The Delusions of Cosmology

The metaphysical assumptions behind the science

The idea that the universe started with a Big Bang is a key tenet of the standard model of cosmology. But that model is a lot less scientific than it’s taken to be. To begin with, we can never have direct evidence of the Big Bang itself, and so if we are to accept it, it must be as a metaphysical, not a scientific hypothesis. Furthermore, the standard model of cosmology has had to adapt to a number of observational discrepancies, postulating entities like dark matter and dark energy for which there is no direct evidence. To add to the above, another central assumption, the cosmological principle, stating that the laws of the universe are the same everywhere, is also under scrutiny. The universe might turn out to be a lot stranger than we think, or could possibly imagine, argues Bjørn Ekeberg.

We usually talk about the Standard Model of particle physics, but you also talk of a standard model of cosmology, and how i

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Join the conversation

Roy Lofquist 10 June 2022

@Bud Rapanault

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ~ Max Planck

Unfortunately that no longer applies. The cult of the "Big Bang" has become a multi-billion dollar a year rice bowl that will sustain the myths in perpetuity. Fortunately, cosmology is of little consequence.

Bud Rapanault 9 June 2022

"From the outset, the 'Big Bang' was always a hypothetical premise - if t=0, then... it allowed for calculation of scenarios."

This gets the chronological and logical development of the Big Bang model wrong. First came General Relativity in 1915, followed by Friedmann's 1921 solutions to the GR field equations for a universal metric, now called the FLRW metric. Assuming a universal metric as Friedmann did was inherently at odds with GR which does not have a universal frame; what makes GR a relativistic theory is precisely its lack of a universal frame. Nonetheless, Friedmann's oxymoronic results had three possible solutions, an expanding, collapsing, or unstable static "universe".

In the late 1920s Hubble published his observations of a redshift correlated with distance. That correlation was widely treated as the consequence of a recessional velocity, an assumption that Hubble himself never fully accepted. The recessional velocity interpretation was then treated as evidence for Friedmann's expanding universe model and the rest has been a slog, relentless and irrational, to the current reality-challenged standard model of cosmology, which describes a "universe" that looks nothing like the Cosmos we observe.

To the extent there is a crisis in cosmology, it is not because of the so-called Hubble tension involving a discrepancy between two different measurements of the Hubble constant. There is a crisis because the scientific academy in its current state is incapable of reconsidering the standard model's foundational assumptions, which are: 1) it is possible to model the vast cosmos we observe as a singular coherent, simultaneous entity and 2) the cause of the cosmological redshift is some form of recessional velocity.

Both of those assumptions are almost certainly wrong. Modern cosmology will remain in crisis, an inert unscientific discipline, until such time as those assumptions are openly reconsidered and alternative models based on reasonable counter-assumptions are granted access to research funding currently reserved for polishing the chrome on the rusting hulk of the BB model, such as dark matter searches, etc. The closed, guild-like grip that BB theorists hold over funding and publication needs to be broken if cosmology is to be a science rather than a crude and primitive belief system.

Mike Pollock 3 June 2022

Edwin Hubble discovered the galaxies expanding, not the universe. The scientific community states that he discovered the expanding universe when, as is stated in the article, he wanted nothing to do with the assumption. Recently, I've seen Wikipedia erase this fact from Hubbles page when it once was clearly stated. I found this extremely irritating and more of an attempt to keep the Big Bang theory alive forever.

The Big Bang was simply our universe turning itself into a gargantuan particle collider no different than any of the ones here on Earth. They create quark plasma shrapnel and our universe created quark plasma shrapnel as the galaxies. That is where they got their energy and why they are expanding. The two objects contained the mass of the observable galaxies. There is no other feasible explanation.

Black holes are made of quark plasma. This plasma is optically invisible and can make shapes. Our galaxy was spinning and created a spiral galaxy. If the shrapnel wasn't spinning or spinning very little, an elliptical or irregular galaxy was formed.

Gravity is created by energy manipulating space just like Einstein suggested. Unfortunately, one of the biggest flaws of the Big Bang theory is that a cloud of gas and dust must create its own gravity to become a star. This puts the emphasis on normal matter to create all the gravity ignoring dark matter altogether. The reality is that the collision created the energy, not gravity. Energy creates gravity, gravity doesn't create energy. The Big Bang theory systematically ignores 95% of our universe. It is the reason the Theory of Everything hasn't been discovered and never will because this theory is currently an utter fact.

Quark plasma creates all the naturally occurring elements all by itself from the outside of the mass inward. Dark matter is made of extremely pressurized Tau neutrinos. When the Big Bang happened, the pressure and friction from the event separated the quarks. It is the pressure and density of space itself that keeps the quarks apart indefinitely. As the cold dark matter of space comes into the reaction to disrupt the quarks, the strong force between the quarks and neutrinos throws the neutrinos out of the reaction as electron neutrino gamma rays. That is why they are optically invisible. These outgoing particles push out on the natural pressure of space causing gravitational lensing. Space uses its natural pressure to push through the outgoing matter and reacts with normal matter to create the force of gravity.

The neutrinos and quarks start turning the kinetic energy black hole into potential energy by creating neutrons on the surface. Supernovae simply do not exist. The mass turns into a neutron star but they are merely a thin layer on the surface of the black hole. The neutrons break down to the first hydrogen atoms. The constantly forming neutrons then fuse with the hydrogen to form the first helium atoms using the beta minus decay reaction. This is the one, and only fusion our universe produces. This is why fusion has never created a net gain of energy and never will.

The mass continues creating heavier elements making the mass darker until a surface forms and the light is extinguished. This is when the atmosphere is allowed to develop. Eventually, the hydrocarbons and the quark plasma heat underneath the surface behind creating water for hundreds of millions of years in the exact same fashion as a catalytic converter creates water in a car. That is where all the water came from. Our planet created every bit of it.

This is the Theory of Everything. There is no other way our universe could produce what we see. I have followed every, single law in the book. This article states, perfectly, how our current theories are simply fantasies that have been made realities by one ad-hoc theory after another. Literally, nothing is understood about our universe.

Please interview me. This theory took me 20 years to develop. I can answer all the questions that never get answered. My explanation is the whole point of this article. It is amazing that someone is actually questioning the Big Bang theory so thoroughly. Conventionalism makes this never happen. Everything known are facts when they are only terrible theories. Science should have listened to Edwin Hubble, not Georges Lamaitre.

Joe Bakhos 3 June 2022

I've recently put forward a modified gravity hypothesis that explains galactic rotation rates and also cosmological expansion without the need of dark matter or dark energy.

This hypothesis also includes an adaptation of general relativity that explains time dilation and energy increase at relativistic velocities and within a gravity well, while retaining Euclidean space.

Part of this hypothesis includes the idea that higher concentrations of neutrinos may inhibit other quantum processes.

A copy may be found by going to the vixra site and searching for Bakhos. The title is "Chasing Oumuamua"

Roy Lofquist 2 June 2022

Summary: Radio astronomy observations of Pulsars indicate that the Hubble Red Shift is caused by “Tired Light” rather than the expansion of the universe.

Dear Sirs,

When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zwicky, was that light lost energy as it traveled, termed "tired light". At that time, ca. 1930, interstellar and intergalactic space were assumed to be perfect vacuums and thus there was no mechanism to redden the light. Now, 90 years later, we have actual observational evidence that Zwicky was right.

In the radio astronomy of Pulsars we find that the shorter wavelengths of the leading edge of the pulse arrive before longer wavelengths. The velocity of light, c, is NOT constant but varies by wavelength. The dispersion is proportional to the distance from us of the pulsar. The observed effect is isotropic. The conventional explanation is that the dispersion measure is the “integrated column density of free electrons between an observer and a pulsar”. The mechanism matters not. What matters is that the interstellar medium is not a vacuum but rather affects light waves in a way best described as having an Index of Refraction greater than 1, unity. We find the same phenomenon in the observation of Fast Radio Bursts from other galaxies, thus indicating that the intergalactic media is not an electromagnetic vacuum.


Roy Lofquist
Ocoee, Florida