Some Problems Posed with Regard to the Big Bang Model.
I have presented below some problems with the standard model.
1) Problem - The expanding universe model is self contradictory.
1) If the universe is infinite then it is without limit.
2) To expand means to go beyond a limit.
3) Hence, for a body to expand infers the body has limit.
4) Therefore an infinite, expanding universe is not possible, for the universe cannot go beyond that which does not have a limit.
5) If the universe is finite, then it has limit.
6) What exists beyond the universes limit is either a being or a non being.
7) If it is a being, then it must be part of the universe, for the universe itself is a being.
8) If it is a non being, then there is nothing beyond the limit of the universe.
9) But, nothing (non being) has no potency (can be) and therefore is not receptive of any perfection.
10) But for a limited universe to expand, means the universe must grow in size into the “void” of nothing.
11) But this means nothing (non being) is receptive of a perfection, and therefore nothing (non being) has potency.
12) Therefore, because 9) contradicts 11), an inflating universe is self contradictory.
2) Problem of Universal, uniform expansion.
If the Universe is uniformly expanding (as an acceleration) in all directions, then there is a force acting in all directions as the cause of acceleration.
If the force is acting within a universe, uniformly in all directions, then such a force, in accord with Newtons third law, must have an equal and opposite reaction.
But the force of expansion is universal, hence the reaction must also be, proportional to the force and hence universal.
Hence a universal force of expansion, will always be countered by a universal reaction force, acting equally against the expansion.
Hence the universe is either 1) expanding in contradiction of Newtons third law of motion, or 2) not expanding contrary to the Standard Model.
3) Problem of Universal, non-uniform expansion.
If the Universe is not uniformly expanding (as a series of accelerations) in all directions, then there are forces acting in all directions as the cause of the accelerations.
If the forces are acting within a universe, not uniformly in all directions, then such forces, in accord with Newtons third law, must have equal and opposite reactions.
But the forces of expansion are universal, hence the reactions must also be, proportional to the forces of expansion and hence universal.
Hence universal forces of expansion, will always be countered by universal reaction forces, acting equally against the expansion.
Hence the universe is either 1) expanding in contradiction of Newtons third law of motion, or 2) not expanding contrary to the Standard Model.
4) Problem of universal expansion and the stability of galaxies.
The Standard model concludes that the universe is expanding in all directions.
The cause of the universal expansion is dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM).
DE and DM are said to permeate the entire universe.
Yet if DE and DM existed within the local Milky Way, or indeed all of the many galaxies observed, DE and DM would also cause those galaxies to also expand.
Yet such expansion of the galaxies has not been observed.
Hence DE and DM are the mechanism for universal expansion, but are ignored when local stability is observed in the galaxies.
Such means DE and DM have enough force to move all the galaxies and the space between the galaxies, but not enough force to move the bodies within the galaxies, to expand those same galaxies.
DE and DM are then the mechanism which has a force greater than any one galaxy to move said galaxy, but not enough force to spread the parts of the galaxy.
Hence the standard model requires a mechanism that is both stronger than all the galaxies, yet weaker than any parts of the galaxies.
5) Problem of the Assumed Copernican Principle.
The standard model is based upon the Copernican principle, which states there is no preferred place in the universe.
Therefore when red shifted galaxies are observed from the earth, the standard model assumes the Copernican principle applies to the red shift observations.
The standard model then concludes that such red shift would be observed from from any point in the universe.
Therefore the universe is expanding in all directions.
Yet such a universe is only a model derived from the Copernican principle (CP).
Therefore, because red shifted galaxies interpreted as galaxy motion away from the earth and space expansion between the earth and the observed galaxy may either indicate 1) the earth is in a special location in the universe, or 2) according to the CP, the earth cannot be in a special place, then the universe must be expanding in all directions.
Yet because the CP is only a principle, which cannot be proven, but can only be invalidated, there is no certitude that the universe is expanding, as required by the Standard model.
6) Problem of Hubble's Law.
Hubble's Law is derived from the observations galaxy red shift and the correspondent relationship between galaxy redshift and distance from the observer.
Yet the relationship between red shift and galaxy location is 1) only in relation to observations on/near earth, and 2) assume redshift indicates velocity, as interpreted according to the doppler effect of light.
But 1) only means red shift is observed from one reference frame, and hence the one reference frame should not be the normative guide for the same shift to be observed from all reference frames, as required by the standard model.
And but 2) redshift may not indicate velocity as quasars do not correspond to the same redshifts as galaxies. Hence the Hubble law cannot also apply to quasars along with galaxies with diverse red shifts.
As 1) and 2) correspondingly do not establish Hubble's law and are contrary to Hubble's law, then the Standard model has insufficient evidence for universal expansion according to Hubble's law.
7) Problem of Hubble's Law and the Copernican Principle (CP).
If the universe expands in accord with Hubble's law, then it does so in accord with the CP.
Hubble's law says the universe is expanding in all directions.
The CP says the universes expansion in all directions is in accord with laws of physics that are universally homogeneous (no preferred place).
Yet the local solar system does not expand.
Hence the local system does not conform to the physical laws of expansion said to exist throughout the universe.
Therefore because the local laws of physics are not that of the universal laws of physics, then locally the CP does not hold.
Hence locally, the Milky Way, and solar system are in a special place within the universe, contrary to the CP.
Hence for the Standard model to hold, the model must both universally apply the CP, but locally deny the CP, wherever there is a stable galaxy observed (pretty much everywhere).
Hence the CP is embraced universally under the theme of universal expansion, but denied everywhere under the theme of locally stable galaxies, located all over the universe.
8) Problem of Well formed Distant Galaxies.
The Standard Model (SM) assumes an expanding universe, whereby the most distant galaxies are the oldest.
But the most distant galaxies are observed to be no more or less formed than more local galaxies.
Hence the SM requires an observation of galaxy formation, which is diverse over distance from the observer, that is universally not found in observation.
9) Problem of the Assumed Starting Point.
The Standard Model (SM) assumes the most distant galaxies, are the most red shifted, and hence are moving away from the earth based observer at the greatest velocity.
Hence, because the most distant galaxies are assumed to have the greatest recessional velocity, the universe must be expanding.
Yet such reasoning cannot exclude the possibility that the galaxies began at divergent points and began to move from those points.
Hence the most distant galaxy may not have the greatest velocity, but may only have an unknowable velocity, for the starting point of the galaxy motion is unknown.
Hence the SM is based upon an unsupported assumption of the beginning galaxy motion.
Hence the SM is logically not well supported.
10) Problem of the Light at c.
If light is always at c, then the galaxies we observe that are said to be several, or even many light years away are only the light that enters the local telescope.
Hence what is observed about very distant galaxies is only that which is said to have occurred many years ago.
So, if the light is not an indicator of what exists now in the universe, then nobody can be sure what is actually existing now in the universe.
Yet the Standard Model (SM) requires that man have a knowledge of what exists now in the universe.
For the SM claims that the Hubble constant and several other constants are known to act now in the universe.
As we can never know what is occurring now in the universe, but only what occurred in the distant past, then the laws of the universe, now, can never be known.
The constancy of light at c then conflicts with the notion that the constants within the universe can be known and applied within the SM.
Hence the SM is based upon poorly founded knowledge of the universe.
As the principle of light at c conflicts with certitude of knowing what actually exists now in the universe, then the constants within the SM cannot be known with certitude either.
Hence the SM is a most uncertain model.
JM
I have presented below some problems with the standard model.
1) Problem - The expanding universe model is self contradictory.
1) If the universe is infinite then it is without limit.
2) To expand means to go beyond a limit.
3) Hence, for a body to expand infers the body has limit.
4) Therefore an infinite, expanding universe is not possible, for the universe cannot go beyond that which does not have a limit.
5) If the universe is finite, then it has limit.
6) What exists beyond the universes limit is either a being or a non being.
7) If it is a being, then it must be part of the universe, for the universe itself is a being.
8) If it is a non being, then there is nothing beyond the limit of the universe.
9) But, nothing (non being) has no potency (can be) and therefore is not receptive of any perfection.
10) But for a limited universe to expand, means the universe must grow in size into the “void” of nothing.
11) But this means nothing (non being) is receptive of a perfection, and therefore nothing (non being) has potency.
12) Therefore, because 9) contradicts 11), an inflating universe is self contradictory.
2) Problem of Universal, uniform expansion.
If the Universe is uniformly expanding (as an acceleration) in all directions, then there is a force acting in all directions as the cause of acceleration.
If the force is acting within a universe, uniformly in all directions, then such a force, in accord with Newtons third law, must have an equal and opposite reaction.
But the force of expansion is universal, hence the reaction must also be, proportional to the force and hence universal.
Hence a universal force of expansion, will always be countered by a universal reaction force, acting equally against the expansion.
Hence the universe is either 1) expanding in contradiction of Newtons third law of motion, or 2) not expanding contrary to the Standard Model.
3) Problem of Universal, non-uniform expansion.
If the Universe is not uniformly expanding (as a series of accelerations) in all directions, then there are forces acting in all directions as the cause of the accelerations.
If the forces are acting within a universe, not uniformly in all directions, then such forces, in accord with Newtons third law, must have equal and opposite reactions.
But the forces of expansion are universal, hence the reactions must also be, proportional to the forces of expansion and hence universal.
Hence universal forces of expansion, will always be countered by universal reaction forces, acting equally against the expansion.
Hence the universe is either 1) expanding in contradiction of Newtons third law of motion, or 2) not expanding contrary to the Standard Model.
4) Problem of universal expansion and the stability of galaxies.
The Standard model concludes that the universe is expanding in all directions.
The cause of the universal expansion is dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM).
DE and DM are said to permeate the entire universe.
Yet if DE and DM existed within the local Milky Way, or indeed all of the many galaxies observed, DE and DM would also cause those galaxies to also expand.
Yet such expansion of the galaxies has not been observed.
Hence DE and DM are the mechanism for universal expansion, but are ignored when local stability is observed in the galaxies.
Such means DE and DM have enough force to move all the galaxies and the space between the galaxies, but not enough force to move the bodies within the galaxies, to expand those same galaxies.
DE and DM are then the mechanism which has a force greater than any one galaxy to move said galaxy, but not enough force to spread the parts of the galaxy.
Hence the standard model requires a mechanism that is both stronger than all the galaxies, yet weaker than any parts of the galaxies.
5) Problem of the Assumed Copernican Principle.
The standard model is based upon the Copernican principle, which states there is no preferred place in the universe.
Therefore when red shifted galaxies are observed from the earth, the standard model assumes the Copernican principle applies to the red shift observations.
The standard model then concludes that such red shift would be observed from from any point in the universe.
Therefore the universe is expanding in all directions.
Yet such a universe is only a model derived from the Copernican principle (CP).
Therefore, because red shifted galaxies interpreted as galaxy motion away from the earth and space expansion between the earth and the observed galaxy may either indicate 1) the earth is in a special location in the universe, or 2) according to the CP, the earth cannot be in a special place, then the universe must be expanding in all directions.
Yet because the CP is only a principle, which cannot be proven, but can only be invalidated, there is no certitude that the universe is expanding, as required by the Standard model.
6) Problem of Hubble's Law.
Hubble's Law is derived from the observations galaxy red shift and the correspondent relationship between galaxy redshift and distance from the observer.
Yet the relationship between red shift and galaxy location is 1) only in relation to observations on/near earth, and 2) assume redshift indicates velocity, as interpreted according to the doppler effect of light.
But 1) only means red shift is observed from one reference frame, and hence the one reference frame should not be the normative guide for the same shift to be observed from all reference frames, as required by the standard model.
And but 2) redshift may not indicate velocity as quasars do not correspond to the same redshifts as galaxies. Hence the Hubble law cannot also apply to quasars along with galaxies with diverse red shifts.
As 1) and 2) correspondingly do not establish Hubble's law and are contrary to Hubble's law, then the Standard model has insufficient evidence for universal expansion according to Hubble's law.
7) Problem of Hubble's Law and the Copernican Principle (CP).
If the universe expands in accord with Hubble's law, then it does so in accord with the CP.
Hubble's law says the universe is expanding in all directions.
The CP says the universes expansion in all directions is in accord with laws of physics that are universally homogeneous (no preferred place).
Yet the local solar system does not expand.
Hence the local system does not conform to the physical laws of expansion said to exist throughout the universe.
Therefore because the local laws of physics are not that of the universal laws of physics, then locally the CP does not hold.
Hence locally, the Milky Way, and solar system are in a special place within the universe, contrary to the CP.
Hence for the Standard model to hold, the model must both universally apply the CP, but locally deny the CP, wherever there is a stable galaxy observed (pretty much everywhere).
Hence the CP is embraced universally under the theme of universal expansion, but denied everywhere under the theme of locally stable galaxies, located all over the universe.
8) Problem of Well formed Distant Galaxies.
The Standard Model (SM) assumes an expanding universe, whereby the most distant galaxies are the oldest.
But the most distant galaxies are observed to be no more or less formed than more local galaxies.
Hence the SM requires an observation of galaxy formation, which is diverse over distance from the observer, that is universally not found in observation.
9) Problem of the Assumed Starting Point.
The Standard Model (SM) assumes the most distant galaxies, are the most red shifted, and hence are moving away from the earth based observer at the greatest velocity.
Hence, because the most distant galaxies are assumed to have the greatest recessional velocity, the universe must be expanding.
Yet such reasoning cannot exclude the possibility that the galaxies began at divergent points and began to move from those points.
Hence the most distant galaxy may not have the greatest velocity, but may only have an unknowable velocity, for the starting point of the galaxy motion is unknown.
Hence the SM is based upon an unsupported assumption of the beginning galaxy motion.
Hence the SM is logically not well supported.
10) Problem of the Light at c.
If light is always at c, then the galaxies we observe that are said to be several, or even many light years away are only the light that enters the local telescope.
Hence what is observed about very distant galaxies is only that which is said to have occurred many years ago.
So, if the light is not an indicator of what exists now in the universe, then nobody can be sure what is actually existing now in the universe.
Yet the Standard Model (SM) requires that man have a knowledge of what exists now in the universe.
For the SM claims that the Hubble constant and several other constants are known to act now in the universe.
As we can never know what is occurring now in the universe, but only what occurred in the distant past, then the laws of the universe, now, can never be known.
The constancy of light at c then conflicts with the notion that the constants within the universe can be known and applied within the SM.
Hence the SM is based upon poorly founded knowledge of the universe.
As the principle of light at c conflicts with certitude of knowing what actually exists now in the universe, then the constants within the SM cannot be known with certitude either.
Hence the SM is a most uncertain model.
JM
Comment