Science
Does the moon spin? And was the Big Bang the genesis?
Let’s revisit this. From a thing I wrote in January.
Does the moon spin on its own axis? The answer is yes AND no. (Does the moon spin?). Both answers are technically “true” and “correct”. But since yes and no are opposites, how can both be true?
Well, angular momentum depends on frame of reference. There IS a frame of reference in which the moon does spin on its own axis. It’s a frame of reference though that to humans is a strange frame, and meaningless. In any frame of reference that’s useful and meaningful, to us, in terms of the way we perceive reality, the moon does NOT spin on its own axis.
The post explains why/how/what in detail. https://whileican.substack.com/p/does-the-moon-spin
Do these observations make me “anti-science”? If that’s you’re inclination, to think so, maybe it’s worth a check up to see what you know about science, or being scientific, to compare it to what you think you know.
Those who don’t treat science as their personal religion and axiomatic dogma will be interested in problems with the Big Bang:
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215
The article goes beyond surface skimming about why the images from the James Webb Space Telescope are starkly counter to expectation.
“To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”” https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09428
“Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.””
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02056-5
Mathematics
Of course it was mathematics that gave rise to the Big Bang theory. Those maths have been challenged though in physics journals. See this 2015 paper by [Ahmed Farag Ali – Saurya Das], described in articles here http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html and elsewhere like here http://www.dailydot.com/parsec/big-bang-theory-universe-may-have-existed-forever/
Ahmed Farag Ali and Saurya Das. "Cosmology from quantum potential." Physics Letters B. Volume 741, 4 February 2015, Pages 276–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.12.057. Also at: arXiv:1404.3093[gr-qc].
The paper posits that the universe has no beginning. That rather the universe’s existence extends forever into the past, and forever into the future.
From the article at Phys.org http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html describing the [Ahmed Farag Ali – Saurya Das] paper:
No singularities nor dark stuff
“In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a “big crunch” singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.”
“Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.
In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.”