dishonest practices
of your everyday crooked businessperson on the black list of the
Better Business Bureau. Ambition has no bounds, and when it is
unprincipally stimulated, the result is a pseudo-scientific monster
of the worst pathological sort, the inflation model of the universe
being invisible in comparison with other monsters of science
pathology that have overtaken the world.
wonder what will be the response, and even if it would be at all
noticed, when I present in a future book the entirely legitimate
discovery of violation of conservation of energy, producing energy
“out of nothing”, as it were, when appropriately combining two
In comparison, in a normal expansion of the universe, whereby the
cosmologist means the so-called hot big bang; that is, without
applying the Jesuit dodging, twisting and turning, based on
supercooling (the inflationary model), the so-called positive energy
density represented by matter, decreases as the universe swells . Do
you get the trick? In the normal expansion the energy goes down
because the universe gets cooler, as explained with the cylinder
with piston, filled with gas. But, here, in the supercooled state,
the expansion is not causing cooling, that is the energy density
stays the same.
a result, the cosmologist conjectures, because that mass has become
more, it means that the energy has become more, which also means
that, conversely, there will be energy to make particles
This is completely inadequate thinking. Mass cannot cancel or
compensate energy because mass is not energy, mass when it is really
mass, cannot express itself as energy to be able to cancel whatever
other energy stands in the way. To say nothing of the general
objection throughout this discourse to the claim that the universe
can be inflated at all. The universe is infinite and an infinite
entity cannot be inflated more.
of course, today, universe is, humbly, not expanding in an
inflationary way. How else would you be able to spread the false
premises—there is no evidence today of universe inflation? How did
this disappearance of the supecooling happen, however? Well, says
cosmologist, just as it happens with supercooled water—supercooling
ends and water is turned into ice. Incidentally, the end of
supercooling incites the breaking of symmetry between the 3 forces
and we get into what we experience now—the three forces display
themselves separately, the symmetry is broken, the mantra goes.
Furthermore, when the symmetry gets broken, the extra energy heats
universe, but only below the symmetry, so the broken symmetry stays.
And then, as expected by the model, the universe will go on
expanding, respectively, cooling, but now we have forged a
fabricated explanation as to why the different regions have the same
temperature and why universe is expanding at critical rate.
there are further developments of the model, whereby the new phase
of broken symmetry is personified (embodied) by bubbles. Further, it
is imagined that these bubbles will coalesce with each other until
the whole universe turns into the new phase. And, then, if we should
know more about this, it is objected that expansion is so fast that
the bubbles can’t meet—bubbles will move away from each other faster
than the speed of light, even if they grew at the speed of light.
stuff of idle fantasizing grows on you and you no longer remember
the chronic fatality that the kernel of this theory, the big bang,
is unrealistic, and therefore any further proposals are nothing but
banter. We will, nevertheless, mention the objection that because of
this failure to meet, many bubbles will not coalesce and that would
leave some regions with unbroken symmetry, which is something that
we do not see around us … and so on and so forth. Further and
further details pile up discussed in conferences and published in
the archival literature and in the middle of all this, senseless in
its own self occupation, the real absurdity starts creeping in
explicitly—the “theory” of relativity, not that at the bottom, as
the big bang, the “theory” of relativity as the theoretical
generator of the big bang, hasn’t been already present.
transfer into absurdity of the above-discussed consideration,
inadequate to begin with, is prodded by made-up arguments for
further difficulties, stemming from offered quasi-mathematical
arguments, having no physical meaning whatsoever, based on the
absurd “theory” of relativity. One can read about singularity
theorems, using some imagined laws of science, to back-engineer
universe to its initial configuration, quantum mechanics begins to
be mentioned, presumptions about imagined beginning of time pop up,
and so on. Further, as if the “theory” of relativity was not enough
of a nuisance, here comes another absurdity on top of it—quantum
mechanics, praising itself with lack of singularities. However,
there may or may not be singularities in the quantum theory, but the
quantum theory is an absurdity itself. Thus, it is not this central
problem, the absurdity, that gets addressed, but the attention is
directed to side issues—singularities and the like. Thus,
unfortunately, neither of the two absurdities can provide the needed
laws to tackle universe in any of its aspects, to say nothing that a
beginning of universe is implied, which arrives from one of the
absurdities. Therefore, it is a total mess, begun by the very
proposal for big bang and the adoption of the absurdity known as
“theory” of relativity. Thus, for instance, it is absolutely of no
consequence what the singularity theorems indicate because they are
non sequitur. They, if they even at all make any mathematical
sense, arrive from absurdities. Also, any further developments such
as the introduction of imaginary time to help with resolving
whatever technical problems the proponents perceive in the so-called
sum over histories, an inadequacy in itself, or any other approach,
idea or technique one may suggest, are, inadequate, once it is
realized that all these ideas are to upgrade the absurdity known as
spacetime. Knowing that spacetime is an absurd construct and
building on it Euclidean space based on imaginary time, means to
build insanity and sheer madness over lunacy. Cosmologists who have
based their life's work, have wasted their life and those who
desperately defend these absurd ideas are doing it just to protect
their ego and undeserved standing in academia and society. There is
no rational, scientific reason behind such protection. It is an
exhibit of pure human weakness. The cosmologist has wasted all his
life chasing something which is worse than clairvoyance and
bedlam-banter, especially because the doltishness he espouses is
decorated with academic garlands of prestige and honor. To say
nothing of the enormous material waste they have incurred on society
with their influence to extract billions from the governments of
countries and squander these billions on absurdities. This is a
disgrace, an affront to academic decorum. Certain societal positions
of influence come with responsibility to not fall below a certain
degree of decorum and style.
mention it again, what is absolutely taken for granted here, in
violation of every rule of science and logic, is that there is a
beginning of the universe and that the “theory” of relativity and
quantum mechanics can be pondered as possible descriptions of the
universe. On the contrary, what is to be taken for granted is that
universe is infinite and infinity cannot be expanded more. There is
nothing more infinite than infinity and that should be
understandable especially by the mathematicians, what these
cosmologists primarily are. It should also be taken for granted that
the above-mentioned “theories” are absurdities, which should never
be allowed to contaminate any scientific discourse.
you see how the absurdities stand at the doorstep of all these
ruminations and the reasonable person cannot even enter the expanses
of these considerations, even when willing to get exposed to these
ideas. There are certain thresholds of intellectual hygiene which
cannot be crossed. They are actually an offense to even the average
intellect of a human being. This occupation with juggling
absurdities wrought in mathematical models seems like what incapable
mathematicians do because they have no qualities to compete on the
real field of mathematics and take up tackling physical problems,
impressing, actually intellectually damaging, inexperienced novices
aspiring to do physics.
really irritating thing is that once you have unequivocally rejected
the “theory” of relativity and all its progeny such as spacetime,
thinking that it would be all, that absurdity still keeps creeping
in, coming onto humanity again and again, as an annoying horsefly,
nagging in various forms of writing, film or internet.
The answer to the question as to how society allows itself to get
infested by such travesty, lies in the complicated intertwining of
vested interests with political, ideological and goodness only knows
what else interests—anything but real science, logic and reason.
times cosmologists openly flirt with secularity, knowing full well
that the big bang theory is prone to be used outside of science.
Even worse, coming as if from science, the big bang theory comes to
use for extraneous iniquitous purposes and that use is even more
reinforced due to its academic backing. One thing, however, is for
sure, the secular views need no enemy when they are backed by
arguments said to be arriving from the “theory” of relativity. In
1987 the US Supreme Court in its decision regarding the case known
as Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), ruled, in the name of
upholding the secular character of the US Constitution, against
teaching intelligent design in schools. Although one may think that
it is only up to academia to decide matters of science, when it
comes to matters of utmost national importance such as protecting
the spirit of the US Constitution, such intervention is justified.
Because there is no way to remove the two absurdities, forming the
fundamentals of contemporary science, destroying it and thus
undermining society, discussed in this book, by reasoning with
adepts who have vigorously occupied academia, zealously protecting
it, intervention on the matters discussed in this book by the US
Supreme Court is more than urgent.
proposal for a theory may be generically absurd, absurd from the get
go. There are no aesthetic or metaphysical reasons to put forth
absurd theories, even if they appear very attractive. An
aesthetically appearing absurdity is still absurdity. On the other
hand, indeed, one may find artistic qualities in absurdity. This is
exploited widely in modern art. However, that doesn’t qualify one
bit that kind of absurdity, recognized as aesthetic in art, as a
candidate for a scientific theory. An absurd proposal is not even
tested in order to verify its scientific validity. The “theory” of
relativity is such generic absurdity, which does not need to be
tested. It catastrophically collapses on the very pages of the very
first paper where it was put forth. If not attended to, it spawns
indiscriminately further and further absurdities such as the ones we
just talked about.